You! Put your hands up and drop your skirt!

Now here’s a good way to spend taxpayer’s money — the Georgia House just voted 166-0 to ban female genital piercing.

An amendment [to a bill banning female genital mutilation] adopted without objection added “piercing” to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.

Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.

“What? I’ve never seen such a thing,” Heath said. “I, uh, I wouldn’t approve of anyone doing it. I don’t think that’s an appropriate thing to be doing.”

The ban applies only to women, not men.

Well, of course it only applies to women. Nobody’s gonna tell us menfolk what we can and can’t do with our peckers (as long as we’re not doing them with other men, y’hear?)!

I do wonder just how they intend to enforce this law, though. Can I get on the task force to investigate possible infractions? ;)

(via Prairie)

iTunes: “Think (Addiction/Salvation)” by Pigface from the album Preaching to the Perverted (1995, 3:15).

Daschle’s kicking butt

Senator Tom Daschle has issued two statements over the past two days that are well worth reading.

Yesterday’s was a call for answers regarding the Bush administration’s tactic of smearing anyone who speaks out against the administration’s aims:

I want to talk this morning about a disturbing pattern of conduct by the people around President Bush. They seem to be willing to do anything for political purposes, regardless of the facts and regardless of what’s right.

…The purpose of government isn’t to make the President look good. It isn’t to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people. The people around the President don’t seem to believe that. They have crossed a line–perhaps several lines–that no government ought to cross.

We shouldn’t fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn’t reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn’t try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.

I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.

The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.

And todays called for answers regarding the Bush administration’s approach to combatting terrorism, both before and after September 11:

The responsibility for getting answers to the questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11 rests with the 9/11 Commission. Therefore, the importance of cooperating with this commission cannot be overstated. Only with complete cooperation will the commission be able to produce a report that explains how these attacks occurred in the first place and what can be done to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. Only with complete cooperation can the commission produce the kind of report that our families, our troops, and the American people deserve.

While the former Clinton Administration officials have cooperated fully with the commission, the Bush Administration’s record on access to officials and documents is, in a word, unsatisfactory.

…If the Bush Administration is truly serious about allowing the commission to examine its actions against Al Qaeda before September 11, it must provide answers to the following questions:

Was defeating Al Qaeda the Bush Administration’s top national security priority before September 11?

…Did the Bush Administration have a strategy for defeating Al Qaeda prior to September 11?

…What did the Bush Administration do before September 11 to defeat Al Qaeda?

…Did the Bush Administration commit adequate resources necessary to defeat Al Qaeda prior to September 11?

…Finally, did the Bush Administration’s apparent focus on Saddam Hussein detract from efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and leave America less secure?

Of course, one has to wonder how long it will be before Daschle becomes the subject of one of Rove’s smear campaigns…

(both via Atrios — yesterday and today)

‘Under God’ in the Supreme Court

Following up on the “…under God…” controversy from 2002 and last year, tomorrow the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — with Dr. Michael A. Newdow representing himself in the case.

Newdow convinced a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 that the 50-year-old addition to the pledge amounts to government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. But he will face overwhelming opposition at the Supreme Court.

After the appeals court ruling, the Senate voted 99-0 and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to reaffirm their support for “under God.” Other high-power individuals and groups have lined up to oppose Newdow.

As I’ve said in the past, I think 9th Circuit Court was correct the first time, and that the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State should mandate the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, as our current administration seems to consistently disregard that very separation of Church and State, to the point of claiming religious inspiration for Bush’s actions, somehow I’m not terribly optimistic about the likely outcome of this trial.

If we’re lucky, the Supreme Court will use the custody dispute between Dr. Newdow and the mother of his daughter to allow them to dismiss the case out of hand, and the constitutionality of the Pledge will stay in its current somewhat nebulous state. I’d rather have that as an end result than face a Supreme Court ruling affirming the religious language in the Pledge.

Marriage by the Book, part 2

Something I pointed out last August seems to be making the rounds again, and now I’m a bit curious as to the original source. It’s a collection of proposed laws for governing marriage, based on Biblical quotations (in response to the many people basing their anti-gay-marriage stance on select Biblical verses, instead of just admitting to homophobia and bigotry).

Here’s what I know of this piece of writing, working backwards.

Today — March 21st, 2004 — Boing Boing posted about it, linking to The Common Good Network, who posted their version on February 4th, 2004.

The Common Good Network gave attribution to The Boston Phoenix, who published a more Massacheussets-specific version of the text between Nov. 28th and Dec. 4th, 2003 under the byline of Mary-Ann Greanier.

However, searching through my archives, I linked to and quoted nearly the identical text on August 26th, 2003, after discovering it through the Ex-Gay Watch via a link from Anil Dash, and linked to the original version (to my knowledge) on Public Nuisance from August 18th, 2003.

While I’m sure that Alex Frantz of Public Nuisance is flattered that his creation is still making the rounds, shouldn’t credit be given where credit is due?

Rev. Karen Dammann

I just found out about this from a headline yesterday, and hadn’t had a chance to look up any of the information until just now, but Bothell, WA has become the centerpoint of what could be a precedent-setting event within the Methodist church, as Rev. Karen Damman is in the midst of a church trial that could end up stripping her of her ordination — because she is a practicing homosexual.

The two reports I’ve found in the Seattle PI are more optimistic than I initially expected, though. While, of course, there’s no guarantee that she won’t be stripped of her ministry, some good points have been raised in the course of the trial.

From Methodists begin trial of gay minister:

In the Old Testament, the four places where homosexuality is addressed must be considered in the context of ancient Israeli civilization, said Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan, an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and associate professor at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis is about the condemnation of violence and wickedness, not homosexuality, he said. Other instances call homosexuality an “abomination,” a term Kuan said does not carry the weight many attach to it now.

“An abomination is ultimately a practice that is religiously, socially and culturally unacceptable in Israelite society,” he said.

Under cross-examination, Kuan conceded that other scholars interpret the same material differently.

The New Testament scholar said of four instances where the issue of homosexuality appears, all written by the Apostle Paul or his direct followers, only one merits consideration. The others lack a scholarly basis for examination, said Mary Tolbert, who also teaches at the Pacific School of Religion.

Condemnations of things such as divorce are much stronger and are made by both Jesus and Paul, she said. The Methodist Church allows its ministers to divorce.

“It seems to me if you’re going to say one verse in Romans is enough to remove a person, and their calling and all this other stuff is overlooked, then with all due respect, it seems to me you’re acting hypocritically,” said Tolbert, who later asked jurors not to replicate the crucifixion of Jesus by finding Dammann guilty.

And from Scholar challenges church case against gay minister:

A leading scholar on United Methodist law challenged the central point of that church’s entire case against a lesbian minister on trial here yesterday.

“In my considered opinion and judgment, the United Methodist Church has never declared the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching,” said Jack Tuell, a retired bishop viewed by many as a top authority on the church’s rulebook, the Book of Discipline.

Tuell made the explosive charge during the second day of testimony in the church trial of the Rev. Karen Dammann, a United Methodist minister who has publicly acknowledged that she is in a relationship with another woman.

The trial could end today and, if found guilty, Dammann may be stripped of her ordination.

Counsel for the church said the statement was a powerful challenge to their case, but called the testimony just “one man’s opinion.”

“His opinion is not law. He’s not God. The General Council (the church’s legislative body) has not interpreted any of this the way Jack Tuell interpreted it today,” said the Rev. James Finkbeiner in an interview. He is arguing the case for the church.

I’ll be keeping an eye out to see where this one ends up.

iTunes: “Crablouse, The (It’s There to Stay)” by Lords of Acid from the album Crablouse, The (1994, 5:08).

More conservative hijinks

Two things pointed out to me in the comments for my last post that, while likely to increase your blood pressure, are worth knowing about:

From Shelley: Human Events Online: Ten Bills to Battle Judicial Activism — a list of ten bills that have been introduced by conservatives in order to gain more control over our judicial system. HR 3920 is only one example of what’s going on.

From Todd: Tenn. County Officials Seek to Ban Gays — Tennessee’s Rhea county, already notorious for annually celebrating the conviction of John T. Snopes for daring to teach evolutionism in school (even though that decision was later overturned by the state’s Supreme Court), is asking for Tennessee’s criminal code to be updated to allow the county to charge homosexuals with “crimes against nature.”

“We need to keep them out of here,” said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.

HR 3920 – Good God, no!

This makes me sick to my stomach.

On March 9th, Representative Ron Lewis (KY) introduced bill HR 3920 to Congress (co-sponsored by Reps. Howard Coble [NC], Mac Collins [GA], Jim DeMint [SC], John Doolittle [CA], Terry Everett [AL], Trent Franks [AZ], Virgil Goode, Jr. [VA], Joel Hefley [CO], Jack Kingston [GA], Joseph Pitts [PA], and Richard Pombo [CA]), titled the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004”.

The official title gives a better idea of the intent of the bill, though: “To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.”

Excuse me?

No.

No, no, no, a thousand times no.

Make all the laws you want, Congress, but it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of those laws, and trying to make an end-run around that process…well, doesn’t that essentially render the checks-and-balances system rather impotent?

Ugh.

Though, as Prairie pointed out while we were talking about this…if Congress passes the bill, then the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional…then Congress overturns their ruling? That’s where my brain starts to hurt.

This better go nowhere, and go nowhere fast.

(via Phil)

iTunes: “Negasonic Teenage Warhead” by Monster Magnet from the album S.F.W. (1994, 4:59).

Go Tony!

Good news from the frozen north — Democratic Senatorial candidate Tony Knowles has issued a statement strongly in favor of gay rights issues.

Tony Knowles was proud this week to receive the endorsement of the Human Right’s Campaign, America’s largest gay organization. Personal freedoms are so important to me, to Alaskans and to the future of American democracy that I consider this to be a fundamental issue of my campaign, along with jobs, education, health care and national security, Knowles said.

…I’m against a federal constitutional amendment on marriage – or any U.S. constitutional amendment that limits rights. Amending our Constitution should be done to grant rights, not take them away.

…I am against government intrusion into our bedrooms; into our reading habits, our medical records and our personal lives. We need judges and politicians who respect our personal liberties, who will protect our freedoms and who will enforce our rights.

(via Atrios and Kos)

Iraq on the Record

This rocks: Iraq on the Record, a report and associated online database presenting the results of an investigation of the misleading statements, falsehoods, and outright lies presented to the American public during the runup to the Iraq war, as comissioned by Representative Henry A. Waxman.

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

[The] database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq.

Have fun, kids.

(via Atrios)

Rove in Seattle

Jackqueline got a chance to “infiltrate” a College Republicans event with Karl Rove as the guest speaker last night. Some very interesting tidbits come out of her notes on the evening, not least that Washington is going to be a prime target for the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

Most interestingly, they are planning to really compete in Washington this year. He said in 2000 they only lost this state by 138,000 votes, and that there were 118,000 Republican supporters living in King County alone who did NOT vote in 2000. (How do they figure that out?) So they think they have a shot at winning this state, if they can get out the Republican vote.

He also said Bush doesn’t want a “lonely victory” — so they’re concentrating their resources in states where they think they can help get a few more people elected down ticket as well. Here that would be our Governor and Senate races, as well as a couple of House races.

They also want to “leave something behind.” They want Bush’s campaign this year to inspire a generation of young Republican activists like Reagan did. They’re really working on mobilizing grassroots volunteers, especially college students, to recruit people and get out the vote.

Maybe not terribly surprising, but interesting to hear it “from the horse’s mouth”, so to speak (okay, secondhand, but still…).

Rove also talked about the Bush campaign’s plans to do their best to rake Kerry over the coals in the upcoming months.

He said the past year, especially the past three months, have been bad for them. He said as everyone in the room knew, the national media were not on their side. So they had to put off launching their campaign until the Democrats had a nominee, but they’ve been planning it, and a race against Kerry, for a long time. He kept emphasizing how much they’ve studied Kerry, what a wealth of material they have to use against him, and how many stupid things Kerry has said that they’ve gotten on tape. He mentioned how the National Journal recently rated Kerry as the “most liberal” Senator, amazingly making Ted Kennedy the more conservative Senator from Massachusetts. The ads they’ve rolled out over the past two weeks are just the beginning, and they’re planning to hit Kerry and have him howling every week. He said they’re very carefully testing these ads with focus groups before they run them to make sure they’re effective.

2004 is going to be a long, rough, nasty campaign. Bush needs to go, but I’m still very unconvinced that Kerry had the best chances of ousting him, and Nader’s egotistical grandstanding isn’t going to help things in the least.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no excuse for anyone to remain oblivious. If you care at all about where our country is headed, you really need to pay attention. Keep your eyes and ears open — and don’t just stick with the echo chambers of the people you agree with. Watch what the other camps are doing, whether or not you agree with them (or to what extent — Jacqueline runs far more to the Libertarian camp than I do, and I know I don’t agree with her wholeheartedly on many of her positions, but I’ve been enjoying reading her posts, as even if I don’t always agree with someone, I can always respect someone who seems to put some thought into what they believe). No matter what, don’t just bury your head in the sand.

iTunes: “What is Love?” by Jones, Howard from the album Pop and Wave Vol. 2 (1983, 3:38).