Christian right throws Palin under the church bus

Conservative Christian leaders are forming a chorus to denounce John McCain's pick of a working mother for his Vice President. They're saying that Palin is sacrificing her family on the altar of her career and shows "anti-family" values. They further argue that this effort to win the pro-family political argument is dismissive of pro-family values.

As I suggested in my earlier post, John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate was ill-advised. Some 26 percent of Americans have indicated that they will not vote for a woman for president. Those 26 percent, I surmised, would mostly come from the right, and I was right.

Yes, voters—conservative, moderate, and liberal—extremely turned off by Palin's extreme lack of experience.

Yes, voters are concerned that an unknown, like Palin, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency (especially considering McCain's age and cancer history).

Yes, voters are perplexed by Palin's dangerous hardline stances on every matter, including women's choice, health care, energy, gun control, the environment, sex education, and the teaching creationism in public schools.

Yes, they're concerned by the abuse-of-power investigation against her.

But now, as I predicted, even the hard-right evangelicals are dismissing her candidacy. In fact, their leaders and vocal members are strongly voicing that McCain's pick was "anti-family." This is sad and unfortunate, but let's just say that McCain should have seen this coming.

There's much more below the fold:

This Internet entry by the well-respected conservative preacher Voddie Baucham shows that the Christian right is very unhappy wit the Palin pick. They see it as an "anti-family" choice by John McCain. Here are some excerpts from his blog piece:

I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick.

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy.

It gets better:

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles.

And then Baucham goes for the kill:

In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, "It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion." How pro-family is that?

And it's not just Baucham. Look around and you'll find conservative voices rising against the notion of a woman as Vice President. There are way too many to cite on this blog, but I'll quote from one more.

Mrs. Palin has five children; one of whom is four months old with special needs. The job of vice president is a 24/7 job. So, too, is motherhood. If you give any time at all to anything else but motherhood, you, mom, have to rob an equivalent amount of time from mothering.

Mrs. Palin has agreed to hand in her motherhood membership by agreeing to a full time job which will replace the time she has for her children. D.N.A does not spell mom, Mrs. Palin. Children spell mom: T.I.M.E.
Michael Corenhas endorsed McCain’s choice. He has bowed to Nebuchanezzar’s image and lost all credibility in my eyes. He used to be a staunch ally in the battle against radical liberalism and now he has become the object of ridicule by his left wing peers.

Mrs. Palin is on the verge of sacrificing her family on the altar of the government of man. I pray that her priorities become properly re-arranged before it’s too late. She may very well be a great governor but there’s a mighty difference between running a state with less than one million people and becoming the most powerful woman in the world at the expense of your children.

I hope the two persons I mentioned at the beginning will stay true to their message that motherhood is not for sale to the highest bidder, even if the bidder is your country.

As much as I abhore what Palin stands for, I think it's wrong for the Christian Right to throw Palin under the church bus. Palin should not be marginalized and judged by the right as being a poor mother and bad Christian role model. She, like Obama, McCain, and Biden, should be judged by American voters purely on her viewpoints and readiness to hold one of the highest elective offices in the land.

But, I also want to say: "I told you so."
Read More......

Why many conservatives will shy away from Palin

Early reactions are mixed to John McCain's pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice President. This we do know about her:

* Palin is anti-choice.
* She is a member of the NRA.
* She hates polar bears and is trying to get them removed from the list of endangered species.
* She is a creationist and believes creationism should be taught in our public schools.
* Eighteen months ago, she was the mayor of a town of 7,000 people.
* She's being investigated by the Alaskan legislature in an abuse-of-power scandal where she allegedly fired the Commissioner of Public Safety because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
* She refused to fill out a Project VoteSmart Questionnaire two years ago, despite the urging of John McCain.

But this choice will explode in McCain's face, and I'll explain why below the fold.

It was a sad time in Democratic politics when Hillary Clinton's gender and Barack Obama's race played an important part in the campaign. It showed just how strong misogyny and racism played a strong role in some voter's preferences.

And if you think this sad trend ends with the Democratic Party, I'm here to tell you that it will become worse when this situation is viewed through the eyes of many Republicans.

While some national polls have shown that more than 90 percent or more of Americans say they'd vote for a woman as President, a study by Northern Illinois University shows otherwise. The political scientist behind the study, Matt Streb says that people are hiding their true feelings because they know that opposition to a candidate based on their gender is socially unacceptable. However, in the anonymity of the voting booth, they are much less likely to vote for a woman.

Call it the Bradley Effect for women. I know it's very sad. I'd like to see McCain and Palin lose the election based on his poor judgement and cozy relationships to lobbyists and her inexperience (she wasn't even Governor of Alaska when Obama began running for President) and Neanderthal beliefs.

But back to NIU's and Streb's study.

If people tell pollsters that they're comfortable with the idea of a female candidate, you probably won't get very far by asking them if they're really just hiding their true feelings. Instead, Streb and his NIU colleagues went at the question another way. They asked a test group of respondents to say how many of four different statements made them "angry or upset": the rising price of gas, the high salaries paid to professional athletes, pollution by large corporations and laws that require seat-belt usage. The researchers obtained a base number using those four statements, then added a fifth: "a woman serving as president." With that statement in the mix, the mean number of "angry or upset" responses increased by so much that the researchers believe that about 26 percent of their respondents were troubled by the "woman serving as president" addition.

There you have it. Unfortunately for Palin, any possible bounce she might get from disaffected Hillary supporters will be lost due to sexist perceptions. And before we start pointing the finger at men, women share equal blame in this:

According to a summary of the findings in an NIU press release, the researchers saw "virtually equal" levels of resistance among male and female respondents and "nearly equal" levels among respondents with different education levels. The researchers didn't test for the separate-but-similar question of race, but Streb surmises in the press release that the same sort of "social desirability" distortion is "almost certainly going to be a factor" in polls measuring support for Barack Obama.

The strawman argument has already been posed to me: "But people's perceptions will change because she's running for Vice President, not President. It is my opinion that many people view the Vice President as a "heartbeat away" and this unfortunate effect will not be buffered.

Furthermore, while I have no statistical evidence to support this, I've spent enough time among conservatives and evangelicals to know that these people strongly believe a woman's place is in the home and definitely not in politics. This explains their extreme distaste—and I'll even call it downright hatred—of Hillary Clinton.

Do you really think the Promise Keepers will support a ticket with a woman on it? They still believe that women are subservient to men. And what of the conservative base that praises Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who believes a women's place is in the home? Even Ann Coulter got an ovation from her fellow wingnuts when she said that women should not be allowed to vote.

When looking at the base conservatives in the Republican party, you very well may see a much higher percantage of 26 percent withholding their vote because of McCain's pick for VP. This is an unfortunate truth for the Republicans. While I think voters should only consider the character and merits of a candidate, there are many out there that will rely on their old prejudices while in the voting booth.
Read More......

Olbermann slams Limbaugh over misogynistic remarks

Keith Olbermann shows America what a real sexist pig Rush Limbaugh is for his outlandish remarks concerning Elizabeth Edwards.

Limbaugh is a man without shame.

Read More......

Rockland Legislature rightly denies Vanderhoef a pay raise

The Rockland County Legislature has used its voting clout to echo the sentiments written in this blog: County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef has absolutely no business asking for a raise when it's become obvious that he's brought the County's finances to the brink of ruin.

A few weeks back, Vanderhoef mandated that all county agencies freeze overtime and cut all non-essential spending. Also, some departments, notably the Department of Highways will cut back to a 4-day, 10-hour daily work schedule.

It has become apparent that Vanderhoef has failed in the ultimate test of governing. The Republican county executive—and perennial candidate for other offices—did not plan for an economic downturn of this size and got caught more than $18 million short this year.

A small county like Rockland cannot afford $18 million deficits and such problems can only be the result of a budgeting machinations that are short-sighted and poorly thought out. Vanderhoef's most notable mistake for 2008 was that he over-predicted the revenues from sales and mortgage taxes over the last few years, and his formulations didn't take into account the current recession.

Rockland County is in a terrible mess.

For this reason, the legislature denied Vanderhoef a $5,511 raise, making him the sole full-time county employee not to get a raise this year.

And this is exactly what Vanderhoef deserves: He should be paid on his merit as a county executive. I would have gone further if I was a member of the County Legislature; I would have asked Vanderhoef to take a pay cut. Anybody responsible for screwing up the County's budget two years in a row should either consider resigning from office or working for a lower salary.

The property taxes of County residents were increasing mostly because Vanderhoef's previous two budgets grossly missed the mark. And then Vanderhoef turns around and again asks for a raise for himself (the raise he asked for in November was a whopping 14-percent increase). Does this sound like a politician that cares for his constituents? No this sounds like a guy trying to get fat off of the public he's supposed to be serving.

From the Journal News:

The action brought a mixed response, with one legislator saying no raises should have been granted and another asking if Vanderhoef had changed his position on seeking a pay increase.

Vanderhoef said his salary request was in keeping with what every other county worker received, while his supporters labeled the raise denial as politically motivated and disrespectful.

I'm sorry, Vanderhoef can plead poverty or claim that this denial of a raise is inequitable, but I'm not crying for him. Vanderhoef makes $137,000 a year and a pay raise would have taken him to $143,000. He's paid more than twice of what the average family in the County earns. Vanderhoef should suffer as we have.

In the meantime, I'm happy that the Legislature did not hold back raises for sixteen other non-union County employees who toil under Vanderhoef; their raises were well earned and they are not responsible for Vanderhoef's budget malfeasance. In fact, all County workers, except Vanderhoef, are getting their well deserved raises.

When the motion was first raised, Legislators Gerold Bierker, R-Bardonia, and Ed Day, R-New City, tried to table the request, but were defeated 12-5.

Those of you living in Day's (the brown-nosed guy pictured above with Vanderhoef) and Bierker's legislative districts should remember this: These two care more about the salary of the County Executive than they care about how this county has been mismanaged and how tax payers are paying for Vanderhoef's incompetence. They could care less about the salaries of other hard-working County employees. Their actions only prove that the Republican Party, even locally, doesn't care about your taxes, they care about gaining power and keeping it.

The legislature then voted 14-3 to table the motion concerning Vanderhoef's salary. Legislators Doug Jobson, R-Stony Point, Patrick Moroney, R-Pearl River, and John Murphy, R-Orangeburg, voted against the action.

All Republicans again, hmm? They'll have a lot of explaining to do when they talk to their constituencies in the coming months.

The Legislature next voted 10-7 to pass the motion addressing the remaining pay raises. Legislators Bierker; Day; Jobson; Joseph Meyers, D-Airmont; Jacques Michel, D-Spring Valley; Philip Soskin, D-Monsey; and Frank Sparaco, R-Valley Cottage, voted against the measure.

On Friday, Vanderhoef said he expected to receive a raise that was in line with what was negotiated with the unions. He said he worked full time and felt he had asked for a fair increase.

But Vanderhoef is not a union member, he's not a rank-and-file worker, and he won't suffer financially if he doesn't get his raise. He gets a really FAT PAYCHECK as it is.

"I didn't single myself out then or now," Vanderhoef said. "I submitted it because I thought it was fair because everyone was getting a raise."

Boo hoo! It's really an embarrassing to have a whiner as our County Exec, isn't it? It's almost as embarrassing as having one that's inept at his job. But nothing's more embarrassing as having a County Executive who hates his job so much that he constantly campaigns for other jobs. And Rockland County is stuck with someone who has all these dubious qualities. Read More......

We've been bamboozled! Radiation leaking from Indian Point!

This afternoon, I heard the news that radioactive Strontium 90 has been found in in a monitoring well outside the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant for the second time in little more than a year.

This comes just a few days after Indian Point delivered to the media its glowing "independent" review of the plant's operations. Of course, this positive critique was funded by Entergy, the corporation that runs Indian Point.

Let's not forget that it's not beyond corporations to lie. It's not beyond commission members to cover up problems. It's not beyond corporate boards to purposely deceive their shareholders and the public when profits are at risk.

While the test results show Strontium 90 levels that are about a sixteenth of federal limits for drinking water, it doesn't mean that these levels are not harmful to the fish and wildlife that live in or near the Hudson River.

Entergy's new spin on this problem is that new, more sensitive testing equipment made these "traces" of Stromium 90 more easily found. Of course, it has nothing to do with the possibility that the there are increased levels of radioactive materials entering into the river.

But the testing isn't over. According to the Journal News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will fast-track the testing of a a portion of the sample that they took from the well during the test, so we may not know the full impact of the radioactive leak problem for some time.

Meanwhile, the NRC has granted Riverkeeper a hearing to debate the relicensing of Indian Point. Riverkeeper is challenging Indian Point and is joined by the State of New York, Westchester County, the Attorney General of Connecticut and other New York municipalities and local activist groups. Rockland County is not named in the list of regional governments challenging the power plant's licensing.

Riverkeeper contends that spent fuel pools leak, and metal fatigue and corrosion of critical reactor systems are unacceptable. Riverkeeper says that Indian Point's impact on Hudson River fish populations, and Entergy's inadequate severe accident analysis were ignored by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

They've certainly got a case going forward.
Read More......

Warwick Advertiser reader slams Sen. Thomas Morahan's pork barrel issues

They're getting wise to Senator Thomas Morahan's slush-fund problems in Orange County:

It is not new to me to point out to elected officials and others for more than five years now to find someone in government or just among the people who will justify “Pork Barrel” gifting to be within the law and a practice for many years that has no legal foundation in fact.

Earlier this year I have corresponded with (Warwick) Supervisor Michael Sweeton regarding pork barrel grant gifting with the people’s money that is not in the legal budget. I wrote to (state) Sen. Thomas Morahan at least five years ago to learn of justification for a pork barrel gift to a summer camp - not even an official organization with the public’s money who have no opportunity to vote on the purposes of our legal, budgeting tax system.

Aside from the under-the-table practice, it sets in place other terrible, political practices, like voting Americans do not need but are in truth being penalized by when we need a balanced economy more than ever. In the current period a gift of $400,000 was made in Middletown to improve a building and now as much as $10 million for a facility in KJ so obviously lobbied for by that community.

Presumably those in office are afraid of losing their office to start any kind of debate or to be viewed as trafficking illegally or for a newspaper to lose some readership. I await with anxiety your response and hopefully appearing in your letters of opinion at the earliest date.

John (Jack) A. Porter

Warwick

Read More......

Our local youth drinking problem

From today's Journal News:

Fennell's Finish Line, 87 N. Middletown Road, was investigated by police after complaints of underage drinking at the bar, according to the Detective Bureau.
Advertisement

Investigating a "Beer Pong" tournament Wednesday night, police said they found two minors participating in the game, as well as a female minor drinking at the bar.

Police referred the business to the State Liquor Authority.

Orangetown police on Wednesday night also cited a minor after they said he possessed alcohol on the grounds of Pearl River Middle School.

In downtown Nyack, where police said they were looking to address quality-of-life issues, police gave summonses Wednesday to three men accused of urinating in public.

William J. Paolino, 22, of 142 Foxwood Road, West Nyack; Brandon J. Knapp, 22, of 178 Treetop Circle, Nanuet; and Keith J. Brady, 22, of 14 Old Brick Road, New City, were released pending appearances in Nyack village court Aug. 26.

It's unfortunate that you can only get a small snapshot of the problem from the morning newspaper. And unfortunately, you get less information from our local leaders.

It's my argument that these are not just isolated incidents of young people, bars, and alcohol. The county, and especially Nyack, has a youth drinking problem. And I'll explain at the flip.

It is not beyond me to go out to the local pub to have a tipple, so I am far from a prohibitionist or an anti-alcohol activist. Drinking responsibly and mindfully should never be frowned upon, I believe.

However, I've witnessed some disturbing trends over the past two years: First, I'm seeing too many local bars in Nyack serving underage drinkers. And second, I'm noticing that some bartenders don't know when to stop serving severely intoxicated clients.

I won't name the bars that are problematic (I don't really need a lawsuit hanging over my head), but these are not places that I regularly frequent. I would also like to point out that I also believe many bars in Nyack and Rockland serve liquor responsibly.

Many months ago, however, I noticed one of the newer bars in Nyack serving alcohol to the child of an acquaintance of mine. At the time, he was only 16. Even if he flashed them a fake ID, there was no doubt that this customer was underage. The bartender obviously made the choice to look the other way. Whether or not this is the bar's unspoken policy is not for me to speculate.

Since then, my eyes have been more open to underage drinking. On more than one occasion, I've seen bartenders at the pub that I frequent refuse to serve drinks to young people, because of lack of sufficient ID. Later, while walking down Main Street, I've seen the same young people carrying on and engorging themselves with obscenely large pints of beer from another establishment.

I'm not the only person who has witnessed such scenes. These stories are so common around Nyack that they're becoming part of the local lore.

And don't start me ranting about the condition that I've seen downtown Nyack in while I've been there on early Saturday and Sunday mornings. It's not uncommon to see vomit on the sidewalks, in building thresholds, and on store windows. There are empty bottles of liquor, plastic cups, and beer strewn in the streets and I've even spotted a used condom or two. And every other week or so, I notice another local shop facade disfigured with a broken plate-glass window.

Although many might only be aware of the ruckus on Artopee Way a few weeks ago, there are actually many fights on the late-nights and early mornings in Nyack. Fights spill out of particular bars and onto the street and the publicans just go about their business. I sincerely wonder how many of these bar managers have actually cut off the taps or called the cops when violence has brewed outside their establishments? They don't need the bad publicity or the loss of business, I guess.

Young people feel invincible when under the influence of liquor. I know this because I was once young and stupid myself. And, unfortunately, when they start drinking, they get what I like to call "beer muscles." And then these kids believe they can whatever they please...and they will do things that they normally wouldn't do. They shout and scream obscenities in the streets, they "get it on" in shady vestibules, they fight, and they urinate, defecate, and vomit in the streets. And unfortunately many of these same young people get behind the wheel and attempt to drive Main Street or Broadway.

Nyack doesn't need to be known as the Binge-Drinking Capital of the Northeast. It doesn't deserve its streets and sidewalks be trashed on a weekly basis, especially on the nights that precede the biggest shopping days.

It's high-time that the Mayor of Nyack got his head out of the sand and grabbed this bull by the horns before somebody's child is killed. Mayor Shields needs to point out the specific trouble-spots to Orangetown law enforcement, he knows where they are. Shields shouldn't rely on the Orangetown Police just to be on guard just to clean up the mess where they can; he needs to become proactive.

Having extra Orangetown police patrols may provide a little peace of mind for some local residents, but it's not going to contain the bleeding. Calling the State Liquor Authority, which is backlogged already, isn't going to solve our drinking problems this summer.

The problem needs to be squarely and severely addressed. If the Village can't address the drinking issue itself, it can address some of the peripheral issues, especially those involving the safety of the village residents. In my opinion, there are several bars in Nyack that should be shut down immediately for their overall irresponsibility and it's the job of the Village of Nyack to lead this charge.

FOR THE RECORD: The writer is a resident of South Nyack.
Read More......

Wal-Mart starts anti-Obama, anti-Democratic campaign

Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the U.S., is calling on its employees to pull the handle for the GOP this November, fearing that a victory by Barack Obama and significant gains by the Democratic Party in the House and the Senate could spell doom to their crassly anti-union business model.

The Murdoch Journal is reporting that Wal-Mart honchos are are forcing store managers and department heads into compulsory seminars where they are being told that Democratic gains in November would lead to unions organizing at Wal-Mart stores.

The big-box Goliath has union-busted in the past by shutting down stores and closing down whole departments where workers attempted to organize. Wal-Mart operates one store in Rockland County, in the village of Airmont.

From the Journal:

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.Wal-Mart opposes proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize by signing a card rather than holding a vote.

read more | digg story Read More......