Aw, here we go again.  We'll erode all progress that has been made since 1960, refuse to hold corporations accountable, overturn Roe and pretty soon we'll return to that idealic state of 1952 that all of these neo's want.  Women, I hope you're watching this...

Wash Times Article Here

Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg's voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.

"In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination," she said.

Last month, Ginsburg rebuked the same five-justice majority for upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and for language in the opinion that she said reflected "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited."

Yesterday she said that "Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores." She called for Congress to correct what she sees as the court's mistake.

In a case that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said was easily decided on the statute "as written," her statement from the bench was noteworthy.

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said Ginsburg's attention-getting dissents are a "clarion call to the American people that this slim majority of the court is headed in the wrong direction." She noted Ginsburg's background as a feminist legal activist who helped establish women's legal rights and added: "To see them being dismantled is especially troubling."

From www.defcon.org, this I believe opened on Memorial Day:

In just three days, the religious right will launch one of the most outrageous campaigns to date in their war on science: the $27 million “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Find out more about this deceptive institution and help support real science education by visiting our special "Creation Museum" website now.

The “Museum,” which was built by the religious right organization Answers in Genesis (AiG), is dedicated to the falsehood that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, claims that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago, and has but one goal: to institutionalize the lie that science supports these fairytales.

DefCon advisory board member and professor of physics Dr. Lawrence Krauss has prepared a brief Parent's Guide explaining the top 10 reasons why the "Museum" gets it wrong -- very wrong. Visit our site to check out the guide.
This institution is only the most recent example of the religious right's war on science education - whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom.
In all of these cases the religious right has sought to create controversy where none exists. However, in the case of the “Creation Museum” they have gone one step further: instead of acknowledging their contempt for science, they are actually claiming that science supports their creationist propaganda.

While AiG has the right to spend $27 million promoting a lie, it is imperative that as concerned citizens we let America know the true dangers of their nefarious campaign.

More than 20,000 concerned citizens -- including 3,600 edcucators from every state and at every level from kindergarten to graduate school -- have joined our campaign to speak out against this deceptive institution.  If you haven't already, please take a moment to add your name to the petition.

Be sure to stay tuned to the DefCon Blog for more information.
Clark and the rest of the DefCon Team.

Wash Times Article Here:

WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.

But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans would have to sign on to ensure the plan’s approval.

I'm somewhat disgusted by this.  The directive was clear last November.  Aside from that, most of us who have a conscience are sick of watching another war waged without responsibility, regardless of planning or measures of success.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Treat the war like a very risky project, complete with performance indicators, status reports and honest statistics.  Instead, Republicans via Tony Snow and others spin it endlessly and continue their tired tirade of faux patriotism.

So, now we get a bill that really means little and has no hard edge.  Bush has proven unwilling to listen to reason.  You need to force him.  I think the ramifications of this for Democrats will be a lot deeper than they guess.

From www.defcon.org:

This Memorial Day, the religious right will launch one of the most outrageous campaigns to date in their war on science: the $27 million “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky.

The “Museum,” which was built by the religious right organization Answers in Genesis (AiG), is dedicated to the falsehood that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, claims that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago, and has but one goal: to institutionalize the lie that science supports these fairytales.

Click here to sign our petition opposing the “Creation Museum” and demand that AiG cease its campaign to confuse our children and undermine scientific understanding. Sign the petition here.

If you are an educator – whether teaching kindergartners or PhD candidates – be sure to sign our petition for national educators too. Sign the educators’ petition here.

This institution is only the most recent example of the religious right's war on science education - whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom.
In all of these cases the religious right has sought to create controversy where none exists. However, in the case of the “Creation Museum” they have gone one step further: instead of acknowledging their contempt for science, they have decided to claim that science actually proves inherently anti-science propaganda.

While AiG has the right to spend $27 million promoting a lie, it is imperative that as concerned citizens we let America know the true dangers of their nefarious campaign.
Please take a moment and voice your opposition to this deceptive institution. Sign our petition here.
Be sure to stay tuned to the DefCon Blog for more information.

Anything close to alternative religion in the USA gets my attention.  I find this interesting that people practice Wicca/paganism but choose to hide it out of fear of losing jobs, family, etc.  Worth a read.

Wiccan Article in NY Times:

I watch the Republican presidential candidates and others interviewed in the news and see them fumbling over themselves to say something positive about Jerry Falwell.  John McCain who labeled Falwell as the "agent of intolerance" a few years ago now bows backwards to praise his life and last year gave the commencement speech at Liberty University.

But here are the facts:  Falwell represented several of the 7 deadly sins.  Sloth and gluttony certainly.  Greed.  His agenda of gays and fetuses knew no logic and his ministry was one of garnering hundreds of millions of dollars for political influence.  He influenced Ronald Reagan, John McCain, George W and many others, promoting the mix of church and state counter to our own Constitution.

Falwell was the antichrist, the worm from within, that so many literal Christians claim to fear.  Right there in their midst.  So, his death is not a sad thing.  At last we're free of one of the many Christian anti-christs.  The agent of intolerance is no more, but he's left disciples.  I can't find anything positive to say about him.

Excerpt from CNN article (my favorite one that should never be forgotten is the 9/11 quote blaming 9/11 on pagans and feminists and gays):

To right-leaning devotees, Falwell was a visionary.

Former President George H.W. Bush once said, "Jerry -- I'm glad to have been introduced by a loyal friend ... "

Falwell once said "Get them saved, baptized and registered."

But former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, once remarked of the fundamentalist leader, "In a very Christian way, as far as I'm concerned, he can go to hell!"

In the 1990s, Falwell used his television and radio shows to promote a videotape called "The Clinton Chronicles," which alleged that then-President Bill Clinton was at the center of a criminal conspiracy involving drug dealing and murder.

In the 2000 presidential race, Sen. John McCain singled out Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" within the Republican Party.

McCain lost his bid for the GOP nomination to then-Texas Gov. George Bush after a decisive primary battle in South Carolina, in which Falwell and Robertson lined up behind Bush.

But in gearing up for a second run in 2008, McCain received a warm reception when he addressed Falwell's Liberty University during its 2006 commencement.

Falwell drew the ire of many people, regardless of their their political leanings, when he said that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were caused by abortion providers, feminists and what he called a morally weak nation that grants too many rights to gays.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America," he said. "I point the finger in their face and say 'You helped this happen.' " (Watch Falwell blame 'pagans' for 9/11 )

Jerry, nobody in the world is to blame for 9/11 or other extreme violence except those who promote it.  Often, those who promote it do so because of their religious beliefs.  Looking for false prophecies and meaning by casting the metaphorical bones on the floor and reading tea leaves is the greatest heresy - arrogant thinking one can think as God.  Say hi to the devil.

Oh, yeah, and he's the Olympic Bomber too.  Don't get me started on the disgusting irony of a pro-life individual blowing innocent people up.  The man is a terrorist and perhaps he should join the enemy combatants in Guantanamo?

NY Time Article Here (excerpt below):

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- Victims of Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation's most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.

Rudolph, who was captured after a five-year manhunt and pleaded guilty in deadly bombings at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and a Birmingham abortion clinic, is serving life in prison at the "Supermax" penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.

Housed in the most secure part of the prison, he has no computer and little contact with the outside world aside from writing letters.

But Rudolph's long essays have been posted on the Internet by a supporter who maintains an Army of God Web site. The Army of God is the same loose-knit group that Rudolph claimed to represent in letters sent after the blasts.

In one piece, Rudolph seeks to justify violence against abortion clinics by arguing that Jesus would condone "militant action in defense of the innocent."

In another essay about his sentencing, Rudolph mocks former abortion clinic nurse Emily Lyons, who was nearly killed in the 1998 bombing in Birmingham, and her husband, Jeff. He uses pseudonyms rather than naming the couple, but there is no doubt he is describing them.

Rudolph recalls how Emily Lyons, in court, described the pain of her injuries and made an obscene gesture at Rudolph as she showed off a finger mangled by the blast. Rudolph writes: "It was a great speech and one that the denizens of freedom should be proud to enshrine in a museum somewhere. Perhaps they could put it next to MLKs `I Have a Dream.' They could call it `I Have a Middle Finger."'

Hey, I'll call out the positive where I see it.  This is the first thing I've seen.  It may be a token gesture that means little, but Bush at least "calls" for the higher standards.

See article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/15bush.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

This article only serves to demonstrate the growing danger of religion forcing its world view on the government in the US.  Bad enough that corporation do it.  Does religion really want itself to be cheapened in this way?  There does not seem to be much argument that many of the laws being signed are unconstitutional - yet they are still put into law.

Full NY Times Article Here:

Several scholars who wrote books about religious advocacy work in Washington in the 1980s and early 1990s say the push for earmarks identified in The Times analysis represents a sharp departure from the lobbying strategies traditionally associated with religious groups. One of them, Allen D. Hertzke, a professor at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, said, “I never heard religious lobbyists talk about earmarks.” That view was echoed by Daniel J. B. Hofrenning, a professor at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn.: “Getting heavily into the pork-barrel politics of earmarks — that is a distinctive change.”

It is a shift that some religious advocates find worrisome.

“Earmarks are bad public policy,” said Maureen Shea, director of the Episcopal Office of Government Relations in Washington. “If earmarks are not in the public interest, I would wonder why the faith community would be involved in them. It would hurt our credibility.”

James E. Winkler, who has represented the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society since 2000, says he fears that the pursuit of earmarks could muffle religion’s moral voice. “For example, we’ve opposed the war since day one,” he said. “But what if an earmark benefiting us — money for a Methodist seminary, perhaps — is attached to the supplemental appropriation for the war? You can see how very serious moral conflicts could arise.”

The Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, said that while religious organizations should be able to compete for federal money, such groups “shouldn’t do that through earmarks.” He explained, “As good stewards of the public trust, we have to be transparent and above board — and earmarks are not transparent or above board.”

And, constitutional lawyers point out, because the First Amendment prohibits direct government financing of religious activities, earmarks that steer money to religious groups pose constitutional risks. Indeed, several faith-based earmarks were successfully challenged as unconstitutional long after Congress approved them.

Giuliani on the defensive about his stance on abortion.  I really have a hard time understanding this.  Why are Republicans fumbling over themselves to defend their personal views on laws and social issues?  To appease Christian bullies?  One can oppose abortion and never consider it for themselves yet make an attempt to understand where others are coming from.  Promote sex ed, promote those things that decrease abortion because, guess what, people have sex and sex makes babies.

Now we have political candidates attempting to explain something about themselves that is inherently a tough personal issue.  Pro-life?  Consider stopping the war in Iraq where alive, developed human being die every day.  Leave it out of politics.  Let's talk about the real stuff that this country is floundering in:  Iraq, war, health care, public education, global warming, environment, keeping jobs in the USA and not exporting our country overseas.  These are the issues that are sinking us, not abortion.  The Pat Robertsons of the world need to go back to the fringe they came from unless they're willing to help.

Giuliani Defends Abortion STance:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday sought to quell a growing controversy over abortion that has disrupted his presidential campaign. Restating his support for abortion rights, he asked Republican voters to look beyond that issue to the totality of his platform and record.

Giuliani called abortion "morally wrong" but said he nonetheless favors a woman's right to choose. "I am open to seeking ways of limiting abortions, and I am open to decreasing abortions," he told an audience at Houston Baptist University. "But I believe you have to respect their [women's] viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice."

The speech came after a week of turmoil surrounding Giuliani's candidacy following a Republican presidential candidate debate in California in which he gave an ambiguous answer to a question about how he would feel if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

His goal, as he stated yesterday, was to push the controversial issue -- which has put him at odds with much of the party's conservative base -- to the side in the battle for the Republican nomination. But his speech and recent statements left unanswered questions about how his views have changed over the course of nearly two decades as a political candidate and elected official.

Over that period, Giuliani has evolved from a political neophyte who favored overturning Roe to one who became so strongly identified with a woman's right to choose that he was seen as a standard bearer for the abortion rights movement in New York. Now, he has settled into a position of support for abortion rights, albeit with qualifications he once staunchly opposed.

From www.defcon.org.  Dobson sells himself as a therapist and psychologist but all I see is whacko.  What do you think?

Yesterday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that promises to extend protection from violent or discriminatory acts of hate to gay and lesbian Americans.
In a shocking turn of events, even for this administration, President Bush has threatened to veto this anti-hate bill. With the overwhelming congressional and public support for this legislation, many are asking who the President could possibly be serving with such a commitment; the answer unfortunately is the religious right.
Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 1984¹, Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is “contrary to our heritage and our values,”² and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, “there’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.”³
Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?

This notion is preposterous and simply goes to show just how out of touch the religious right is, not only with real American values, but with mainstream Christian values as well.
While most Americans see the religious right’s campaign for what it is -- an attempt to make gay and lesbian Americans second class citizens -- their bigoted views have found audience with at least one man, President Bush.
Click here to send Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson a letter condemning their campaign of hate. These men aren’t simply opposing core American values of equality, they’re perverting faith.
Let them know they should be ashamed of themselves.
Clark and the rest of the DefCon Team
P.S. Learn more at the DefCon Blog.

Further evidence of President Bush's strong ties to the Pat Robertson Christians.  Fine if you want to believe that abortion is wrong.  Nobody will argue with you that it is an obviously agonizing decision for the woman involved.  Find if you want to believe it's death.  But the fact of the matter is, leave the legalities of it to the individual involved and their unique circumstances.  American opinion is not united on this issue.  Leave it alone.  If you want to decrease abortions in America then fight to make sex ed comprehensive and birth control cheap and readily available.  But I suppose that goes against the "sex for procreation" and "sex only in marriage" unrealistic sensibilities of the Pat Robertson ilk.

Grow up and live in the present.  The realities of the 21st century and the struggles we are up against.  Stop making sex taboo and you decrease abortions.  Stop fighting against sex ed and stop restricting access to birth control and you do the same.  Continue to promote "abstinence only" and call it "sex education" and you're looking for a recipe towards disaster, discreet illegal abortions (assuming you make it illegal).

Bush is dangerous.  Never before have we seen such a clear break in the Constitutional right of Separation of Church and State.

From the NY Times (Full Story Here):

WASHINGTON, May 3 — President Bush told Congressional leaders Thursday that he would veto any legislation that weakened federal policies or laws on abortion.

In a two-page letter sent to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, characterized the president’s message as “drawing a bright line.”

A statement from the group noted that many appropriations bills that Congress will take up include provisions to limit federal financing of abortion and that abortion rights groups have been urging Democratic leaders in Congress to change.

For example, a provision is under consideration for a foreign appropriations bill that would end a ban on discussing abortion in family planning clinics in developing nations.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, said she interpreted the president’s letter as a broader threat “to veto any pro-choice legislation.”

“Instead of trying to work with Congress he’s trying to threaten Congress, and that won’t work,” he said.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president felt that it was important to remind Congress of his position on these issues. It’s not about vetoing, it’s about standing firm on his core beliefs.”

Why?  There are laws set in place to monitor this activity.  Use those.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/1426246

Bush Administration Claims It Has Right to Conduct Warrantless Surveillance
Meanwhile the New York Times reports senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January. Senior officials - including the new director of national intelligence Michael McConnell - said they believed that the president still had the authority to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.

As Bush and the Democrats battle over what to do about the IRaq war funding bill, it seems like an act.  We already knew the story - the passing, the veto.  Now what?  That the president would so go against the will of the people and continue to operate a war without responsibility or planning is beyond comprehension.  George W's story is one of tightening control, never admitting that one is wrong and winning at all cost no matter what the public thinks.  In fact, it is a concerted effort to control what the public thinks, a'la Karl Rove.

And here we have more juicy bits regarding the manipulation of federal attorneys.

From the Washington Post (Full Article Here):

On Nov. 10, 2005, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sent a letter to a federal judge in Montana, assuring him that the U.S. attorney there, William W. Mercer, was not violating federal law by spending most of his time in Washington as a senior Justice Department official.

That same day, Mercer had a GOP Senate staffer insert into a bill a provision that would change the rules so that federal prosecutors could live outside their districts to serve in other jobs, according to documents and interviews

Congress passed the provision several months later as part of the USA Patriot Act reauthorization bill, retroactively benefiting Mercer and a handful of other senior Justice officials who pull double duty as U.S. attorneys and headquarters officials. Justice officials say the measure was a necessary clarification to ensure that prosecutors could fill temporary postings in Washington, Iraq and elsewhere, and that it also applies to assistant U.S. attorneys.

But the episode, which received little notice at the time, provides another example in which Gonzales's statements appear to conflict with simultaneous actions by his aides in connection with U.S. attorney policies. Lawmakers investigating the department's handling of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys have repeatedly accused Gonzales of being less than truthful about the roles played by himself and the White House.

The measure also provides the second example in which the Justice Department sought to use the renewal of the Patriot Act antiterrorism law to assert tighter control over U.S. attorneys. Another provision sought by the Justice Department allowed Gonzales to appoint U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate input. Since repealed, it was central to the uproar over the prosecutor dismissals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/education/02spirituality.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

NY Times article at above link.  I think this is good in the broad, general sense.  People of all different faiths should not be criticized nor ostracized when they go to college.  I hope, however, that it does not signal a backlash going the other way.  There is a trend with certain Christian groups to try and push their faith into secular areas where, frankly, it doesn't belong except as their own personal belief.

Anyhow, in times where gunmen randomly shoot people, illegal endless wars for oil erupt and the USA is sponsoring secret prisons and torture, faith in something bigger than oneself is a good thing.