I'm posting this, in part, to add on to Irishwitch's post on the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade. Coloradans will awake tomorrow to an interesting state of affairs facing us down in the 2008 election. The Dobson fundamentalists from Colorado Springs are giddy with the prospect that their legal maneuvering will create a template to outlaw abortion in Colorado, in spite of Roe v. Wade.

Today, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed their ballot initiative to go forward on the 2008 ballot.

After the premier gay rights organizations in the country lined up two years ago to tell Congressional sponsors that they would not support any version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that did not include both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," Congressional sponsors are are shedding their spines at the first sign of resistance from the conservative Republicans.

There is a comprehensive breakdown of what happened over at Pam's House Blend, but here is what needs to be made public:

We just got confirmation this afternoon that the leaders in the House of Representatives have indeed stripped gender identity from ENDA. There is still time though for you to join me and contact all the democrats in the House, especially the leadership:

It is imperative that we demonstrate unity and urge the Speaker to put gender identity back in the bill.

Personally—since none of these fools have the spine to stand up to the religious conservatives—I hope that some religionist conservative hypocrite fillibusters the living daylights of this bill and sends it off to some dark corner for the foreseeable future.

Earlier this year, I had to take a break from all things "current events" to focus on some overwhelming work and home-life issues. And for quite some time, I felt disconnected, as though I was falling back into a complacent state where current events are monitored through the headlines with little examination into the details behind them. This isn't to say that my opinion about what's going on in Washington or Iraq is any different today than it was several months ago--just that after stepping away for a minute and coming back, I am struck by the insanity that's going on.

I am not necessarily struck by the insanity of the Bush administration--which was judged as "off the chart" loony years ago--but the insanity of the American people who continue to acquiesce to whatever spin or "logic" their elected officials wish to throw out as justification for their acquiescence to the status quo. After the utter fiasco and abomination that has been our involvement in Iraq, we must now listen to these officials pine on about further unaccountable funding to continue our Iraqi folly and contemplate expanding that folly to Iran. To which there is but one response:

No.

Having come across the topic in various contexts lately, the subject of "family" has left me with more questions than answers.

In part, what drives this is the constant use (or mis-use) of the term "family" by groups like Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and the Family Research Council (among others). Their efforts are focused on promoting "family" values and "family friendly" policies—all within the context of biblical definitions of "family" and "marriage." It's gotten to the point that I instinctively loathe or gravitate away from anything labeled as "family friendly" or directed at the family in any way.

I've tried to rationalize the arguments of these groups, to put them into the same light as reality. Moreover, I've tried to put them into the full context of the ideals upon which the U.S. Constitution was written and upon which this country was founded. But the other day, as I was thinking about this for the umpteenth time, I finally reached the limit.

The front page of Yahoo! News which has a sidebar for ABC News video has a video frame of a grimacing Rep. Ellison with the caption: "Congressman Not Apologetic About Muslim Comments."

Now if I wasn't aware of what was going on, I'd see that and think that the "Muslim comments" were of the Islamojihadifascist kind. Moreover, I'd also think that Rep. Goode's comments were a response and, therefore, justified.

Historically, any test or requirement for voting that is not based on one's citizenship status has tended to smack of racism. The Jim Crow laws used literacy tests, poll taxes, and numerous other requirements that tended to disenfranchise minority voters.

Contrast this with what we have today, which is a generally uninformed electorate that seems more concerned with "American Idol" than with Congressional oversight and the doctrine of separation of powers. The political equivalent of "American Idol" is our primary system and nominating conventions. Yet primaries are largely ignored outside of the local coverage, and the nominating conventions are more about political grab-assing and ego masturbation than they are about actually engaging the political process in the manner of  Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.

Looking at that, the argument of requiring the electorate to demonstrate more than a passing knowledge with our system of government and political issues starts to sound reasonable.

Sitting here tonight, watching "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Matthews had on Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He asked Tony about the impact of Kerry's gaffe the other day and Perkins didn't miss the chance to level slander against "liberals."

Tony Perkins: "Many of the liberals just don't have an understanding of how there are people that have such commitment to this country that they would volunteer to defend the ways and the ideas of this nation. And I think those two issues—those two issues—bring back into focus for social conservative what's at stake here. . . . [Y]ou can put those in power who really have no appreciation for the core values of America and then of course you get activist judges."

I'm tired of ignoring this unmitigated disaster. I'm tired of watching the Republicans tear down a democracy that took us 230 years to build. I'm tired of Republicans, period.

No, I'm not that partisan. I'm not partisan at all. I'm a registered independent. I used to be a Republican until the religious conservatives took over. I used to be a Republican until the racists took over. I used to be a Republican until the trappings of power were used as a cudgel to silence dissent and a star chamber in which to conduct witch hunts for sexual indiscretions. I was part of the Republican Revolution in '94. I left the GOP shortly after that--hypocrisy tastes an awful lot like bile. The Republican party of today has as much familiarity with the principles of "personal liberty," "legislative restraint," and "fiscal discipline"--and the principles of our Founding Fathers--as the Three Stooges have familiarity with well planned execution.

The currency of ideas is the idealists dream. It is my dream, and the dream of the Founding Fathers. Then there's the big bucket of cold water that is lobbyists, special interests, paid advertising, political favors, and political fund raisers.

But we're all about "people powered politics" here, right? Here are some ideas to think over:

The other day, I listened to a discussion about agnosticism, atheism, and belief. That discussion left me with an observation that I felt a need to bring up.

In advancing the idea of atheism, the argument is usually advanced that there is no proof of the existence of God, so therefore, God does not exist. It can be a very compelling argument in light of what secular science has produced.

The response to the argument for atheism, specifically from the position of a believer, is that basic applied logic dictates that one cannot prove a negative proposition, e.g., I cannot prove that something does not exist. To prove that, I would have to have knowledge of the entire realm of all this is knowable, which is an impossibility.

Under normal circumstances, such a question might be little more than hyperbole, akin to nothing more than the juvenile hackery of Ann Coulter. However, James Dobson's recent statements regarding Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade raise the question in a legitimate fashion.

In a Denver Post article on Dobson's response to Gibson's rant, Dobson has this to say:

"We certainly do not condone that racially insensitive outburst," Dobson said.

Syd Barrett, original leader of Pink Floyd, has passed away.

Syd Barrett, founder of Pink Floyd, dies

LONDON - Syd Barrett, the troubled genius who co-founded Pink Floyd but spent his last years in reclusive anonymity, has died, a spokeswoman for the band said Tuesday. He was 60.

Modern music owes a whole helluva lot to Syd.

You reached for the secret too soon/ You tried for the moon/ Shine on you crazy diamond ...

One of the reasons I left the Republican party years ago was because of their embrace of the evangelicals, the religious right, and the fundamentalists. Being a student of political philosophy, and well-versed in the doctrine of John Locke, Robert Nozick, and many other philosophers, the idea of the comingling of religion and politics is disgusting.

If the Dems are trying to drive people out of the party, or drive people away from progressive ideas and the American dream, then Barack Obama should just keep on this path:

At the end of the day today, there will have been much gnashing of teeth and pounding of breasts, all in futile frustration that the whack-a-nut ScAlito will apparently make it through the Senate and sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The thought of this simply makes me want to wretch.

MSOC has posted a wonderful diary about her disgust with both parties, and I would like to take an opportunity to echo that.

More . . .

[Cross-posted at God is Dead]

Last year I had the opportunity to sit down with a client of mine one day after we had completed an especially arduous task. I don't particularly recall what  got us onto the subject, but I do remember his comments. Somewhere along the line, the client made mention of "not being a racist." My ears pricked up because this is usually the first sign of a racist.

Before I get too far into this story, let me tell you a little bit about the town in which I grew up: Peoria, IL.

Hardly an earth shattering observation, but I have come to have clearer views on the Republican party. No, I'm not turning on the reality-based community. But in fairness and honesty, I can state that I am not entirely opposed to the Republican party. Within the GOP, one can find three wings of the party: I see three parties, three schools of thought, and three entirely different reactions.

Today, DarkSyde posted a front page diary, "Open Letter to Libertarians and Conservatives," taking aim at the Bush administration and the growing disdain they appear to be exhibiting for the U.S. Constitution.

Generally, I agree with DarkSyde's broader analysis. However, I take issue with the targets of his diary. To lump libertarians and conservatives (social or fiscal?) all into the same category without differentiation or analysis, encourages a nasty form of political elitism that will do much damage here.