Our blogging resolutions

We have two resolutions:

We resolve to make at least seven blog entries per month, as we have done successfully in October, and almost successfully in November. It is essential to the blog's survival that there be new blog entries for readers to read.

We also resolve to try to diversify our subjects. Lately they've mostly been about politics, and while politics may be very interesting to people, other subjects are too.

We will work to meet these resolutions. In the meantime, enjoy the year 2007!

— Athelwulf and Elindelwolf

Dingell's Holiday Jingle

(Source.)

I was planning on posting this before the end of Christmas, but I forgot it. Oh well, it's still Christmas in Alaska and Hawaii right now! Enjoy the poem John Dingell read on the House floor on Wednesday, the 15^th of December, 2005, concerning the "war on Christmas". And Happy Holidays!

— Athelwulf

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
No bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse;
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;
Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;
In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to... well...
Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly
We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger!
This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes... even Costco;
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy
At Christmas time we're taught to unite,
We don't need a made-up reason to fight
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax... have a few egg nogs!
'Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,
and to Bill O'Reilly... Happy Holidays.

Global warming: Science politicized

It's scary to think about the war on science, one of the many wars the radical right wing is waging.

Over a month ago, I was visiting my aunt, who lives in the Portland metro area. She had recently bought a copy of An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. I had heard about the book and the movie, and when I saw it sitting on her coffee table, I decided to look through it. It's a very accessible book; it's filled with graphs, pictures, and data that greatly help the reader understand the message. One can learn a lot just by looking through it casually.

I must admit that in the past I hadn't really understood global warming. I knew the basic premise that certain gases, called greenhouse gases, are being pumped into the atmosphere by humans, and as a consequence the world was warming up. But up until recently, I hadn't thought about it much, and when I did, I usually thought about it skeptically. I knew that some argued that the world is not getting any warmer than it has been in recent geological history, and that this warming trend was completely natural and normal. I favored this view because I thought global warming wasn't a certainty among the scientific community.

Browsing through An Inconvenient Truth changed this. To quote page 261:

There is a misconception that the scientific community is in a state of disagreement about whether global warming is real, whether human beings are the principal cause, and whether its consequences are so dangerous as to warrant immediate action. In fact, there is virtually no serious disagreement remaining on any of these central points that make up the consensus view of the world scientific community.

According to Jim Baker, when he was head of NOAA, the scientific agency responsible for most of the measurements related to global warming, "There is a better scientific consensus on this issue than any other...with the possible exception of Newton's Law of Dynamics." Donald Kennedy [editor in chief of Science magazine] summarized this point when he said of the consensus on global warming, "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science."

I've bolded the last quote, which appears in big, all-capital print across pages 260 and 261, and which best gets the point across that we are as sure of global warming as we are of death and taxes.

Today, while I was thinking about what books I'd like to check out from the library, I thought of An Inconvenient Truth and quickly found the library's only copy. I've been looking through it today, like I had over a month ago. It really makes you think.

The book continues the discussion on the scientific consensus and the popular confusion onto page 262:

A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the previous 10 years. She and her team selected a large random sample of 928 articles representing almost 10% of the total, and carefully analyzed how many of the articles agreed or disagreed with the prevailing consensus view. About a quarter of the articles in the sample dealt with aspects of global warming that did not involve any discussion of the central elements of the consensus. Of the three-quarters that did address these main points, the percentage that disagreed with the consensus? Zero.

Has the disinformation campaign on global warming succeeded?

Well, alongside the study of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that showed 0% in disagreement with the consensus on global warming, another large study was conducted of all the articles on global warming during the previous 14 years in the four newspapers considered by the authors of the study to be the most influential in America: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

They selected a large random sample of almost 18% of the articles. Astonishingly, they found that more than one-half gave equal weight to the consensus view on the one hand, and the scientifically discredited view that human beings play no role in global warming on the other. The authors concluded that American news media had been falsely "giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming."

No wonder people are confused.

Zero percent of the peer-reviewed articles about global warming published in science journals, and 53 percent of the articles in the popular press, were in doubt as to the cause of global warming. No wonder, indeed.

I highly recommend this book, or the movie of the same title, to anyone who wants to understand global warming and what they can do about it. And I highly encourage you, the reader, to consider the potential consequences of the right-as-in-wing's war on science, which ranges from evolution to global warming. Also keep in mind this quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Accepting global warming as fact does not make me a liberal, or a Democrat. It makes me right.

— Athelwulf

Iraq and Vietnam: The parallels in opinions

I just finished looking through microfilm images of the Herald and News, a local newspaper, at the library. On page 5A of the issue published on Halloween 1965, there was printed a story with the headline "Sidewalk Interview In KF Finds No Support For Anti-Viet Nam Demonstrators". While you read this story, keep in mind the "war on terror" and the Iraq War.

— Athelwulf

Sidewalk Interview In KF Finds No Support
For Anti-Viet Nam Demonstrators
A sampling of opinions in downtown Klamath Falls last week revealed no support for and little patience with students who are demonstrating against U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.

A Herald and News reporter asked 10 people how they felt about the wave of demonstrations currently being carried out on campuses across the nation.

Unpatriotic, shameful and stupid were some of the words used by those interviewed as they expressed themselves on the demonstrations.

Following are their answers:

George DuPont, 224 Pacific Terrace, co-owner of camera shop — "Demonstrations are stupid, particularly when it comes to interfering with troop trains, although I don't think it is necessarily Communist inspired."

Huston Davis, 3644 Agate, barber — "We should get those students over there and let them get a first hand view of what it is all about."

Harry Beer, London, England, World War I and II British Army veteran, tourist — "My opinion, and I believe the majority of the English, is that the demonstrations are all wrong and if the United States did pull out of Viet Nam, it would be another victory for the Communists."

John Stroop, downtown mailman and World War II vet, 2204 Green Springs — "I think it is very unpatriotic on the part of the students."

Frank Nesbitt, 1208 Martin, radio advertiser — "Students are not educated on the situation over there and I feel they are being snowed by subversive attitudes."

Mrs. Lola Fowler, 3322 Homedale Road, cashier — "I think the demonstrations are lousy but it is no more than a fad. Something like follow-the-leader."

Mrs. John Williams, service wife, 716B Wright — "I think the demonstrations are ridiculous when we are fighting for freedom and it also destroys the morale of our fighting men on the front."

Mrs. C. E. Barnes, 721A Wright Ave., clerk — "I am sure there is more to the demonstrations than meets the eye, we are all supposed to be fighting for freedom, not supporting communism."

Virginia Longhofer, Rte. 2, Box 7917, clerk — "Those students should spend more time doing something constructive and keep their little minds occupied."

Kevin O'Donough, Banff, Canada, artist on way to San Francisco art exhibit — "Those youngsters should be ashamed of themselves. These are supposed to be future leaders of America. If communism is not stopped over there, it will have to be stopped on the shores of the U.S."

This just doesn't fly...

A commentary from Ruben Navarrette Jr., a special to CNN:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This is where we've arrived in this country: You have the constitutional right to burn an American flag, but you can get into trouble for simply flying a foreign one.

At least you can in the 30,000-person town of Pahrump, Nevada, which is close to Las Vegas and even closer to stepping over the line with an idiotic, intolerant and insulting ban on foreign (read: Mexican) flags. The town council voted last week, 3-2, to approve an ordinance that makes it illegal to display a foreign flag -- unless an American flag is flown above it. Scofflaws face a $50 fine and 30 hours of community service.

(Another article from USA Today.)

So it seems that in the community of Pahrump, Nevada, it's illegal for someone to display a foreign flag, unless, of course, an American flag is flown above it.

Right.

Well, according to a certain document called the United States Constitution, what they did is wrong because it violates the basic right and principle of this nation.

Do you know what the Constitution says? It states, in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*Sighs*

The man who proposed the ban, Michael Miraglia, said he was upset by the sight of immigration activists marching through US cities waving Mexican flags last May in protest to a crack-down on illegal immigration. He also "told USA Today that he was especially miffed that 'we had Mexican restaurants closed that day.' "

So, Mr. Miraglia, you're going to ban flying foreign flags, just because some Mexican restaurants were closed one day? It seems to me like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

Mr. Miraglia, do you value your freedoms? Especially your freedom to propose this ban per freedom of expression? If so, remember what Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Instead of thinking of yourself, think of others, especially in your community, who just might want to exercise their First-Amendment right and fly a foreign flag.

Also, I must say this is a waste of resources. Why not do something else, like raise standards of living in your area, or increasing the water supply? Focusing on anything other than important issues such as these is very silly.

Not only that, but as my fellow blogger Athelwulf has alerted me, this ordinance breaks flag etiquette concerning both international flags and American ones:

2) When the flags of two or more nations are flown together, each flag should be displayed from a separate pole of the same height, and each flag should be the same size. In time of peace, international custom forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation.

[...]

4) Within the United States, when the U.S.A. flag is flown with flags of other nations, the poles should be the same height and in a straight line.

One last thing, Mr. Miraglia. I hope you like this present from me:



(Source: 3DFlags.com.)

If you wish to express your disagreement (kindly) towards Mr. Miraglia, here is his contact information (thanks to the Pahrump Town Board website):

Michael Miraglia
(775) 727-5107
m.m@netscape.com

NOTE: His term does end on December 31^st, so be quick.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Memorializing his legacy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Presidents, civil rights icons, celebrities and ordinary citizens gathered Monday on the National Mall, where construction is getting under way for a monument honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The monument will be built on a four-acre site near the Lincoln Memorial, where King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech during the March on Washington for civil rights in August 1963.

President Bush said that he was proud to dedicate the memorial to "the lasting memory of a great man."

"Dr. King showed us that a life of conscience and purpose can lift up many souls, and on this ground a monument will rise that preserves his legacy for the ages," Bush said. (The article.)

Today, countless individuals witnessed the groundbreaking for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial, over 38 years after his death. Although I personally wish the memorial was made much earlier, at least it has been done.

While Dr. King, Jr.'s activism was the core of the black Civil Rights Movement, his heart lay with the natural, God-given rights of all people of all races. This monument is a nice symbol of who he was and what he did. Bravo to those in charge of getting it built, as well as those who pushed for its making and supported it along the way, and so on.

As he said in his famous speech delivered on August 28th, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

God rest his soul, and may his legacy continue, reminding those of us alive today, and our children yet to be born, of his struggle and his death.

~Elindelwolf

P.S. For those who are interested, here are Google results regarding Martin Luther King, Jr.

The future doesn't seem so glum anymore

Democrats win House, promise new direction
Democrats win control of Senate, AP reports
Bush takes blame for GOP election losses

For the first time, I feel I can give Bush kudos for something: He has gotten a wake-up call, and it appears he is accepting it gracefully.

"I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election," he said during an East Room news conference at the White House, "and, as the head of the Republican Party, I share a large part of the responsibility."

It is said that he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will work together to conduct the nation's politics in a bipartisan manner.

"The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation."

The strong grip the Republican Party has on Washington is coming to a close. Hopefully, with a Republican executive and a Democratic legislature, everyone can breathe a little easier now. Hopefully, the balance of power is on the way to being restored. Hopefully, no longer will the Republicans divide the nation with me-me-me-ism, and no longer will they demonize the Democrats. Hopefully, it'll become us-ism, where Republicans will now seek common ground with the Democrats, as Bush and Pelosi state.

The sweet smell of cooperation is in the air. I sure hope this smell doesn't turn sour.

It's still possible that Washington's Republicans, especially the Bush administration, will continue along the same path that has brought them to this defeat in the legislature, and I still wouldn't put it past them — but for the first time, I sense some good, refreshing vibrations. I'm looking forward to this promised bipartisan cooperation.

I still extremely dislike Bush and the radical, fundamentalist-Christian Right that has reigned over America for what seems like forever now, but I'm preparing to be pleasantly surprised by Bush in the last two years of his reign.

Let's hope there's a union in America beween the two parties — not like after 9/11, where we united on the right-as-in-wing side, but better, where we unite at the center.

I am glad that the Democrats are soon the majority party in Congress, and it makes me smile that Bush and Pelosi are accepting this gracefully.

The future doesn't seem so glum anymore, and I'm glad.

— Athelwulf

A little something

I wanted to share this article I found on Democratic Underground. I find it admirable, even if it does come off a tad like "In your face!" or "Haha!" in a way.

Enjoy,

~Elindelwolf

Dear dismayed conservatives:

I hereby make these promises to you.

We will protect your lives and livelihoods.

We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.

ESPECIALLY in our own party.

We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic.

We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

We will never waste your lives for power.

We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

We need you to do this. You are America as much as we are.

Let's go.

Liberalism (Pt.1)

You know.

I get tired of some things.

Yes, I believe that every human being has the right to believe, or say, what he or she wants no matter what it is.

However,

I get sick and tired of hearing such things as:

“Your kind are going to bring down this nation.”

“Liberalism is an excuse for having no brain.”

“You liberals are all the same, future democrats”

So on, and so forth.

***

At the moment, I deal with several individuals in my life - family members, and others who are this way. It is as if I am destined for hell, and there is no chance to be saved.

Why is it that liberalism is viewed as a plague?

Great and admirable people have been liberal.

John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, etc…

[I]“The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed.”[/I]

Yes, yes, I know folks are going to say - “but they are not the modern definition of liberal.”

The point is, they were. They too, were looked down at because of them being liberal.

There is often the argument that being liberal equates to being idealistic, and not having a plan - or the like.

Folks, not everyone is built off the same blueprint. There are liberals out there, who do have plans. They have ways to do things, and some of them are good plans (in my opinion).

I think that it is the surge of extreme liberalism, those individuals who seemingly do not consider the consequences/the outcomes, that leads to some individuals to assume.

It is being used as the template, so to speak. Some folks are assuming that all liberals are extreme, and therefore…pointless, wild, willy-nilly, etc…

Also, left wing politics doesn’t represent all liberals.

Wrong folks.

That is called generalizing.

One size does not fit all.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao all generalized.

***

Being liberal is not a bad thing.

Free speech.

The right to vote.

Equality.

Tolerance.

Are these things bad?

I wouldn’t think they would be, but you know the catch is for some folks?

They’re the basis of liberalism. Suddenly, they’re wrong. The liberal process is wrong.

Liberties; individual rights of thought, and belief. Limitations on power (I.e. no dictatorships/theologies), law/justice, education for every citizen, free exchange of thoughts.

It is liberalism, that allowed you and I to blog on this very site.

It was liberalism, thinking outside of the status quo - that obtained women’s rights to vote, blacks the right to vote, and so on and so forth.

So, is liberalism bad? Is it really?

I for one do not feel it is.

What I do find bad, is intolerance, and generalization.


~Elindelwolf

Criticism of the Bush administration is assault

I kid you not.

Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he’d say to President Bush or Vice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.

That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S. fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.

If only we could all be so lucky.

Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in Beaver Creek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when all of a sudden he saw Cheney there.

"I didn't even know he was in town," Howards says. "He was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, 'I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.' So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And then I walked away."

Short, sweet, and to the point.

But that's when things turned sour.

"About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow," Howards recalls, "and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, 'Did you assault the Vice President?' "

But wait! It gets worse.

Here's how Howards says he responded: "No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me."

Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.

Again: I kid you not!

So my take on this is, we live in a country where the SS will likely arrest you if you criticize the Bush administration. We live in a country whose head honchos are undermining the very foundations upon which the country was founded. But of course, the story speaks for itself; one can come to this conclusion on their own if they actually think.

I should note that this happened in a mall, where there surely had to be dozens of people who could bear witness to this. If Howards had truly assaulted the Vice President of the United States of America, the Secret Service would've pounced on him immediately, and there would be news of the incident everywhere you looked.

But again, this speaks for itself to the people who actually think.

— Athelwulf

A few bits concerning long distance relationships

Long-distance relationships, or LDRs, are not for the so called "weak." Now, I'm not saying that those who are "weak" cannot or should not partake in an LDR — just that it would be hard. Not being determined or loyal enough tends to seal the fate of the relationship from the start. It takes a strong will, commitment, and several other qualities which will be discussed in this article, to make the relationship successful for both persons.

LDRs, like any relationship, are like homes built on sand: They can either succeed or fail. They are the hardest to handle, but can flourish and blossom like any other relationship.

The following list is comprised of some things I have learned from being in an LDR. More specifically, it is a list of essential qualities and traits required in LDRs, just as in "regular" relationships.

They include:

Communication — If you and your significant other (SO) are not able to communicate, then there is no point in having the LDR. No communication means there is no relationship.

Commitment — Let's face it folks: You want your SO to be committed. Most serious relationships work towards a common goal: a union, such as a marriage. If one mate, or "teammate," is not dedicated to the relationship, it could, and just might, open up a whole other can of worms.

Loyalty — This falls in line with commitment, and with the following quality, affection. You want to be able to know that your SO is loyal to you. Otherwise, you could have what it takes to be on Jerry Springer. Not being committed not only show a lack of trustworthiness, but also shows your SO that they are not the one, that they are worth less than nothing.

Affection — All relationships, including LDRs, needs affection. Lack of it can lead to feelings of not being needed. That, your significant other means nothing. I mean, if you have no affection for your significant other, then what are you doing in the relationship?

Humor — When in an LDR, the ability to laugh when you can is vital. The strain put on both individuals in the relationship can cause great stress, and the ability to let it out through humor is valuable.

Patience — If your significant other has had a grueling day, or is late to show up online, be supportive, and don't jump to conclusions. If you jump to conclusions, they could lead to accusations, or feelings of being accused, which affects trust.

Understanding — When chatting or emailing, double check meanings every so often. Without the tone of voice or body language, things could be misunderstood, and dire consequences may follow.

Contact — Contact is what makes the relationship go round. Whether by instant message, letter, or email, keeping contact is the lifeline in a relationship.

Creativity — Be creative. Stretch your mind, and find new ways to show your love. You could make it romantic, sexy, or whatever. It could be back massages, or breakfast in bed, or whatever your imagination comes up with. Variety and creativity are key, because the same old "flowers and candy" (unless that is what your SO fancies) is trite. I'm not just talking about the guys doing this for the gals — love is a two-way street.

Openness/Honesty — In my opinion, there is a "clause," or something to note, in this aspect. Yes, be honest and open, but not so open that you "dump" on them. What I mean is, if you've had a bad day, and your SO has as well, be emotionally durable. Don't let your emotions use your SO as a crutch.

Positive Attitude/Hope/Faith — If there is one thing that I have learned, it is to keep a positive attitude in the relationship. For someone like myself, who battles with chronic depression, it can be tough, but anything is possible with the right attitude. I've also learned the concept of saying, "When we live together," instead of "If we..." It may sound strange, but it is very helpful as it constantly reminds you both of your unifying goal.

Trust — Key! Key! Key! I cannot stress how important this is. Without trust, there is no relationship. If you know you're going to wonder constantly whether you can trust your SO, then don't bother.

Support — When your SO has a bad day, be there for them. When they are undertaking a certain task, do what you can to help them.

More things that are good to have are a webcam and/or a microphone for your computer. These things are not mandatory; however, with all the scams, sexual predators, and overall nastiness on the Internet, you can never be completely sure the person you're falling for is who they say they are.

Now, I don't consider myself a "Dr. Phil," or such. I'm just a guy who has learned some things about relationships and wants to share those things with others. I hope you take this piece and think about it. I also hope that this piece will help you in your relationship with your SO.

Best wishes,

— Elindelwolf

~Note: When I used the term "weak," it was not intended to insult. It was a loosly used term.~

They only tell you half the story — and other Foley updates

In the interest of keeping the Foley scandal as clear in people's minds as possible, I'm posting a new entry with information recently discovered by me while surfing the "tubes" of the Internet.

Is the GOP revising history?
If you've been paying attention, you've noticed that the Foley scandal is causing a ruckus, what with the Fox News fuck-up and Republicans trying to save face — poorly, I might add. Democrats are calling them out for this scandal. (Just think: a homosexual sex offender from the party of "morals" and "family values!") But in response, Republicans are trying to remind Democrats not only of the Lewinsky scandal (as if an affair between consenting adults is worse than lewd conduct involving a minor legally unable to consent), but also of a certain Massachusetts representative, Gerry Studds, as if to say "You're one to talk!"

Democrat Studds was the first openly gay national politican in the US, and served in the House from 1973 to 1997. In the same year he started his first term in Congress, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male Congressional page. While a minor, the page was of consenting age at the time it happened, and had in fact consented. Studds's actions were discovered by the House Ethics Committee, and the House nearly unanimously voted in favor of censuring Studds in 1983, nearly ten years after the relationship happened.

So you see, the Democrats have no right to hold Republicans accountable for Foley. Right?

But there's a problem here. They only tell you half the story.

Studds was only one half of the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal. The other half was Representative Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois.

Crane served in Congress from 1978 to 1984. In 1980, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female Congressional page, which was also consensual. Both his and Studds's relationships were discovered in the same time period, and Crane was censured alongside Studds. Crane ran for re-election in 1984 and was defeated, while Studds continued as a member of the House, re-elected five times, until 1997.

In reaction to the Foley scandal, Republicans such as Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes are reminding us that Democrats have had their fair share of sex scandals, citing the scandal surrounding former Representative Studds. While you can't deny the Democratic party's scandals, it is highly suspicious that they are focusing on Gerry Studds, who you have to admit is a horribly convenient double-whammy for Republicans — a Democrat and a homosexual! — while making little mention of Dan Crane.

So Republicans, whose party is known for its homophobic sentiments, are reminding us of a homosexual Democrat's actions while too conveniently forgetting a heterosexual Republican's actions? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on this.

One more aspect of the Foley scandal is clarified.

First his party — and now his name!
I'm not sure whose fault this is. Most likely no one's. Maybe lots of people mix up names very easily. But as if getting a party change from Fox News wasn't enough, Mark Foley gets a name change too.

A small percentage of bloggers talking about the Foley scandal are referring to a Tom Foley.

Tom Foley was a member of the House, a Democrat from Washington, from 1965 to 1995. He was the Speaker of the House beginning in 1989 until he was defeated in the 1994 election, the one in which Republicans gained conrol of Congress. He was the second representative in US history not to be re-elected while sitting as Speaker.

Let me clarify for people: First of all, Mark Foley is a Republican! Second of all, it's Mark Foley, not Tom.

Homosexuals are evil boogy-men hiding in your closet!
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has a point, of course (as does Ron Beasley, on whose blog I found a link to Robinson's article):

Let's deal with the circumstance that dares not speak its name: How much of the Mark Foley scandal's impact is due to the fact that he's a gay man who preyed on young boys?

We must ask ourselves: Could the Republican party try to milk this scandal in an attempt to regain support for their homophobic opinions? We must be vigil in case they do, and be ready to call them out for their obvious bias against homosexuals.

I hope my post was plenty informative.

Until my next entry, folks!

— Athelwulf

Mark Foley is a REPUBLICAN!

If Fox News had any credibility before, they have now lost it all.

On the third of October, Fox's O'Reilly Factor ran two segments covering the recent news concerning former US representative Mark Foley of Florida. These segments included three cutaways to footage of Foley. In each cutaway, at the bottom, was the label "Former Congressman Mark Foley (D-FL)."

That's D as in Democrat.

But Mark Foley is a Republican.

In the late-night reruns of O'Reilly Factor (which have a smaller audience than the initial broadcast), they reran this footage of Foley, but with the label at the bottom entirely missing. Fox News didn't correct the label, nor did they acknowledge and apologize for the mistake. They simply removed it.

The following day, the fourth of October, the Associated Press put out an article which also mislabeled Foley as a Democrat. However, a few hours later they made the necessary corrections and released a correction notice, as did several of the outlets who ran AP's original version of the article. But who knows how many times the original article ended up printed in physical newspapers across the nation. And somewhere in the fray, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has also been mislabeled as a Democrat.

Now nearly everyone seems to have noticed the Faux News scandal and has commented on it — of course, except for Fox News, which, to my knowledge, continues to pretend it never happened.

Imagine the uproar that would've ensued among neoconservatives had this guy actually been Democrat and had some news source referenced him as a Republican without correcting themselves or apologizing.

I'm tempted to say that I miss the liberal bias in the media, but then I wonder if one can miss that which never was.

As for the Foley scandal itself, they're now apparently going around making a big deal that Foley is gay and that he was molested by a Roman Catholic clergyman when he was a teenager. As if to imply that all people who molest children are gay, and that they are gay because they were molested when they were children.

First of all, the apparent importance that it was a Roman Catholic clergyman rubs of the classic struggle to disassociate Protestant Christianity from Catholic Christianity by claiming that Catholics aren't Christians. One is reminded of when it was found that some Catholic clergymen were molesting some of the adolescents who went to their church. And we all know that this is why Catholicism isn't at all Christian, even though they believe in Christ, just like Protestants do. Right?

And second of all, and more importantly, I have the sneaking suspicion that the GOP is now going to try to use the Foley scandal as fodder to claim, again, that gay people are just monsters who prey on children and who converted to their abominable ways when they themselves were molested during childhood. The Faux News scandal just adds the cherry on top: After all, only Democrats are gay, and so only Democrats would think of molesting a child. Right?

Don't think people would really buy into this? Think again.

I feel I must clear up some disinformation about this whole thing (you can look here too):

• Foley is a Republican.
• The legal age of consent to sexual activity is 16 in the District of Columbia. We must keep this in mind, although Foley's abuse of his office, the worst aspect of the scandal, must also be taken into account. It remains to be found whether he committed these same acts outside DC, where it would actually be illegal. (Edit: I have just learned that Foley's acts were indeed illegal. In DC, 16 is the earliest you can consent with someone no more than four years older than you. This applies until you reach the age of majority — 18 in DC, just like everywhere else.)
• The Lewinsky scandal was not worse than the Foley scandal. Monica Lewinsky was 22, and she consented. Remember, it was an affair.

In closing, allow me to share a pertinent clip from the Daily Show, because laughter is the best medicine.

— Athelwulf

My letter to Carol Voisin

This is a letter I recently mailed to Carol Voisin, the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent Greg Walden, the US representative for the second congressional district of Oregon. Soon I will be writing a letter for Walden as well.

Update Wednesday, October 18^th: I should've made this update sooner. I had the opportunity to learn a bit more about Carol at the fundraiser dinner for the Klamath County Democrats on the 12^th. I feel that my questions were answered, and that my wish to replace the man in Congress who does not stand for my voice is well placed. I'm voting for my voice in Congress, Carol Voisin.

— Athelwulf

Dear Carol Voisin,

I must say that I am glad that you are challenging Greg Walden for his seat in the House, and that you are aiming to do what needs to be done about the most important issue facing America these days. It is my hope, whether you win or not, that this country will withdraw from Iraq and the rest of the Middle East as soon as reasonably possible and start handling the problem of terrorism in a just and moral manner, a manner whereby America will finally and truly become safer.

It is because you will do your part in what's in America's and, indeed, the world's best interest that I am certain my vote will go to you. It's because of this also that I hope, once election day passes, I can proudly declare, "The Honorable Carol Voisin represents me in the United States House of Representatives."

Since I know you will be handling issues other than the war while in Congress, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you several questions, which will give me a much better idea of whether or not you will represent my voice on those other issues as well.

The war is very important, but civil rights are also important. The rights that are of utmost concern to me are the rights that the Bush administration is trying to take away and the rights it has already taken away. First, I want to focus on what has already been taken from me and the rest of the American public, as well as non-citizens.

I am worried by the usa patriot Act. Its vague, broad definition of "domestic terrorism" can be interpreted too loosely. My Constitutional rights have been violated by the post-9/11 policies that fall in line with the usa patriot Act. No right should be alienated by a government for any reason other than due process of law; once they are, the question arises as to whether or not they'll ever be given back.

Will you do your part to take out the aspects of the usa patriot Act which threaten my rights, as well as to block new legislation which further curtails them, and to pass reforms and legislation which will secure my rights for good? Will you try to stop any efforts to extend or eliminate any of the Sunset provisions of the usa patriot Act?

You can be certain that I'm not only interested in the issues directly tied to the war. For example, it also greatly troubles me that it's still widely acceptable in this country for the government to dictate which rights a person can't have, simply because of which sex they wish to have a life-long romantic and sexual relationship with. This is a manifestation of sexism, even though it doesn't appear so on the surface to most. It is sexism because it is discrimination based on the sex of a person relative to that of who they are attracted to.

I want a representative who believes that homosexuals are not yet equal to heterosexuals in the Land of the Free. I want a representative who will block the Bush administration's efforts to amend the United States Constitution to make discrimination the supreme law of the land. And I want a representative who will guarantee homosexuals the right to marry — the right to make a life-long, loving commitment to their partner and to have the government recognize it — which heterosexuals have enjoyed for ages. Will you be that representative?

Other rights which Bush and his Republican party wish to infringe upon are the rights to free speech, expression, and protest — in particular, the right to burn an American flag in protest. I'm well aware of the ill feelings associated with such an act, and I sympathize with them. Their reasons to ban flag-burning are understandable, and indeed, for related reasons, I believe I would not exercise the right myself. For me and for lots of Americans, the American flag is a symbol for our Founding Fathers, the country they founded, and the values upon which they founded it. In my mind, to burn the flag says nothing to Bush and his administration's actions; rather, it says to the Founding Fathers that the country they founded and its values are a heap of bullshit. That's not the message I would wish to convey if I'm participating in a protest.

But the symbol is just that: a mere symbol. When it comes to freedom of speech and our other related rights, mere symbols are not and should not be held sacred or untouchable. (An analogy can be found in the Christian religion: Idol worship is forbidden.) It is ironic, but nonetheless the case, that our rights should include the right to burn the symbol of the country which aimed to guarantee those rights. I want the rights to free speech, expression, and protest guaranteed in their entirety to me and the rest of America, even though I wouldn't burn a flag myself. It is my hope that you agree with me and want this too. Will you block any attempts to infringe upon these rights, including new legislation or another proposed amendment banning flag-burning?

I hope that my expectations in a representative are in line with what can be expected of you while in the House. I know that the incumbent Greg Walden certainly isn't, and for that I support you instead.

In closing, I would like to recommend to you a book I ordered from Amazon.com a month ago, which may be of great interest to you. Its short title is Talking Right. (The full title is a bit long.) It is written by Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist who teaches at the School of Information of the University of California at Berkeley. Talking Right explains how the conservative right wing has captured and dominated the language of political discourse over the past forty years with impressive results, and how Democrats as a whole unfortunately do not yet realize the great power that language possesses. Nunberg doesn't cite many of the statistics in his book, which is unfortunate; however, I think it's a very enlightening read, and I also think the subject matter will be a tremendous help in Congress. The book's isbn is 1-58648-386-2. I'm sure you won't find it a disappointing read.

I look forward to your timely response to the questions in my letter. Good luck in November.

Sincerely,

[name and city withheld]

Welcome

You see before you a new collaborative project of two individuals who go by the screen names Athelwulf and Elindelwolf. They are two men who share common interests — writing, music, politics, etc. — and who agreed one day to start a blog for anyone and everyone to read. They named their blog Wulf and Wolf.

Athelwulf is greatly interested in politics. He identifies as a pragmatic liberal, one who exhibits small sprinklings of ideas associated with conservatism. He rejects all religions on the basis that the belief in anything without evidence is unscientific. He likes to listen to all sorts of music, and he doesn't understand why so many people loathe country. His near-future plans include getting a job and starting college.

Elindelwolf is reluctant in accepting any label — whether it be 'liberal' or 'conservate' — because his beliefs are diverse. He was born and raised in a strict, Christian conservative household, but began to explore as a young teen, eventually settling on Spiritism. He attends community college and desires to transfer to a four-year university within a year. He endeavors to become a filmmaker.

Both Wulf and Wolf plan on writing blog entries about anything that people may be interested in reading. This includes politics, books, current events, pop culture, travel, music, and so on. Every so often, in the interest of variety, a guest blogger will be invited to contribute a blog entry.

You're invited to stop by any chance you get and see what Wulf and Wolf have to say. You won't be disappointed.

— Athelwulf and Elindelwolf