what's going on here (part XX)...

can someone explain...

1. Why do straights hate gays?

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you. Larry Kramer op-ed in the LA Times

Hatred is indeed a vile thing. In the 60's & 70's, hippies fomenting the Age of Aquarius placed flowers in the rifle barrels of soldiers and riot police trying to prevent their free speech against the Vietnam War. In mid-20th century Europe, Germans blamed Jews as the root of all evil and exterminated 6 million of them. For centuries, black people have faced enslavement and bigotry solely because of the color of their skin. The words of the christianists model, Jesus, order them to dispel hatred:

Matthew 22:37-40 -- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

oh, wait... Jesus didn't say it first:

Leviticus 19:18 -- Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

...and isn't Leviticus what the christianists quote against gays? you can't have it both ways. can you? just asking...

2. Senate limits Gonzales' hiring authority

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors...

...the Senate by a 94-2 vote passed a bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

94 - 2!

Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

are we starting to see the beginning of some return to constitutional normalcy? just asking...

3. Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.

So, what do you suppose kept him off of the list? While the other USA's were allegedly investigating local corruption, Fitzgerald was hunting at the top. How would it have looked, if they had fired him? If the episode has taken this long to get into the MSM and public eye, [Remember, Sen. Diane Feinstein first brought it to the fore weeks ago.] should they have taken action against USA Fitzgerald all hell would have broken loose much louder and sooner. Do you think that Cheney, Rove, et. al. see Mr. Fitzgerald as their Danton? just asking...

4. President Bush: “I will resist all attempts to subpoena WH officials”

With the heat coming down on the White House and Attorney General, President Bush addressed the media today and went on the defensive against Democrats, accusing them of trying to "score political points" rather than seeking the truth. He promised to resist all WH subpoenas and insisted that his deal to let Rove and Miers "meet" with members of Congress is more than generous. President Bush kept making the point over and over that allowing his staff members (i.e. Karl Rove) to testify under oath would hamper his ablility to "get quality advice..."

(Some quality!) There really is flimsy precedent for this stand. Former presidents, including Clinton, allowed WH officials to testify in Congress. The White House and Republicans are using Clinton as an argument in their actions since he removed all of the USA's at the very beginning of his term. It's a bit different. He didn't pick and choose. He removed all of them right as he entered the White House not during his presidency and not people that he had put in the positions. Oh, wait, I forgot about Nixon. He had quality advice also. So, what, possibly, could George W have to hide? just asking...

[3.22.07 Update: George W's father did the exact same thing as Clinton on his taking over the presidency - he fired all the USA's.]


Sources: latimes.com, news.yahoo.com, Washington Post, Crooks & Liars