Democratic Diva

H/T to commenter Todd for linking me to this.

What is it with them? This past Wednesday the House of Representatives passed a bill that would enable authorities on Indian reservations to better coordinate with the Feds to prosecute non-native rape suspects and provide assistance to rape victims. For some reason, 92 members saw fit to vote against it, all of them Republican. The nay votes included our very own Reps Flake, Franks, and Shadegg.

I’ve been searching the internet and not finding any reason for so many Republicans voting against it. Recall that when Republican Senators (including our own Kyl and McCain) voted against the Franken Amendment (which disallows federal contractors from forcing employees who are raped or assaulted into arbitration clauses and was inspired by the brutal rape of KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones in 2005) the justification was that it was an unbearable imposition upon the poor, dear corporations to open them up to the risk of expensive lawsuits for failing to protect their workers from rape.

HR 725 doesn’t appear to jeopardize precious corporate profits so I’m going to guess the nay votes are the usual Republican whining about government spending on undeserving little people. Women, even.

I certainly hope the local news media take note of this and ask Flake, Franks, and Shadegg to explain their vote against Native rape victims, especially in light of the large number of tribes in Arizona.

UPDATE: Amnesty International provides some background on the issue.

John McCain’s embedded reporter uh, I mean, Arizona Rebublic journalist Dan Nowicki informs us that JD Hayworth (God help me for appearing to defend him) has gone off the reservation. JD condemns of Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu for appearing on an Aryan Nation radio show and demands that John McCain withdraw ads featuring Babeu as part of a complement of AZ sheriffs supporting John McCain.

But that’s just SOOOOO wrong of JD. Why? Here’s why:

But the Hayworth tactic spurred pushback from some Facebook users writing on his campaign fan page:

• Will Barks: “I think you are off base on this one JD. Kill McCain on his record and the facts. Don’t tear down a good Sheriff to do it.”

• Cindy Burgess Lunde: “Come on JD, you’re above this. You have my vote, but this is a mistake. I think Babeu is supporting the wrong guy, but I also think he’s doing a great job in his county fighting illegal immigration.”

• Dawn Luptak: “JD, I am one of your biggest supporters, but I think this is beneath you. It is turning some people off to you.”

OMG! LOL! WTF? Really? Facebook?

Dan?

My bad. Turns out that Real Law Enforcement Institutions^TM like Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) and the Arizona Fraternal Organization of Police heart them some Paul Babeu. As does Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

JD, how does the underside of the bus feel?

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu claims he didn’t know what type of show he was calling in to when he was interviewed by “The Political Cesspool”, a weekly radio show that flies its white nationalist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and homophobic freak flag proudly. (The hosts of The Political Cesspool claim Babeu was aware.)

From the outset I was inclined to give the guy a pass on the blunder. It’s hard to imagine any legitimate politician thinking to him or herself, “You know, I should get myself interviewed on that Nazi station. That’ll be good for my career.” But the first nagging question is one that should be evident to anyone who has ever called in to a radio show. What happens is that the screener or producer puts you on hold, usually for several minutes. While you’re on hold you are listening to the show in progress, waiting for the host to call you by name and tell you you’re on the air. It’s possible that an aide of Babeu was waiting on the phone during that time, not Babeu himself, but still. Someone had to be listening to what was being said in the segment before the Babeu interview.

Yesterday the AZ Democratic Party sent out a press release describing it.

In the first segment of the radio program, before Babeu came on, the hosts and their invited guests:

* Were permissive about people who use, “horror of horrors, the N-word” [2:22]
* Accused Nelson Mandela of masterminding a terrorist bombing. [15:40]
* Said white Southerners were “invaded” by Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement. [16:12]
* Blamed Jewish people for many of the country’s problems. [4:33, 5:26]

As they waited for Babeu to call in, one co-host said his excitement about having Babeu as a guest was on par with his excitement at meeting the well-known KKK leader David Duke.

You have to listen to the broadcast, if you can stomach it, to appreciate how calm and matter-of-fact people can be while expressing shockingly ugly views about their fellow human beings. That’s important because the constant presentation of hateful bigotry as a Mel Gibson scream-fest or JT Ready marching at the border often leads people to think that bigots can’t be articulate or “reasonable” sounding. Au contraire. These dudes chatting it up on the Political Cesspool sound like they could be on NPR, except for the part where they’re nasty hateful bigots.

As I’ve said here before, an association with a particular person or group does not mean that you are joining them or endorse their views. Out-of-context guilt by association should have died a boozy death along with Joe McCarthy. But there’s plenty of context with which to go after Babeu here. At best, it shows that Babeu and his handlers are sloppy and way too eager for any cheap publicity they can get, which means he’s not focused on the job he was elected to do. At worst, it raises suspicions about what Babeu knew and when he knew it and the possibility of collusion with the hosts (who, don’t forget, are claiming Babeu was aware of their ideology). Media Matters has the full interview with Babeu, in two parts.

Notice that the Cesspool hosts are on their best behavior throughout the interview. They mention how President Obama sent Babeu a “gift” in the form of the ACLU coming to Arizona to sue him. Just the plain old ACLU, not the evil Zionist conspiracy ACLU of the earlier segment. No mentions of superiority of the white race either; just several references to the “invasion” of illegals and drug cartels and violence. Not as clinical and NPR-ish as the first segent, it was more run-of-the-mill conservative talk radio bombast. This would lend some credence to Babeu’s claim that he didn’t know the nature of the show. Then again, Babeu claimed in the interview that the U.S. is “sprinting toward socialism” and repeated blatant falsehoods about Arizona’s crime rate. He’s not exactly awash in credibility.

Then there’s that other interview Sheriff Babeu did with conspiracy crackpot Alex Jones. Where Army National Guard Major Babeu accuses the President of being on the borderline of treason. Another innocent mistake, I’m sure.

`

This “Climategate” nonsense is a perfect illustration of committed political operatives using a loud bullhorn to convey a stream of bullcrap intended to confuse and derail the public discourse and succeeding at it. What’s really amazing to me is how right wingers with no compunction about claiming the universe is literally 6000 years old are given credibility to nitpick at scientists for perceived flaws in their research and reportage. Even if said right wingers (obviously) have no clue what they’re talking about vis a vis the science.

The impetus behind “Climategate” is a series of stolen emails that supposedly prove that climate researchers conspired to exaggerate the severity of global warming. They didn’t. At worst, as exhaustive investigations found, they failed to display all their data to critics and the public. Here’s the take of that liberal rag The Washington Times

An independent investigation into the British global warming scientists involved in the “climategate” e-mails concluded Wednesday that researchers did not intentionally skew data, though they did violate freedom of information laws and allowed the dissemination of misleading information.

The report’s authors gave a near-total exoneration of the work of scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

“We find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” according to the investigation, led by Muir Russell.

Now, if you are a right wing political operative, you seize upon the “misleading information” statement (from page 62 in a 160 page report).

37. In relation to “hide the decline” we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.

Your typical right wing denialist blogger treats this jargon-laden paragraph as a message
that OMG TEH LIBERALZ ARE CONSPIRING TO MAKE US ALL WEAR BIRKENSTOCKS!!!1! WE HAVE PROOOOOF!!!1!

The great thing about scientific jargon, for right winger climate change denialists, is that the true believers fall asleep before they can be shown that the denialists are full of crap.

Sorry about that, kidlets.

Coupla things I wanted to post about regarding energy while I was shirking my blog duties:

1. Everyone should sign up for biweekly email updates from Progressive States Network if y’all haven’t done so already. Yesterday’s update was all about renewable energy and what different states are doing to get it going.

n this Dispatch, PSN will examine clean energy options that contribute to a green economy, including evaluating the great strides that energy supply alternatives have created in the states that have enacted policies that promote them. We will explain how states have established Renewable Portfolio Standards and how these have created the demand for innovative investment, as well as how to promote new sources of renewable energy, including creative financial mechanisms, multi-state agreements, and the upgrade of an electrical grid that will better transmit energy from these intermittent sources. And for states looking for new job creation strategies, one key fact is that the production, installment and maintenance of renewable energy sources create sustainable jobs.

2. Operation Free. Way cool.

Hi Diva-lets! Sorry for my absence. Been hella busy and on a semi-news break. ‘Course, there’s no escaping the MelGibsonPocalyptoPocalypse currently in progress.

Sheesh, what a schmuck. Let’s see: Domestic violence. Ugly racist statements. No wait, domestic violence. How about we get back to Mel’s horrific violence toward his girlfriend and the mother of his child?

According to reports, Mel Gibson has a tendency to say racist things. First, there was the “Jews are responsible for all wars” incident and most recently he told his ex Oksana Grigorieva that if she went outside in a particular outfit he disapproved of she would be “raped by a pack of ni**ers.” What has been overlooked in almost every single report of that incident is why Grigorieva was tape recording Gibson in the first place. She needed proof. Proof that Mel Gibson was abusive to her not only emotionally, but physically. She had already provided dental records in their custody fight to prove that he knocked her teeth out but Grigorieva still felt she needed more evidence to show the court that Gibson is much more than just politically incorrect, he’s dangerous. Why is it that the detail about Gibson knocking Grigorieva’s teeth out was literally a throwaway line at the very end of an article with a splashy headline detailing his latest racist diatribe? Why did it take so long for them to launch a formal investigation into his abuse?

It is clear that the media and the public at large avoid talking about domestic violence. It’s seen as a private matter and is not to be spoken about openly. The problem with that is that this tendency to push it aside and out of our minds is teaching our young people exactly the wrong lesson. Another domestic violence incident that was in the news recently was Chris Brown and Rihanna after their now infamous drive in a Los Angeles suburb the night before the 2009 Grammy Awards. After his emotional performance at the BET Awards, many people declared Chris Brown forgiven. Bygones. He cried and apologized so we must all take it easy on him and just get past the “situation with Rihanna.” Let me be clear: Domestic violence is not a “situation.” We need to call it what it is. We need to point out that the repeating cycle of domestic abuse includes remorse and we should not allow Chris Brown or Mel Gibson or anyone else to simply come back and make a tear-filled apology. We must not be enablers. Domestic violence is the systematic destruction of another person emotionally, mentally, verbally, financially, socially, physically, and sexually. Domestic violence is the de-humanization of another person that can leave scars lasting a lifetime.

Arizona’s “scumbag boyfriend bill” was Jonathan Paton’s term of art, and give credit where credit is due, he did good that one time. Start watching from 1:17:25 on this archived footage and you’ll see Russell Pearce and Jack Harper object to domestic violence protection for unmarried women.

Unmarried women don’t deserve as much protection, after all.

Mel would agree.

Of course, the announcement it links from the GI website doesn’t mention immigration. At all.

“Effective language attached to policies that are mainstream and delivered by people who are passionate and effective can change the course of history.” –Frank Luntz

Best-selling author of Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear and What Americans Really Want…Really: The Truth About Our Hopes, Dreams and Fears, Dr. Frank Luntz will be joining the Goldwater Institute for a special presentation for our Tucson members and guests.

Pleasing the public ear is Dr. Luntz’s business. Since helping the Republican Party develop the Contract with America in 1994, the political pollster and consultant has kept his finger on the pulse of the nation’s top issues. One of Time Magazine’s “50 most promising leaders under 40” and Boston Globe’s “hottest pollster,” Dr. Luntz has emerged as the leading communication strategist for policymakers and Fortune 100 companies.

Known for his televised focus groups on Fox News, Dr. Luntz has brought the power of potent language from board rooms into living rooms. A featured guest on over a dozen leading political programs, more media outlets have turned to him to understand public opinion than to any other political pollster.

On July 15, please join the Goldwater Institute for a discussion of the American electorate. Is America truly a center-right nation? What can we expect in the fall elections?

Thursday, July 15, 2010
11:00 a.m. VIP Reception and Photo Opportunity
12:00 p.m. Lunch

Ritz-Carlton
15000 N. Secret Springs Drive
Marana, Arizona 85658

Premier table [$2,500]
Premier seating for ten guests and ten VIP tickets
Preferred Table [$1,000]
Preferred seating for ten guests and four VIP tickets
Reserved Table [$500]
Reserved seating for ten guests and two VIP tickets

Goldwater Institute Member Tickets [$40 each]
Non-Member Tickets [$50 each]
VIP Tickets [$250 each]

Entering “immigration” into the search engine on the site yielded several articles from GI analysts but not one from more recently than 2009. Goldwater is having it both ways here: Staying silent and neutral on SB1070 to avoid irking the Republican base while enlisting Frank Luntz to teach their cheap labor-loving corporate patrons how to spout phony populist platitudes about immigration at a luncheon.