Sorry if it appears that I’m abusing my blog “bully-pulpit” here, this started as a response to one of the comments to the post below, but it started to grow a little larger than the traditional comment.

In comments, Earnest noted the following :

My suggestion is that despite there being a larger minority presence in the Democratic party, as Greg pointed out, minorities *seem* to advance further in the Republican party because Republicans appear to be more willing to accept exceptional minorities.

Now in the previous post, there were four people mentioned who I think probably qualify as the “exceptional minorities” in question : Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts.

Now as far as Clarence Thomas is concerned, there was a ton of controversy about his nomination that continues to this day. Anita Hill aside, he didn’t exactly get a favorable rating from the American Bar Association. The real reason that he was put on the Supreme Court wasn’t because the Republicans were intent on making the high court ethnically diverse. It was because they were replacing Thurgood Marshall (who was appointed by a Democrat). Unless they wanted to be labeled racists, they had to appoint a black guy. The Republicans weren’t making a bold stand, they were trying to catch up to a standard that had been set by Democrats thirty years earlier.

As far as Rice and Powell are concerned, that was just another situation where the GOP was forced to live up to the same standards that the Democrats had already set, as this article from AsianWeek points out :

Colin Powell. Several women. A couple of Latinos and an Asian American. By the time President-elect Bush announced the last of his Cabinet selections this week, he had managed to assemble a group every bit as diverse as the one put together by the man he will replace.

President Clinton began his presidency in 1993 with the most diverse Cabinet in history, fulfilling a campaign promise to build a government that ?looks like America.?

He also set a new standard for his successors ? one that Bush has met.
. . .
In contrast to Bush?s diverse Cabinet, the incoming House Republican leadership for the 107th Congress picked all white men to head legislative committees. That left Rep. Marge Roukema of New Jersey without a chairmanship, despite 20 years in the House and seniority on the banking committee.

Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, the nation?s largest Latino civil rights organization, said Cabinet diversity did not start with Clinton but that ?his commitment to it has set a standard, which is clearly being followed.?

It’s also worth noting that Colin Powell was picked for the Bush Cabinet because of the celebrity that he had gained through the Clinton administration as well as the fact that his foreign policy experience helped fill a gaping hole in the Bush/Cheney 2000 ticket.

And if Republicans are really “more willing to accept exceptional minorities”, then why did J.C. Watts retire? As this article from last year shows, the GOP leadership saw Watts as more of a crybaby than a colleague

On the other hand, some of Watts’ colleagues have said they were fed up with what they call his “pouting” and “whining.”

One House Republican leader indicated he would not try to talk Watts out of leaving. “I’m not going to make myself available for more pouting,” the Republican leader said, according to an aide.
. . .
Other Republican aides said some of Watts’ colleagues were sick of hearing him threaten to quit or complain that he’s unhappy.

“Same song, second verse,” said one aide.

“It’s become a little too routine,” said another aide, who pointed to Watts’ complaint that he was not given a larger role on the committee considering Bush’s proposal for a Department of Homeland Security.

Watts was obviously tired of being trotted around Washington as the only black Republican in Congress while at the same time being kept “in check” by the House leadership.

But back to Earnest’s original point, does it really seem that minorities are allowed to advance further in the Republican party than the Democratic party? I personally don’t think so, but if I’m wrong, it’s only because we’re in the middle of an Iraqi quagmire for which Colin Powell and Condi Rice are partially responsible. They’re all over the news these days.

Here’s something from Mellifluence that caught my eye :

Frankly, I don’t see why more minorities don’t support the Republican Party. After all, the appear more diverse than the Democrats. When you think of prominent minority Republicans, who do you think of? Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas… until recently, J.C. Watts. There’s even talk that Bush would try to get a conservative Latino on the Supreme Court. Now, quickly, think of prominent Democrat minorities… um… there was Jocelyn Elders, that guy Bill Clinton was friends with, and well…. Even the Presidential candidates who are minorities are seen more as distractions and laughingstocks.

Quick, name a single Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. That’s right, there aren’t any. Okay, how about Republicans in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? Nope, none there either.

But that’s not all. Of the eight members of congress who are “Asian Pacific Americans”, once again there are no Republicans. And when you look at the memberships of the Congressional Native American Caucus and the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, only about 25%-28% of the members are Republicans. You’d think with the Republicans as the majority party in both houses of Congress, if they really gave a shit about minorities, that number would be at least a little higher.

To be fair, 65 of the 68 members of one important caucus are Republicans. That’s the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. Apparently, the only time GOP Congressmen can get motivated about minority issues is when they’re discussing ways to kick them out of the country.

I’ll be the first to admit that the Democratic party has a tendency to take minorities for granted, but at least they’re addressing some of the issues that are important to minority communities? What’s the equivalent on the GOP side? Well, when they’re not making excuses for a racist “slip of the tongue” by one of their peers, they’re destroying social services that primarily help poor non-white people. Sure, Republicans like George Bush can talk a good game about “compassion”, but their actions speak louder than their words.

For the past month or so, I’ve been putting together a website for my girlfriend’s new purse company, Stupid Cupid. If you or someone you know are interested in handmade, vintage-style purses, click on the image below to check the site out :

Why buy your daughter a Barbie, when you can get her a talking Ann Coulter Action Figure :

Amuse your conservative friends and annoy your liberal neighbors with the brand new Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. This incredibly lifelike action figure looks just like the beautiful Ann Coulter, and best of all . . . it sounds like Ann, too! Ann recorded these classic Coulter sayings especially for this action figure.

Push the button on the figure, and you’ll hear such “Coulterisms” as:

“Liberals can’t just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race.”

“At least when right-wingers rant, there’s a point.”

“Swing voters are more appropriately known as the ‘idiot voters’ because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you’re either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster.”

“Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?”

“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like Liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”

This highly collectible doll comes in a display box with information highlighting Ann’s unique contributions to America’s political discourse. If you can’t get enough Ann Coulter, you’ll want to order the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure today!

Ewwww…..Just reading the description makes me feel icky.

This doll comes from the same company that makes the talking George W. Bush and Bill Clinton action figures. What’s really funny is that their selection of quotes, while showing their obviously conservative leanings, is intended to show Bill Clinton as a bumbling liar and George W. Bush as a steadfast hero :

Bill Clinton :

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word is is.”

“Last year the vice president launched a new effort to make communities more liberal . . . livable . . . liberal . . . ahhh, no . . . .”

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, Never! These allegations are false.”

“I experimented with marijuana a time or two and didn’t like it, and didn’t inhale and never tried it again.”

“The last time I checked, the Constitution said: OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. That’s what the Declaration of Independence said.”

“The 21st Century can be our century.”

George W. Bush :

“The presidency is more than an honor, it is more than an office, it is a charge to keep and I will give it my all.”

“I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation.”

“Together we will renew America’s purpose.”

“I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging the struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

“Freedom itself was attacked by faceless cowards, and freedom will be defended.”

“Our priorities are our faith. Our priorities are our family. Our priority is a country we love dearly called America.”

Hmmmm…that’s odd. I guess they just forgot to include any of the hundreds of Bushisms (My current favorite : “I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.”)

I dunno if you’ve noticed this or not, but one of the latest fronts in the “spam wars” is Movable Type blog comments. I’ve been pretty diligent about removing them when they pop up, but it can be a real pain in the ass. For those of you who also have blogs, check out Seven quick tips for a spam-free blog . I’ll probably be implementing a couple of them myself over the next few days. If you see any weirdness with posting or see any comments that begin “Hey, I love your site. Do you ever wish you had a larger penis?”, please drop me a line.

Here’s another one of those “Americans are fat assholes” stories we see every few days :

Even before their second birthday, many American children are developing the same bad eating habits that plague the nation’s adults ? too much fat, sugar and salt and too few fruits and vegetables.

A new study of more than 3,000 youngsters found significant numbers of infants and toddlers are downing french fries, pizza, candy and soda.

Children aged 1 to 2 years require about 950 calories per day, but the study found that the median intake for that age group is 1,220 calories, ? an excess of nearly 30 percent. For those 7 months to 11 months old, the daily caloric surplus was about 20 percent.

“By 24 months, patterns look startlingly similar to some of the problematic American dietary patterns,” said an overview of the Feeding Infants & Toddlers Study, commissioned by baby-food maker Gerber Products Co.

Excuse me?? Study commissioned by Gerber? Isn’t this kinda like Hershey’s commissioning a study that shows that eating chocolate reduces the risk for heart disease and diabetes? (It’s sorta true)

Not that I’m saying these findings are flawed or anything, but seeing that the results of a study that says toddlers are eating crappy food comes from a company that makes baby food, it’s hard to not see this is just a press release elaborately disguised as a scientific study. True or not, any survey with this much potential conflict-of-interest should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Something that popped into my head as I was driving around this afternoon listening to “It’s Alive” by The Ramones (the best live album ever) : If I ever use the terms “transcendent”, “ethereal”, “blistering”, or “sonic assault” when writing about rock and roll, please kick my ass.

Seriously.

I don’t use that word lightly, either. After their union-busting ways have made competition so stiff that grocery stores are “being forced” (in their view) to cut back on worker compensation, now it looks like they’ve been knowingly hiring illegal workers :

Wal-Mart had direct knowledge of immigration violations involving its cleaning contractors at stores across the country, federal law enforcement sources said.

Federal agents raided Wal-Mart’s headquarters and 60 of its stores across the nation Thursday, arresting more than 300 illegal workers in an immigration crackdown at the world’s biggest retailer.

The workers were members of cleaning crews hired by outside contractors, but federal law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity said Wal-Mart knew of the violations. They cited recordings of meetings and conversations among Wal-Mart executives, managers and contractors.

At some point, Americans need to realize that big businesses are willing to hurt anybody and break any laws as long as they’re able to make more money.

Take this latest raid as an example : Wal-Mart was caught with 300 illegal workers. With a maximum fine of $10,000 per worker, even if Wal-Mart has the book thrown at them (which is doubtful, since they’re covering their asses by hiring contractors), they’ll only be out $3 million. That may sound like a lot to you and me, but for a company that makes $245 billion per year, that’s nothing. As long as the possible fines are less than the cost of paying workers what they’re worth, there’s no way Wal-Mart will ever have an incentive to follow the law.

Since our leaders are too dickless to actually pass laws that protect workers, the only real alternative is to hit Wal-Mart where it hurts. Based on the google hits for “boycott wal-mart”, I’m far from the first to come up with this idea. The top search result is an especially good article about how evil Wal-Mart is :

Wal-Mart cultivates an aw-shucks, we’re-just-folks-from-Arkansas image of neighborly small-town shopkeepers trying to sell stuff cheaply to you and yours. Behind its soft homespun ads, however, is what one union leader calls “this devouring beast” of a corporation that ruthlessly stomps on workers, neighborhoods, competitors and suppliers.
. . .
Behind this manufactured cheerfulness, however, is the fact that the average employee makes only $15,000 a year for full-time work. Most are denied even this poverty income, for they’re held to part-time work. While the company brags that 70 percent of its workers are full-time, at Wal-Mart “full time” is 28 hours a week, meaning they gross less than $11,000 a year.

Health-care benefits? Only if you’ve been there two years; then the plan hits you with such huge premiums that few can afford it–only 38 percent of Wal-Marters are covered.

Thinking union? Get outta here! “Wal-Mart is opposed to unionization,” reads a company guidebook for supervisors. “You, as a manager, are expected to support the company’s position. … This may mean walking a tightrope between legitimate campaigning and improper conduct.”
. . .
Wal-Mart is an unrepentant and recidivist violator of employee rights, drawing repeated convictions, fines, and the ire of judges from coast to coast. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has had to file more suits against the Bentonville billionaires club for cases of disability discrimination than any other corporation. A top EEOC lawyer told Business Week, “I have never seen this kind of blatant disregard for the law.”

Likewise, a national class-action suit reveals an astonishing pattern of sexual discrimination at Wal-Mart (where 72 percent of the salespeople are women), charging that there is “a harsh, anti-woman culture in which complaints go unanswered and the women who make them are targeted for retaliation.”

Workers’ compensation laws, child-labor laws (1,400 violations in Maine alone), surveillance of employees–you name it, this corporation is a repeat offender. No wonder, then, that turnover in the stores is above 50 percent a year, with many stores having to replace 100 percent of their employees each year, and some reaching as high as a 300 percent turnover!

This seriously needs to stop. If anybody out there knows of a good resource to go to for more Wal-Mart boycott info (I’m thinking more along the lines of moveon.org, not some online petition), please let me know.

I guess it shouldn’t be that surprising that many men’s “lifestyle magazines” are incredibly mysoginistic, but this one from AskMen.com sent in by my friend Ross really makes me sick.

Whether or not men know it (or want to admit it), women are in complete control of the sexual arena. They know that a woman’s physical appearance is an irresistible drug to men. They know that lust can temporarily stun a man’s ability to reason. They know men want sex and will do anything — even act contrary to their inherent masculine natures — to get it.

They know they can turn even the most macho he-man into a begging puppy dog just by a secret, throaty whisper in the ear. They know they can manipulate a man into spending thousands of dollars on them with the bat of an eyelash or the tip of the tongue flitting out between the lips. They know that they can get away with behavior that society would never tolerate in men.

This is an awesome power, and women are experts at wielding it. Sex should be an intimate bond between two equal partners, but for women it is first and foremost a tool. They addict men to their sexuality and then withdraw it to keep them panting for more. They dangle sex in front of men like a carrot on a stick, knowing full well that they can get men to do anything they want them to do.

They are masters at sexual manipulation…

Maybe I’m just being naive, but I’m really shocked that a major magazine would print something this awful. Do they (or their readers) really believe that all women are manipulative bitches? It’s really depressing to think that any view this offensive would have a home in a mainstream publication. If you’d like to complain about this bullshit, you can email their editors by clicking here, here, here, and here.

In one of the first posts on this site, I wrote about the U.S. military’s use of “illegal” weapons in Iraq. Well, now we’re seeing the inevitable results of this kind of immoral warfare.

Jutting up from the middle of a vegetable field, the burned out missile is a conspicuous reminder to farmer Abbas Ali that the danger is not over six months after the end of the Iraq war.

The U.S.-led coalition’s disposal of munitions ? which has progressed to a rate of about 100 tons a day ? is not fast enough for Ali, 25, who has seen neighbors lose an eye or a leg and even their lives to the deadly leftovers that remain in their homes, yards and fields.

“We’ve asked them to come clean it up but they do nothing,” he said, crossing his arms in anger.

The problem, according to U.S. coalition officials, is that there’s too much of it. The country is littered with excess ammunition ? up to 1 million tons of it.

“We’re still finding ammunition in backyards everyday,” acknowledged Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. commander of troops in Iraq. “It’s a significant task, and we continue to work on it everyday.”
. . .
Attiya’s home is pockmarked with shrapnel from what he said were cluster bombs dropped during the war. He also found small grenades on the roof of his home and near the fence bordering his land. He and his brother threw what they found into the river.

“I asked the soldiers to help us but they don’t. What else can we do? I know it might explode but I do it for my kids,” he said.

As he talked, two neighborhood boys scampered on top of the tank. “Our kids, they know nothing,” he said. “They pick it up like toys.”

Weren’t we told that all of our bombs were precision bombs that almost always hit their targets? Oh wait, even our “precision” bombs have a high failure rate.

The U.S. military is fighting perhaps the most accurate air war in history, with most of the 8,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles loosed on Iraq blasting their intended targets.

But “precision” weapons also miss. Human and mechanical errors send 10 per cent or more astray, Pentagon and civilian experts say ? a disastrous percentage for civilians living near the intended targets.

“No weapons system is foolproof,” said U.S. Lt.-Cmdr. Charles Owens, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Qatar. “We’ll always have one or two that go off target.”

Some of the dozens of Iraqi civilians killed and wounded may have fallen victim to U.S. precision weapons that, for reasons of mechanical failure or human error, struck homes, markets or city streets rather than military targets.

“Statistically, several hundred of those have missed to some degree,” said Rob Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons.

As I also said back in March :

What other industry is allowed to have a 10% failure rate?? If one-in-ten infant car seats ended up killing a baby, there would be an uproar. If one-in-ten SUV’s exploded whenever you stick the key in the ignition, there would be a massive congressional investigation and the auto industry would go bankrupt. If one-in-ten Big Macs contained broken glass, they’d be burning Ronald McDonald in effigy. When the defense industry has a 10% failure rate, they get more than $500 billion dollars in tax money (not to mention kill thousands of people).