12.22.07
JibJab 2007 Year in Review
Click here to view the video
10.18.07
Military Response to ironic ads: [That website] does not “meet the moral standards” of the military.
According to USA Today, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have been advertising on the networking site for LGBT professionals, GLEE.com. A sign perhaps? Perhaps good news at a time when military recruiters are having trouble filling the ranks with warm bodies in an ever growing unpopular conflict? Perhaps not.
When informed Tuesday by USA TODAY that they were advertising on GLEE.com, a networking website for gay professionals, recruiters expressed surprise and said they would remove the job listings.
“This is the first I’ve heard about it,” said Maj. Michael Baptista, advertising branch chief for the Army National Guard, which will spend $6.5 million on Internet recruiting this year. “We didn’t knowingly advertise on that particular website,” which he said does not “meet the moral standards” of the military.
Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a Navy recruiting spokesman, said his service ordered more than 8,000 ads taken off GLEE, which stands for Gay, Lesbian & Everyone Else. By late Wednesday, most were gone.
Marine Corps ads on GLEE were only for two civilian jobs not covered by the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays to serve in uniform only if they keep quiet about their sexual orientation.
Yes, you heard right, a website for GLBT professionals does not “meet the moral standards” of the military. These moral standards?
About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.
Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for “moral” reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.
The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens.
The morals presented in the Baltimore Sun, February 2006?
…[T]he largest increase was among recruits with a history of either criminal conduct or drug and alcohol problems, according to data provided by the Army.
In all, the Army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2005, or 15 percent of those accepted into the service that year. Those figures are up sharply from 2004, when 9,300 waivers were granted, or about 12 percent of those joining the Army.
[…]
There was a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms “serious criminal misconduct” in their background.
That category includes aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats, according to Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
The number of recruits in that category increased to 630, from 408 in 2004, reversing at least a four-year trend in which the number of recruits with serious criminal misconduct in their background had declined, according to Army statistics.
The largest increase in waivers was for recruits with misdemeanor convictions. There were 4,587 waivers granted last year in that category, up from 3,667 in 2004. The category includes those with convictions for assault punishable by a fine of less than $500, resisting arrest, public drunkenness and contempt of court, said Smith.
There were 737 waivers for alcohol and illegal drugs, up from 650 the previous year, which also reversed at least a four-year trend of declines in that category. Smith said those waivers were for recruits who tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana or cocaine during recruit processing. A waiver is required to let the recruit wait 45 days before taking another test.
It sure is a good thing that the military didn’t lower their standards to allow TEH GAY.
Related: Boston Legal skewers ‘DADT’ which makes The Peter apoplectic.
Crossposted at Pam’s House Blend and Tiny Queer Footballs
07.06.07
To Impeach or Not to Impeach?
UPDATE: After this was posted at the DailyKos, I got a lot of responses and I realize that I made a lot of errors in my post. Error 1: The President cannot pardon the impeachment (although he might try, since the Constitution is his personal toilet paper). Error 2: Just because the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate he cannot dismiss the trial. Error 3: Forgot to mention the importance of trying anyways regardless that there would probably not be enough votes in the Senate to carry out either conviciton.
Again sorry for my errors.
After the news of the commutation of “Scooter” Libby’s sentence by Mr. Bush, there has been a renewed call for impeachment among those in the liberal mainstream. And we’re not talking just the fringe of our side of the fence. We’re talking about those all the way to the middle and even some on the “right.” While commuting Libby’s sentence is not an impeachable offense there are many more for which BushCheneyCo. are probably responsible for.
This is where I’d have to break from my friends but only in the viability of an impeachment and the hopefully consequential conviction of either Cheney or Bush. While impeachment would be music to my ears, I fear that with all of the entrenched cronyism in the current administration, absolutely nothing would be accomplished.
Scenario number 1 and the one most discussed right now as a “two pronged approached,” Impeach the Vice President:
Vice President Cheney is Impeached. While this seems like a good strategy to prevent him from becoming president should Bush be impeached, Mr. Bush still has the presidential power of granting pardons. The house would vote for impeachment which is the equivalent of charging the person of a crime and Mr. Bush would pardon him and wipe the slate clean. Cheney could not be charged again for the same crimes and would remain the veep.
Scenario number 2: Impeach the President
George W. Bush is impeached towards the end of his second term. While the president can’t pardon himself, he’s already played the best hand any administration could have. In fact, the Republicans have allowed and helped the administration “stack the deck” just for this reason. Two words: Supreme Court. Mr. Bush has successfully appointed two of his cronies in the SCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Alito. In the event of the president’s impeachment, the Chief Justice presides over the trial as the senate president, a position normally taken by the Vice President but due to the possible succession of the president by the veep it would be a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice could call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote to get the two thirds required vote to convict. The President would return to his normal duties and pretty much chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal under this tyrannical administration.
Like I said before, while I’m all for impeachment I don’t think it’s possible to get any desired conclusion with this administration.
04.20.07
A clue! I need a clue over here! Does anybody have a clue?!
Ross, subbing for Andrew Sullivan, just doesn’t seem to get why the “partial-birth abortion ban” and SCOTUS’ affirming stance is such a problem.
I guess I don’t think of laws banning prostitution, or even laws banning drugs, primarily as public health regulations - I think of them as morals legislation, outlawing practices that the majority considers sufficiently offensive to human dignity to deserve an outright ban. And in this context, I don’t see why killing one’s unborn offspring, even if the offspring isn’t a legal person and the crime therefore isn’t the same as murder, shouldn’t be something that the state has an interest in regulating on moral grounds. (We have laws against animal cruelty, for instance, even though animals aren’t legal “persons.”)
This, incidentally, is why so many conservatives hated on Lawrence v. Texas - not because it did away with sodomy laws, but because Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion seemed to hint that any and all morals legislation was effectively unconstitutional. That was the substance of Scalia’s dissent, which warned that laws against everything from prostitution to obscenity would be threatened by the decision. For now, though, that threat hasn’t been fulfilled - and as long as morals legislation in general is still safe from Supreme Court override, there’s no reason a state or Congress shoudn’t be able to restrict abortion (in a post-Roe world, that is) even without claiming legal personhood for the fetus.
No that’s not what it’s about. Most on our side of the fence of this issue see the human element that is at stake here. There are many circumstances at which a woman might want to or need to have a private relationship with her doctor and discuss such a “late term abortion”, as it’s more aptly called. This law makes no exception for the health of the woman. Circumstances where the fetus has a terminal illness and is likely going to die anyways either in the womb or shortly after the womb. Also circumstances where carrying the baby to full term could endanger the life of the mother or cause such permanent damage to the woman that she will never have the ability to have children again in her lifetime.
Abortion is never an easy decision for a woman to make! In most cases it is a mother’s decision to determine what is best for her and her child unborn or not. The government has no business making decisions like this for her. Conservatives want smaller government but at the same time want to regulate what happens inside of a woman’s body and in her own bedroom. RU486, or “Plan B” as it’s called is just one of many examples of this.
When it comes to public health issues the government has an interest in maintaining the lives of all currently born and future generations of its citizens which is why mandated HPV vaccinations are so important. Just like we were able to erradicate small pox and polio to almost complete non-existence, we should work to do the same with other diseases, especially ones that have been shown to cause cervical cancer.
In general most conservatives only see what is “moral” in their Leave it to Beaver fantasies of American life. What is reality and what is practical takes a back seat to fantasyland visions of 1950’s television sitcoms. The SCOTUS decision is just a step in the direction towards such a fantasyland, one where women find it necessary to get “back alley abortions” or travel to neigboring countries with the fear of jail to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to avoid the anguish of carrying to term her rapists baby. Ahh yes, the good ‘ole days.
04.19.07
Holy Batsh*t Crazy:The lines start to blurr
There’s usually a clear line between that of Wesboro Baptist Church and organizations like the American Family Association, I’m starting to wonder though where that line has gone. Will Tim and Don Wildmon protest along side the Phelps clan at the Virginia Tech funerals? Here’s the video from the latest E-Blast “Action Alert” to come from the AFA.
I can only hope that someone will send another “Action Alert!” with the phrase “April Fools!”
03.28.07
Giving Tony Props
While this site and many others on this side of the political fence tend to give the current White House Spokesperson, and former Faux News correspondent, a lot of flak, we must take time out to acknowledge his bravery and courage in fighting his own personal and yet very public battles with Cancer. It would be hypocritical of us not to.
Just like Elizabeth Edwards he deserves our condolences and respect in this matter. And, just like Elizabeth Edwards, Tony Snow will continue on fighting his newest battle wit the big C, though his return is not known at this point.
Last year during a press briefing a reporter asked Tony Snow why he wears the yellow “LiveSTRONG” wrist band. He responded it was because of his battle with colon Cancer the year prior and the surgery he had to remove the cancer. He tried to fight back tears as he talked about it revealing that his mother had died when he was young from the same thing.
On Monday, March 26th Tony had surgery to remove a growth that had appeared in PET and CAT scans in his abdomen. It was reveald a day later by Mr. Snow that his cancer had spread to his liver and “elsewhere“.
NPR had this to say:
Snow himself broke the news to President Bush in a morning phone call.
The news came as a shock to White House staff. Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino broke down in tears when she first revealed Snow’s illness to reporters.
Later in the day, she said she couldn’t answer questions about his treatment or prognosis. But she said that Snow was on top of the news, and that he had suggested some talking points on the Iraq war funding bill.
Perino was also asked whether Snow would return to work.
“I do know that Tony Snow loves this job,” Perino said. “He says that it’s the best job he’s ever had in his life. He, in fact, has called it ‘Communications Disneyland.’”
While Snow is often combative in his work, he is also extremely comfortable at the podium and quick with a laugh.
It’s hard to overstate the value of such a persona to the White House — and to a second-term president beset by troubles at home and abroad.
Snow now faces a round of intense therapy; his return is uncertain.
While his return is unknown, President Bush is optimistic saying he looks forward to the day that his spokesman “comes back to the White House and briefs the press corps on the decisions that I’m making.”
“His attitude is, one, that he is not going to let this whip him, and he’s upbeat. My attitude is that we need to pray for him, and for his family,” Bush said. “And so my message to Tony is, ‘Stay strong; a lot of people love you and care for you and will pray for you.’ ”
Props to Tony Snow. May his treatment and recovery be short and pain free. May he and his family know that they are in the best of our thoughts and prayers as they deal with the uncertainties they face in the coming months and possibly years.
