The Liberal Coalition

I've posted my next move in the ever slowing paced First Blogger's Chess Match. Also, what's the word on our hidden blog and the fact that it's hidden even from us?

posted by Rook @ 10:34 PM |

SoonerThought dredges up a classic--shining the light of hypocrisy on the "Defenders of Marriage."

posted by Anonymous @ 8:08 AM |

Via Tom Tomorrow, I've learned that a group called Verified Voting is leading a grassroots action to spur Congress into actually trying to do something about the absurd state of voting technology in this country.

They need folks to contact their Senators and Representatives and talk some sense into them. Apparently there are parallel bills in the House (H.R. 2239) and Senate (S. 1980) which mandate verifiable elections by this fall. Now is the time to contact your representatives and tell them not only to support the bills, but to sign on as co-sponsors. And when you get off the phone, sit down and write them a letter so they don't forget.

If your senator is Graham, Clinton or Boxer, you can relax; they're already co-sponsoring S. 1980.

You can also read Verified Voting's description of the situation. Find out contact info for your Senator/Congressperson at Project Vote Smart.

posted by David Bailey @ 5:12 PM |

SoonerThought covers this (sadly un)shocking story with commentary from Oklahoma gay activist.

posted by Anonymous @ 1:51 PM |

The GOP... the party of fiscal responsibility, my (two expletives deleted)! One might think the irresponsibility was driven by greed or stupidity, or both. I'll accept greed as one of the reasons, but stupidity is harder to defend as a source of the irresponsibility when one reads this
NY Times article:

Mysterious Fax Adds to Intrigue Over the
Medicare Bill's Cost

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR

Published: March 18, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 17 — Late one Friday afternoon in January, after the House of Representatives had adjourned for the week, Cybele Bjorklund, a House Democratic health policy aide, heard the buzz of the fax machine at her desk. Coming over the transom, with no hint of the sender, was a document she had been seeking for months: an estimate by Medicare's chief actuary showing the cost of prescription drug benefits for the elderly.

Dated June 11, 2003, the document put the cost at $551.5 billion over 10 years. It appeared to confirm what Ms. Bjorklund and her bosses on the House Ways and Means Committee had long suspected: the actuary, Richard S. Foster, had concluded the legislation would be far more expensive than Congress's $400 billion estimate -- and had kept quiet while lawmakers voted on the bill and President Bush signed it into law.

Sen. Kennedy is asking the classic Watergate question: what did the pResident know, and when did he know it?

Read the rest of "Lies and the Lying Liars..." on the
Yellow Doggerel Democrat...

posted by Steve Bates @ 2:33 AM |

From The Fulcrum:

My attempt at initiating a Google Bomb:

The Defense of Marriage Coalition has inserted itself into the same-sex marriage issue wherever it arises. And always on the side of bigotry and hatred. Today, a second Oregon county has decided to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, believing that not doing so violates the State's constitution. The county has yet to issue the first license and already the DMC is sticking its priggy nose into things:

"We would call it using the sacred institution of marriage as a political tool," said Tim Nashif, spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, [homophobic bigots] which is suing Multnomah County and has submitted a proposed ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. "They're not making decisions just for Benton County, they are making it for the entire state."

Which brings me to my Google Bomb. From now on, in any post I write on SSM, I will use the term "homophobic bigots" and will link it to the DMC web site. I hope you'll join me in endeavor.

It's the little things that can make the difference.

Especially against folks like these homophobic bigots.

posted by Charles Perez @ 4:28 PM |

Among the many things and ideals that conservatives (and their sock puppets in government) say that they want to protect, children have to rank among the most mentioned. Parents' natural desires and fears for their children have been the inspiration for much pandering on the part of BushCo.

That's why I was <sarcasm>surprised</sarcasm> to see that the EPA basically allowed industry lobbyists to write the current, controversial, mercury control regulations while keeping their own scientists muzzled on the reasons for tighter controls. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Utility industry lobbyists wrote key portions of the rule that would regulate pollution created by their clients, according to EPA staffers who claimed they were ordered not to conduct the normal scientific review of the proposal.

A potent neurotoxin, mercury is especially dangerous to children and developing fetuses (another "group" that conservatives always claim they care for).

Please read the rest of BushCo. Environmentalism at the Fulcrum.

posted by Charles Perez @ 12:40 PM |

I got on my soapbox yesterday and took my bloody time getting off of it. In other words, it's a long post so I'm going to just link to it here and give you part of it. I'm not exactly trying to "blogwhore", I just don't want to put such a long piece up and crowd out everyone else's previous posts.

So, to continue my thoughts from the previous post and response in the comments...

The movie was good but not significant to my conclusion, other than it made me think about how far people will go when so committed to their ideology. Meaning, to the point where it blinds them as they reach the point of no return.

I always strive for some sort of balance in my life, because I think leaning too far in any direction makes one unstable...or close-minded, inflexible, static, or whatever else you want to call it.

Inertia.

I feel such mental inertia is a surefire way to insure our inevitable removal from the genepool. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing...but, regardless, we have pretty conclusive evidence that the better a species is able to adapt, the more chance it has to "evolve" and carry-on. It would seem that the majority of homo sapiens -at this juncture of our history- are working quite diligently towards what can only be a nasty end in what will amount to a relatively short period of time on this earth. That is, if we continue in this current vein (how long can you take without giving back and honestly expect that person/resource/earth to keep giving? It's only a matter of time before they/it runs out of patience/supply/life to support that one-sided arrangement).

Anyway, it's a tricky business determining how far one will tread to defend their instincts or beliefs about what is "right", and what is "wrong". If you go too far, then what separates you from the extremist/idealogues that you're up against? How far is far enough? How far is too far? If the "other side" draws no lines and will do whatever it takes, then what recourse can you take if you don't want to follow them down that same path? How do you fight irrational or stubborn, hellbent-on-winning-their-side-of-it, extreme idealogues?...and not become one of them?

(read on)

posted by zozosma @ 2:05 PM |

With each passing day, it seems, Bush and the Republican leadership reveal a new way to demonstrate that their actions are not constrained by such trifling matters as 'ethics'. They're willing to bend the rules used to pass legislation, twist the arms of Republican legislators who don't fall in line (including threats of extortion!), and shamelessly promote themselves using public funds.

And that's just for one piece of legislation, the Medicare bill. Via Tom Tommorrow, I just discovered a new dimension to Bush administration cravenness! They're producing faux news stories promoting the bill, and handing them out to local news stations!

George Orwell would be proud.

posted by David Bailey @ 11:17 AM |