Mood:
sharpTopic: My Columns
First, the straight story. About the libtard "art" and the controvery it's generating. Then, MY OWN ART! I might submit it for diplay at the same place next year... LETS SEE HOW BALANCED THEY ARE!!! (sarcasm off) Local Artwork Is National News
A painting titled "T'anks to Mr. Bush!" by attorney-artist Stephen Pearcy, is displayed in the Department of Justice cafeteria in Sacramento, Calif.<<<<< The burgeoning controversy over artwork displayed in the Department of Justice office of Democratic California Attorney General Bill Lockyer was thrust into the national spotlight last night, when cable news network MSNBC cited SacUnion.com in their coverage of the story. MSNBC’s Scarborough Country has credited SacUnion.com with first highlighting the story online while other local media avoided it. Strangely, the city’s leader in print subscriptions has avoided this story. Artwork painted by Berkeley attorney Stephen Pearcy depicts an American iconic flag being dumped into a toilet. Click here to see SacUnion.com’s original story. Pearcy, a Berkeley attorney, was the center of controversy earlier this year after he hung an effigy of a U.S. soldier above his home in protest of the Iraqi War. To read original coverage of the Pearcy-effigy conflict click here. Lockyer’s controversy, heating up for days, has been a topic of conversation on Sacramento KFBK talk radio shows hosted by Tom Sullivan and Mark Williams. The controversy has led to an online petition by local high-school political activist, Andy Nevis, who has collected almost 2,000 signatures calling on the Attorney General to take the exhibit down. The cries of protest against the display have only grown louder. Move America Forward, a Sacramento-based non-profit with pro-military ideals, announced they will team up with talk show host Williams for a pro-American art exhibit and anti-Lockyer protest on July 28. Here is the transcript from Thursday evening’s MSNBC Scarborough Country segment: Below is the text of the MSNBC Scarborough Country segment Monica Crowley (Substitute host for Joe Scarborough): And take a look at this. Does it make you angry? A piece of art that among other things shows the American flag in the shape of this country being flushed down a toilet. But it’s not hanging in any museum or any gallery. It’s at the California Department of Justice building in Sacramento. As you can imagine the piece is stirring up some intense emotions and here to talk about it is Karen Hanretty from the California Republican Party who says it should be taken down. Karen we should mention the artists were also invited on but they haven’t yet made it to the studio, so let’s just ask, how does an exhibit like this even make it into a government building? Karen Hanretty (guest interviewee): Well, quite frankly, the California Arts Commission teamed up with one of the local lawyers associations and the (CA) Attorney General, they commissioned a curator to go out and solicit artwork from either attorneys or if the artwork was produced by attorneys they solicited artwork with a theme that has to do with the law. And this particular artist, Stephen Pearcy was contacted by the curator after the curator saw the scuffle that was created earlier this year after Mr. Pearcy who created this painting took a manikin, strapped a noose around its neck, dressed it as a soldier and hung the soldier in effigy off his home here in Sacramento. It brought a great deal of attention around the country, certainly here in California. The curator must have found that artwork interesting and contact Mr. Pearcy and asked him if he had any paintings he would like to submit. Crowley: Yeah, right now we are looking at the effigy of the American soldier that Mr. Pearcy had hung on his home with a sign on it that says, “Bush Lied, I Died”. Angry residents in his community tore down that effigy and rightly so. Karen let me ask you, why would any material that most people think would think as offensive and I would think any right-thinking American would take a look at this painting and think it was outrageous, how did it even get allowed to be hanging on government property; didn’t anyone raise a red flag and say, this is totally inappropriate for government property, taxpayers are paying for this property, why do we have to put up with this hanging there. Hanretty: I think that is a very good question and I think it’s a question that needs to answered. No one wants to take responsibility for this art exhibit that is being displayed in a government building. The California Arts Council put out a press release saying no tax dollars were spent on this art exhibit. The Attorney General’s office isn’t taking any responsibility for this. Basically they are pawning it off on the curator, who by the way was paid to do this exhibit and they are pawning off responsibility onto this local lawyers association but that’s ridiculous. The California Arts Council is paid for and funded with taxpayer dollars. The Attorney General knew that this exhibit was going to go in his building. In fact the Arts Council is actually housed in the Department of Justice. Someone in government needs to take responsibility for this. Surely, they knew exactly the content of this exhibit and they chose to keep it up there anyway. And here’s something that’s really important. The Attorney General is arguing, well if we take down this painting that is somehow censorship. But I can guarantee you that the Democratic Attorney General would never allow a painting of a Gay Pride flag to be floating in a toilet bowl and hung in his building. That would never happen. Artwork that is offensive to Gays and Lesbians or that expresses violence towards women would never be allowed to hang in his building. And they came back and said well that would be a hate crime. Art is not a hate crime. And if art was a hate crime then I would expect that the Attorney General would file a lawsuit against the music industry for the way they treat women and Gays. Crowley: We did invite the artist of this particular piece on the program tonight. He is not arrived for the segment. But the Sacramento Union writes that it took Mr. Pearcy about 20 minutes to complete that work. He said it was intended to reflect his concern about Americans and what he called their fanatical level of patriotism in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “The goal is to create something quick and put in the minimum amount of effort and get the maximum amount of communication out of it.” Karen taking a look at this so-called art I think Mr. Pearcy should not give up his day job as an attorney. What about the political agenda? You mentioned that if somebody tried to put up a piece of artwork that was offensive to Gays or Lesbians or Jews or African Americans there is no way that it would be allowed hung in a government building. Hanretty: Well, not so fast. Actually, there is a painting in there that I think a lot of Jewish people in America would find offensive. There is a painting that references Palestine and suggests that the Jewish people are oppressing the Palestinians. Not every piece of artwork in this exhibit, and I went and looked at the exhibit, has a political bent. But a lot of it does quite frankly and I’m just not sure why it is necessary for us to behaving in political propaganda that is one side and is anti-American in a government building. Crowley: Especially Karen in the middle of a war. Thank you so much for your time tonight. -end-
The Sacramento Union ** Local Artwork Is National News HERE'S MY REBUTTAL ART --- I'D BET YOU A MILLION YAHOO BUCKS THEY WOULD'NT ALLOW IT...
Posted by uhyw
at 11:29 PM EDT
cool
Orrin Hatch Blasts Chuck Schumer's 'Dumbass Questions'
(Left) Sen. Charles Schumer's questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was so hostile during Roberts' 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings that Sen. Orrin Hatch (Below Right) blasted his New York colleague for asking "dumbass questions."
In a audioclip of the exchange unearthed Wednesday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, the normally mild-mannered Utah Republican complained:
cheeky
Jobless Claims Post Biggest Dip in 2 1/2 Years
WASHINGTON - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits plunged by the largest amount in 2 1/2 years last week, reflecting a slowdown in layoffs in the auto industry.
The Labor Department reported that new benefit claims dropped by 34,000 to a new total of 303,000 as the labor market continued to signal strength.
Government analysts attributed the big improvement to a slowdown in layoffs in the auto industry, which had seen big increases in recent weeks as auto plants shut down temporarily to retool for the new model year.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, delivering a monetary report to Congress this week, said the U.S. economy, after a brief slowdown in the spring, has picked up strength over the past two months and should enjoy solid growth this year.
Greenspan cautioned that the growth forecasts could be derailed by a variety of potential threats from a surge in energy costs to home prices that he said had reached unsustainable levels in some parts of the country.
The strong economic growth this year has helped to boost job creation. The nation's unemployment rate has fallen to 5 percent, the lowest point in nearly four years.
The performance of jobless claims last week was further evidence that labor markets are continuing to improve.
The drop of 34,000 was the largest one-week improvement since a decline of 35,000 in the week of Dec. 21, 2002. The decline was more than triple the 10,000 drop that private analysts had been predicting.
The total of 303,000 claims last week was the lowest level in 16 weeks. The four-week moving average, which helps smooth out weekly volatility, also declined last week to 318,000, the lowest level in more than four months.
Leading Indicators Gauge Climbs in June
NEW YORK - An important gauge of future economic activity rose strongly in June, but economists expressed concern that weaknesses were developing in the nation's industrial sector.
The New York-based Conference Board said its Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose 0.9 percent in June to 137.7 after showing no change the month before and a 0.2 percent rise in April.
The June increase was the largest since a 0.9 percent rise in December 2003, the board said.
The figures were based on revised calculations of the index, which is closely watched as a signal of growth in the U.S. economy over the next six months.
The latest figures incorporate two revisions - a statistical trend adjustment as well as a new way of accounting for the yield spread, a component of the index that measures the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury note and the federal funds rate.
The last time the gauge underwent a major revision was in 1996, shortly after the Conference Board, an industry-backed research group, took over calculating the index from the Commerce Department in Washington, D.C.
Without the revisions, the index of leading indicators would have shown an increase of 0.5 percent in June following a dip of 0.2 percent in May, the Conference Board said.
Gail D. Fosler, the board's chief economist, told reporters that despite the strong June reading, she had concerns about the economy's strength.
"We believe the industrial economy is slowing down, that it is slowing down quite quickly," Fosler said. She said, however, that she did not believe a recession was in the offing, saying "we are way far away from anything that looks like a recession signal."
Instead, she said the nation's economy was likely to show growth of about 3.6 percent this year and slow to 3.1 percent in 2006.
Seven of the 10 indicators that make up the leading index increased in June: consumer expectations, vendor performance, the money supply, a decline in unemployment claims, the interest rate spread, stock prices and building permits. One component, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense products, declined, while weekly manufacturing hours and manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods were unchanged.
The index of coincident indicators, which measures current economic activity, rose 0.2 percent in June to 120.5 after increasing 0.1 percent in May to 120.2.
The index of lagging indicators, a measure of past economic performance, was up 0.3 percent in June to 119.7 after advancing 0.4 percent in May to 119.4.
surprised
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.
"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."
Dean's approach echoed similar arguments advanced in recent months by former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
"We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party," said Dean.
The effort to attract such voters comes as Senate Democrats are preparing for confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts' views on abortion are already being intensely scrutinized.
Dean did not mention the looming confirmation hearings. He discussed the abortion debate after a student questioned why the party was supporting Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
The chairman tried to draw a distinction between Casey and Santorum, even though both men oppose abortion rights.
"You have to respect people's positions of conscience," said Dean. "I think Bob Casey's position is a position of conscience."
Dean, a former Planned Parenthood board member, said the difference between his party and Republicans is that "we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them."
John Brabender, a consultant to Santorum's re-election campaign, said Dean's distinctions were meaningless. "It makes absolutely no sense for Howard Dean to attack Rick Santorum unless he's also attacking Bobby Casey," he said.
DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, "Howard Dean's rants are a perfect example of why the American people have lost faith in the national Democratic party."
chatty
GIs criticize
Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy [Left], Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka [Below Left], Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner [Below Right], Virginia Republican.
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois [Left], the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.
"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."
A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.
Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."
Mr. Kennedy has been a leading advocate for closing the prison facility. Mr. Akaka in April voted for an amendment that would have cut funds for the prison.
(Origional story requires registration)
irritated
A New York woman claims that she was forced from her teaching post by an elementary school principal who objected to her Republican activism and last year ordered the removal of a portrait of President George W. Bush from the educator's Long Island classroom.
In a federal discrimination lawsuit, Jillian Caruso, 26, claims that she was improperly forced to resign her job by Birch Lane Elementary School principal Joyce Becker-Seddio, the wife of state Assemblyman Frank Seddio, a Brooklyn Democrat.
In her U.S. District Court complaint, Caruso contends that she was retaliated against by Becker-Seddio because of her political work, which has included volunteering at last year's GOP convention and membership in the Republican National Committee.
Caruso, who taught first and third graders at Birch Lane, also claims that when the principal spotted the Bush portrait late last year--it was hanging among photos of other U.S. presidents--she "became outraged and insisted that the picture be removed." Caruso, who complied with that order, has named the Massapequa Union Free School District as the sole defendant in her action, which seeks unspecified monetary damages and a reappointment to her prior teaching post.
Full copy of U.S. District Court complaint...
A tunnel was discovered from this house on the U.S. side to a greenhouse in Canada. >>>>>
Three B.C. men charged with drug smuggling after tunnel discovered at border
LANGLEY, B.C. - Three Surrey, B.C., men have been charged in Washington state with conspiracy to distribute and import marijuana after law enforcement officials discovered a tunnel crossing the U.S.-Canada border.
The U.S. Justice Department says the 110-metre tunnel runs from a depth of one to three metres and is reinforced with iron rebar and 2x6 wood supports.
It starts under a Quonset hut in Langley and ends beneath the living room of a house in Lynden, Wash.
The justice department says 42 kilograms of pot were transported through the tunnel, loaded into a van and driven to the Bellis Fair mall, where the marijuana was loaded into another vehicle.
That vehicle was stopped by the Washington State Patrol and the pot was seized.
Francis Devandra Raj, 30, Timothy Woo, 34, Johnathan Valenzuela, 27, are to appear in court in Seattle at 2:30 p.m.
d'oh
don't ask
PETA, perverts and horses
The death of a 45-year-old Seattle man is forcing an uncomfortable debate into the open. Delivered to a hospital by a friend, who promptly fled, it was found that the man had expired from an acute case of peritonitis; a frequently fatal severe inflammation of the inner surfaces of the abdominal cavity, usually caused by an internal perforation of the gastrointestinal tract. The suspicious nature of the death led police to investigate. What they found was shocking, disturbing and grotesque.
Worst of all, it was not exactly illegal in the state of Washington.
The investigation found that the man had died from a perforated colon; caused by having engaged in anal intercourse with a horse. This morbid discovery provoked a more thorough investigation by the King County sheriff’s office, which in turn led to the discovery of a farm in the Enumclaw area, and hundreds of hours of video footage of men engaging in sexual activities with animals, from horses to chickens, goats and sheep.
Sgt. John Urquhart, the investigation’s spokesman, explained that the investigation had found that the farm was well known in Internet chat rooms as a destination for men who wanted to have sex with animals, unbeknownst to neighbors. "A significant number of people," said Urquhart "have likely visited this farm", though he refused to give either a detailed or approximate number since the investigation is still ongoing. A neighboring couple, after being shown some of the video footage, angrily recognized their horse and their own barn.
While it is disturbing that strange men are gathering in the shadier corners of the Internet and forming a growing subculture that is sadly centered around the desire to have a sexual relationship with Mr. Ed, it’s not necessarily a crime either.
As Urquhart explained, engaging with sexual relations with an animal is not illegal in Washington state, which is far from alone in that; fully 17 states do not have laws banning bestiality. To actually file a criminal charge, "you’d have to prove some sort of animal cruelty…and that’s why we’ve got more investigating to do."
In addition to being immoral, at least by Judeo-Christian standards, intercourse with animals is unhealthy for several reasons. It encourages the spread of diseases that might not otherwise be spread, discourages healthy human relationships and fosters unhealthy attitudes and perspectives.
The Enumclaw case highlights two increasingly important ideological debates. The first, and seemingly the more minor of the two (for the time being) is within the animal rights movement, and centers around whether animals should be treated as identical to humans. On the one side, stands PETA and Peter Singer, a founder of the animal rights movement. On the other stands the Humane Society and Friends for Animals.
Peter Singer, a father of the animal rights movement, is no stranger to controversy. For his support of infanticide, euthanasia and abortion as morally justifiable, he has earned the ire of individuals and groups from all cross the political spectrum from the National Council of Disability to the Wall Street Journal.
This is completely unsurprising given Mr. Singer’s political position, preference utilitarianism; the belief, traditionally tied to hedonism, that the action that an individual must take is the one that best minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure. In a 2000 review of a book, he defended bestiality, noting that while taboos against oral sex, contraception, masturbation and homosexuality have all largely been done away with, bestiality has not.
He went on to explain that its taboo was a mere pretext for distinguishing ourselves from animals, "erotically and any other way", and thus denying them fair treatment. He explained that some intra-species relationships could lead to "mutually satisfying conclusions".
While he came under heavy fire for his comments, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk not only defended Singer, but also bestiality. "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong…If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."
PETA, it has been suggested, defends bestiality as a backdoor to equating animals with humanity. If animal human relationships are equal to human relationships, then eating an animal would become tantamount to cannibalism. However, her statements beg the question: how do you know when an animal is being sexually exploited.
It might prove difficult to prove, as it’s very hard to get a straight answer from a horse in regards to the question "Mr. Ed, did you voluntarily enter a sexual relationship with Ingrid Newkirk, or did she force you into it?" A more real example involves Phillip Buble, who claims to be married to his dog, and that his marriage is just as valid in the eyes of God as any other marriage.
Meanwhile, the Humane Society is struggling to get a law passed in Washington that outlaws bestiality.
The larger debate, for the time being, is set within the context of American, indeed Western, society as a whole. Is it ethical and/or beneficial to legislate even seemingly basic morality, and does it violate the separation of church and state? The answer to that question is going to become increasingly more bizarre, disturbing and downright unhealthy habits, sexual and otherwise, are brought to light and the West moves further and further towards moral relativism. It can only be hoped that the right answer isn’t found too late.
No animals were harmed or molested in the writing of this article. The author ate a grilled chicken sandwich for lunch, but that’s it.
silly
Ex-con minister puts faith in Hillary
A Park Slope minister is praying he will be allowed to stay in this country - and counting on Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his guardian angel.
Chibueze Okorie, whose congregants at Gethsemane Presbyterian Church are prison inmates and former convicts, could be ordered deported by a federal immigration judge today for a 1989 drug conviction.
"I hope they will drop this case," Okorie said. "I hope they will see how much I have achieved since my release from prison."
Since he was released from an 18-month sentence in 1991, Okorie has dedicated his life to the Eighth Ave. church.
He has helped troubled kids in East Harlem and was awarded a New York City Council Citation for his exemplary service.
Even so, authorities want to deport the Nigerian native. Federal law requires convicted felons leave the country.
Okorie is scheduled to appear in Manhattan immigration court this morning for a removal hearing before Judge Elizabeth Lamb.
Okorie has received help from some powerful forces, including Clinton (D-N.Y.), who believes Okorie has paid his debt to society.
Praising his "unusual and enormous contribution to his community" and his own rehabilitation, she wrote to immigration officials asking that his case be dropped.
"Mr. Okorie's deportation would be a significant loss to the growing number of people he currently counsels," she wrote. "I urge you to dismiss Mr. Okorie's [case]."
Okorie said nearly 20 elected officials have written letters to immigration authorities requesting he be allowed to stay, and one from the Corrections Department for his work counseling Rikers Island inmates.
Immigration officials said they do not comment on pending cases.
"Mr. Okorie is having his day in court before an independent administrative judge," said Mark Thorn, a spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.
Okorie was busted soon after he first came to this country after working as a driver for a heroin dealer in East New York. The current case was brought against Okorie when he applied for a green card in 2001.
Commenting about the removal action, Okorie said, "I feel like I'm still in prison."