Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 2:33pm.
BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
Packin’ Pistols for God and Country: NRA Christians stake claim on patriotism and the America
By Bill Berkowitz
If you don’t quite get that for many in this country that the connection between guns and God is as American as burgers and fries, baseball and beer, and July 4th and fireworks, you should have been at the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky, on Saturday, June 27, where Pastor Ken Pagano welcomed more than 200 people – most of them packing guns (albeit unloaded) -- to an event called the “Open Carry Celebration.”
According to the New Bethel Church website, the “Open Carry Celebration” was held on a Saturday instead of a Sunday, so that it was clear that it was “not a church worship service, where the focus is on Jesus and our responsibility to Him. Rather,” Pagano, a former Marine weapons instructor, pointed out, “this is merely a church-hosted event, similar to any other event that any other church may do to celebrate their heritage.”
Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 9:18am.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
By Mark Karlin
Our hearts and spirits soared as Barack Obama was swept into the White House in a landslide on election day in 2008.
It was one of those historic moments of hope, of the dark cloud of the Bush-Cheney years being lifted from our shoulders, of a desire for a restored democracy being fulfilled, of a candidate worthy of our great nation being elected.
Submitted by findingavoice on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 8:09am.
FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow
Okay, it was no surprise that The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Haven's white firefighters. "Reverse discrimination" has become a popular refrain from Republican advocates in the media and the courts, ever since the Alan Bakke case. In that instance diversity was said to have a legitimate role in admissions guidelines but Bakke's right to be admitted to medical school was also affirmed - - a kind of end-around split decision.
The issue of fairness at colleges and universities and in employment situations remains, however, unresolved in the minds of jurists and among the general population. The fact that there is such a heavy emphasis on test scores as the gauge for admission or advancement is one troubling aspect of the debate. It would seem that much of the rancor surrounding discrimination or its reverse could be held in check if test scores were just one factor in determining the makeup of an institution or a workforce. Everyone understands that personal style, experience and, in some cases, physical ability are features that affect an applicant's performance; test scores tell only part of the story.
For years, many colleges used geography as one way to create a diversified student body. Although a campus might still have more students from New England if that were its location, admissions offices often looked favorably on applicants from other parts of the country even if their grades and test scores were somewhat lower than top applicants. For a long time, religion was also a consideration in the makeup of student bodies. And in large universities athletic prowess often superseded academic credentials.
But once race became the issue the whole debate changed and became ideological warfare. Proponents of race-blind admissions procedures and exclusionary tests refused to admit that whites still held the strongest hands despite claims that they were being treated unfairly because they were, gasp, that beleaguered mass of white humanity. It seemed that after so many years of preferential treatment, the slightest diminution of their favored position was not to be tolerated.
In the firefighter case, did only those with the highest scores merit promotion though others passed but with lower scores? In one instance a firefighter with learning disabilities was touted as especially deserving of advancement. A friend helped him through arduous study regimens and he scored well. Was his on-the-job performance more or less important than his test-taking ability? What was his reaction time, his demeanor in the face of danger? Was it of no consequence that firefighters are faced with emergency situations when an individual must take quick decisive action?
It has long been understood that some people test well while others do not, and there are many reasons why this is so. Some are personal such as learning style. Others are a result of sub-standard schooling or peculiarities in testing materials that militate against comparable results among applicants from different backgrounds. It isn't clear if any of these elements were present in the firefighter situation, and, in any case, the Supreme Court ruled in much simpler terms. It did seem odd, however, that Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, asserted that New Haven officials had engaged in racial politics when they threw out the test results. I can't recall another time when a justice made such extraneous allegations from the bench. It was unseemly, extra-judicial behavior that cast a cloud over the proceedings.
But whatever one's take on the legal minutiae, there was something obscene about those pictures of grinning white firefighters after their case was won. New Haven is a city with large numbers of blacks and Hispanics who are likely under-represented in top positions at the fire department. To understand the underlying issue of race in municipalities, the recent shootings in New York, not just of black suspects but of black law-enforcement officers by white officers, provide a window into the problem of racial division that continues to exist in the larger society.
A self-identified white Republican called Washington Journal on Tuesday to say he hoped Democrats would "screw up the country so badly" that he, his party and white people in general could re-establish the power that was "rightfully" theirs. He should be comforted that white rights continue to be upheld in the name of so-called "fair-minded, judicious oversight." His power and status are, for the most part, secure, but reverse discrimination is one of this country's phoniest issues.
Submitted by meg on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:00pm.
John McCain
Welcome back to the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week.
 We know what you're thinking. McCain again? We wanted to give the guy a break, since he won our GOP Hypocrite Award an impressive eight times in 2008 alone. But here at BuzzFlash, we call 'em like we see 'em, and we can't close our eyes to Sen. John McCain's hypocrisy.
McCain has been wasting all his available breath lately arguing that the U.S. needs to be on the "right side of history" on Iran, without taking note of what side he's been on in the long history of U.S.-Iranian relations. After it became clear that the recent presidential elections in Iran were fraudulent, McCain suggested that President Obama be more forceful in his condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and align the U.S. with the protesters in Tehran.
But anyone with a mere cursory understanding of U.S.-Iranian relations could tell you that is selfish posturing. Ahmadinejad wouldn't waste a minute in using Obama's words against the protesters, labeling the movement as a foreign incursion from the devilish America. As BuzzFlash editor Mark Karlin wrote, Obama is between the Shah and a hard place.
After insisting that "we must be a symbol of hope for the Iranian people" and getting all weepy on the Senate floor about the murdered Iranian protester called Neda, it's understandable that one might forget about McCain's more distant comments about the people of Iran.
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:22pm.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Michael Winship
California should just be done with it and rename the entire state "Neverland Ranch."
This serves several useful purposes. It would be the ultimate tribute to Michael Jackson, pleasing his most ardent and bereft fans. Further validate the state's Cloud Cuckoo, fairy tale reputation, thus probably promoting additional, revenue-generating tourism. Stand as an accurate metaphor for the state government's airheaded inability to cope with its current financial disaster.
On Wednesday, Governor Schwarzenegger announced that California's deficit has grown to $26.3 billion and proposed billions of additional cuts to education. He declared a fiscal emergency, triggering an automatic 45-day deadline for the state legislature to come up with a plan to cover the shortfall and balance the budget. If that fails, they're banned from considering any other legislation until they come up with a solution.
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 2:50pm.
BUZZFLASH MAILBAG
Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here. You also may comment below; post articles yourself at BuzzFlash.net; or send urls for BuzzFlash to post to: www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.html.
Subject: Sighted, Peace On Earth & Goodwill To All Living Beings
"Peace on earth? How?"
"Troops out now from the Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan War along with our help in securing justice for the Palestinians."
"What about goodwill to all living beings?"
"The start-up is Medicare for all."
"Anything else?"
"Yes we can."
A BuzzFlash Reader
Submitted by Chad on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 1:53pm.
BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE
"Neda" became a symbol for Democracy in Iran! She also became the reason why John McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" would be an atrocity! Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Iranians are good reason not to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 1:18pm.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Christopher Flavelle, David Epstein and Michael Grabell of ProPublica
Just how fast stimulus money is getting out the door to states has been a running partisan squabble of late. Democrats see a raging river. Republicans see a pool of molasses.
But the Obama administration seemed to get one up last week with the announcement that it had reached a closely watched milestone: All states and territories had obligated at least half the highway money they got in the stimulus bill -- and they did it before the deadline.
The announcement could have used an asterisk.
Although states technically met the June 29 deadline laid out in the law [1], 13 still hadn't obligated 50 percent of their total highway funds at the time of the announcement, according to our analysis [2] of Department of Transportation data. Nevada, for one, had committed only 35 percent.
Submitted by alyssa on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:45pm.
 A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Alyssa Morin
In a landmark decision that promises new rights to the gay, lesbian, and transgender populations of India, the Delhi High Court ruled today to abolish a 150-year-old law criminalizing homosexual sex.
The law in question was Indian Penal Code Section 377, a leftover from British colonial rule that deemed sexual acts between members of the same sex "against the order of nature." The high court today determined that criminalizing sex that occurs between consenting adults in private violates the Constitution in the areas of equality, privacy, and protection against discrimination.
While Section 377 has rarely been used to prosecute homosexuals in modern times, it was often used as a tool for blackmailing and intimidating those considered "sexual deviants." The law also provided legitimacy to the social stigma against homosexuality and impeded efforts to prevent the spread of HIV in India, where over 2.5 million are thought to be infected by the virus. It was this latter concern, in particular, that led the Naz Foundation, an NGO focusing on HIV/AIDS awareness, to take up the suit to amend Section 377 in 2001.
That year four Naz workers were arrested in Lucknow, a northern city in India, for distributing educational materials about the prevention of AIDS. The government deemed the literature "obscene" and charged the men with "conspiracy to commit sodomy" under Section 377. The Naz foundation responded by filing a petition to decriminalize consensual gay sex amongst adults and the high court has been deliberating since.
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 10:27am.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Jill Richardson of Commonweal Institute
It seems fitting that the same week we celebrate the independence of our Nation, the House passed historic climate change legislation. In theory, this bill should bring us closer to the goals of oil independence and freedom from the disastrous future of a warming, melting planet. If America is to prosper in the 21st century, then we must take immediate action to reduce our role in causing the climate crisis. And yet, the bill left those of us who care about our shared environment shaking our heads. Is the Waxman-Markey bill is even slightly better for the planet than the status quo, or will it pave the way to increased, legalized pollution? Perhaps the most tragic part of the bill was the compromise with agribusiness interests that was required to secure its passage through the Agriculture committee.
Agribusiness likes to claim that "farmers are the first environmentalists" - a statement that should be true. Sadly, the large corporate interests that drive the agribusiness lobby like to hide behind the image of the American family farmer. And while the American family farmer may in fact be an environmentalist, the new climate change bill further entrenches the status quo of an agricultural system based on unsustainable usage of oil, water, and soil.
|
Technorati Tags: 
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
