Birmingham Blues

With gas down the street at $2.87 a gallon for regular, and reports of prices over $4.00 a gallon elsewhere, I think it’s time to repost this picture:

The Vatican is considering relaxing its ban on condom use for married couples where one partner has HIV/AIDS.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan told La Repubblica newspaper that Pope Benedict XVI asked the Vatican’s council for health care to study the issue.

The Vatican says abstinence is the best way to tackle HIV/Aids.

But last week, a retired archbishop backed the use of condoms for married couples to prevent Aids transmission.

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who used to be Archbishop of Milan, said that in couples where one partner had HIV/Aids, the use of condoms was “a lesser evil”.

Wow, that’s incredibly enlightened of him. A “lesser evil”? Exactly how is it evil for one partner in a marriage to avoid giving a life-threatening illness to the other partner?

I still haven’t figured out how it’s evil to use condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancies and any type of sexually transmitted disease, but that’s just me.

Pam has posted her exclusive interview with David Englin, a delegate to the Virginia Legislature who gave a rousing speech in support of LGBT equality a couple of months ago.

From the House Blend:

Virginia Delegate David Englin (D-45) recently caused quite a stir in the blogosphere; many of us learned about him after he gave a whale of a speech in support of civil equality on the floor of the legislature. He’s proven to be an outspoken ally for the LGBT community, working mightily at the state level to directly challenge the right wing’s message of bigotry and fear.

A fighting Dem who was in the Pentagon on September 11, and served in the Balkans while in the Air Force, David Englin had nothing to gain and everything to lose politically by getting up and sharing these thoughts with his colleagues before that vote:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I’m not going to talk about same-sex marriage. I’m no fool — although others might make a different judgement about a freshman delegate rising in this chamber on the third day of session. But I understand that on the issue of marriage, I’m in the minority, perhaps even in my own caucus. I also sleep very well at night knowing that at some point in the future of this great Commonwealth, those of us of my opinion will be judged to have been on the right side of history. But let’s for a moment forget about the question of same-sex marriage, because this amendment addresses much more than that. We need to be clear and honest: This amendment also outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar private legal arrangements.

We have heard from the other side that this constitutional amendment is necessary to protect conventional marriage. I am blessed with a beautiful and brilliant wife who is the love of my life. In June, Shayna and I will celebrate our tenth wedding anniversary, and I would fight with every ounce of my strength anything that would threaten my marriage. So I would like to know, how exactly civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my marriage?

We have heard from the other side that this amendment will protect families. Shayna and I are blessed with a strong and bright six-year-old son, Caleb, and we have a strong family. My friend the gentleman from Rockingham County, Delegate Lohr, and I have discussed how we come from different backgrounds and different parts of this great Commonwealth, yet we share a deep and abiding commitment to our families. I want nothing more than to protect my family. I spent 12 years wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force to protect my family. I’ve been in harm’s way to protect my family. So I would like to know, how exactly do civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my family? Because if they do, I will be the first one to stand up and fight, because nobody better threaten my family.

Head over to Pam’s to read the rest of the speech and her interview. I think we need some more David Englins in government.

Danny at Doc’s Political Parlor has some very interesting information on how and where Alfa spends its PAC money. This is the same Alfa that spends so much time lobbying against constitutional and tax reform - two changes that could greatly improve life for most of Alabama’s citizens.

Tom Parker is whining again because his fellow justices and the general public are taking notice of his poor job performance. He managed to finish one written opinion in 2005 and one since January, while his colleagues have completed twenty or more on average. That includes Drayton Nabers, the current Chief Justice, who despite having only one-half the caseload of the other justices completed 24 opinions in 2005. Parker ruled on 22 cases in 2005, while his colleagues’ ruling ranged from 47 to 91.

The Chief Justice is expected to administer the court system as well as write opinions, and Drayton, although new to the bench, seems to be managing just fine. Parker, on the other hand, blames his low productivity on his lack of judicial experience and need to hire staff.

I blame it on this: Parker is an idiot with an agenda. That combination never works well. And it’s the last thing we need in the Chief Justice’s office.

Our friends at Brite Blue Dot passed along this information from the United Church of Christ. I knew the networks had refused to show the new UCC ads, but there are some interesting numbers here about the ability of the religious right to be heard on national news programs.

Last year ABC, CBS, and NBC refused to air a commercial created by the United Church of Christ. Recently, ALL THE NETWORKS rejected the UCC’s newest commercial that names the rejection so many people say they experience from organized religion.

Rejection of paid advertising by the networks is just the beginning. For example - James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Richard Land and Gary Bauer have together racked up 36 appearances on the Sunday news talk shows, including Meet the Press and Face the Nation, during the past eight years.

Principle leaders of the United Church of Christ, UnitedMethodist Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), American Baptist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, among others, haven’t appeared once!

It is apparent that the Religious Right political leaders have joined forces to keep mainline religious leaders off the airwaves.

Please add your voice to the growing number of Americans who are calling on the networks to give equal access to progressive religious voices on television.

By going to this site and sending a message to the networks, you can help open our broadcast airwaves to mainline religious voices and find out more about this issue.

Follow this link to sign up:
http://ga3.org/uccoc/join.html?rk=U7MLfynaqr8i

I checked out the link and discovered that it’s part of the UCC’s Accessible Airwaves campaign. If you visit, you can see the ad that’s supposed to be so offensive and read up on the UCC’s efforts to spread a message of inclusion.

Here in Alabama, when our “news” people want comments on a religious issue, they go to John Giles (head of the Christian Coalition) and Larry Darby (head of Alabama Atheists). It’s as if there are no viewpoints between these two. This approach paints all Christians as right-wing fundamentalists and completely ignores people of other faiths. I know it’s supposed to generate controversy and increase ratings or readership, but it’s misleading at best.

There are plenty of Christians and people of other faiths out here who don’t hate gays, who don’t believe that “everyone else” is going to hell, who don’t support unending war, who aren’t trying to bring on Armageddon — and who do believe the most important thing we can do is be of service to others. Why do the networks find that so scary?

A couple who took a $25,000 payoff from the wife’s boyfriend must declare the money as income, according to the Tax Court.

Petitioners are married and lived in DeWitt, Arkansas, when they filed the petition….In 1999, Milton D. Peebles (petitioner) was a police officer in DeWitt. Mrs. Peebles was a patient of Dr. John M. Hestir (Dr. Hestir), who had a medical practice in DeWitt. Petitioner discovered in October 1999 that Dr. Hestir and Mrs. Peebles were having an affair.

Petitioner then lured Dr. Hestir to petitioners’ home on the pretext that Mrs. Peebles needed medical care. Petitioner is about 20 years younger than Dr. Hestir and is capable of being loud and garrulous when angry….Petitioner was angry when Dr. Hestir arrived. At that time, petitioner confronted him with the evidence of the affair and threatened to sue him for $150,000….Dr. Hestir told petitioner that he did not have $150,000,but he did have $25,000. They agreed to meet 2 days later so that Dr. Hestir could pay that amount to petitioner….

Petitioner and Dr. Hestir met in the parking lot of DeWitt Bank & Trust, and Dr. Hestir gave petitioner $25,000 in cash. During the exchange, petitioner and Dr. Hestir had a conversation which petitioner taped. Dr. Hestir said he was sorry about the affair and stated that this was “free money”, but that petitioner should be careful how he spent it because it could be considered income.

Dr. Hestir’s accountant prepared and filed a 1099-MISC, documenting the payment to Mr. Peebles, but Mr. Peebles didn’t report it on his tax return. He contended that the payment was a gift. The Tax Court did not agree.

So what lesson can we take from this, boys and girls? Other than the obvious — don’t run around with married people — be sure that if you’re caught doing so, you document any payoffs you make to avoid lawsuits.

I wonder if the doctor was able to deduct the payment as a business expense.

Hat tip, Raw Story.

Cross-posted at The Green Knight.

OMB Watch is reporting that the Bush administration has targeted numerous US-based Muslim charities, accusing them of supporting terrorism, freezing their assets, telling them nothing about why they’ve been charged, and leaving them with no recourse to address the charges. At the same time, the government continues to award huge no-bid contracts to Halliburton, which has been under investigation since 2001 for doing business with Iran.

[OMB Watch] says the USA Patriot Act gives the government “largely unchecked power to designate any group as a terrorist organization”. Once a charitable organization is so designated, all of its materials and property may be seized and its assets frozen. The charity is unable to see the government’s evidence and thus understand the basis for the charges. Since its assets are frozen, it lacks resources to mount a defense. And it has only limited right of appeal to the courts. So the government can target a charity, seize its assets, shut it down, obtain indictments against its leaders, but then delay a trial almost indefinitely.

Thus far, OMB Watch says, the effort has resulted in the government shutting down five charities that support humanitarian aid in Muslim areas without disclosing any official finding that they were aiding terrorist organizations. But there has only been one indictment, no trials, and no convictions [emphasis added]. “Only one official criminal charge has been brought against a Muslim organization for support of terrorism, and that case has not yet made it to trial.”

According to OMB Watch, dozens of charitable groups have been investigated since 2001. The organizations shut down were not on any government watch list before their assets were frozen, the group adds.

The organization says the result is that Muslims have no way of knowing which groups the government suspects of ties to terrorism. “Organizations and individuals suspected of supporting terrorism are guilty until proven innocent,” it says.

Halliburton, on the other hand, gets the “velvet glove” treatment.

Halliburton has been under investigation by the Treasury Department – which oversees the terror-financing campaign – and the Department of Justice since 2001 for doing business with Iran, which is listed as a sponsor of terrorism.

But, says OMB Watch, rather than seizing and freezing assets “pending an investigation,” Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Justice Department sent an inquiry to Halliburton requesting “information with regard to compliance.”

Halliburton sent a written response explaining why they felt they were in compliance with the law. Halliburton’s defense seemed to rest on the fact
that its dealings with Iran were done through a Cayman Islands subsidiary, not its U.S.-based entity.

Over two years later, in January 2004, OFAC sent a follow-up letter requesting additional information, to which Halliburton responded that March. In July of that year, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas sent a grand jury subpoena requesting documents and the case was referred to the Justice Department.

Gee, you’d think the government would hesitate to do business with a company that it’s investigating for doing business with part of the Axis of Evil. You’d be wrong.

On Sept. 22, 2005, the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives wrote to President George W. Bush, asking that Halliburton be suspended from hurricane relief contracts for a host of reasons, including “dealing with nations that sponsor terrorism.”

The White House took no action and Halliburton received no-bid contracts valued currently at $61.3 million, and growing, to provide clean-up, rebuilding and logistical assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

So Halliburton gets to skirt the law and get off scot-free.

Last year, an organization called Halliburton-Watch charged that the handling of the case against the company raises serious legal questions: For example, “if Halliburton were a charity would its assets have been frozen like the U.S.-based Muslim charities; even though little is known about the evidence OFAC relied on to freeze and seize assets of Muslim charities, it appears there is much stronger evidence against Halliburton — what legal distinction is OFAC making; if U.S. charities formed Cayman Island subsidiaries could they avoid the USA PATRIOT Act, IEEPA, and Executive Order restrictions on dealings with groups or countries linked to terrorism?”

Well, we all know Halliburton is doing a heckuva job — and doing it on our dime.

Halliburton has also become the poster child for waste, fraud and abuse among U.S. contractors in Iraq. To date, it has received more than $12 billion in contracts there, many of them on a no-bid basis. According to Pentagon reports, the company failed to account for 43 percent of its Middle East expenses, with $1 billion of those being considered “unreasonable” and another nearly half-billion in the “unsupported” category, according to Defense Department auditors [emphasis added].

Funny, I thought conservatives favored private support for charities and cutting the waste out of government programs. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Cross-posted at The Green Knight.

Any of you out there looking for a mate for your daughter? She must be a virgin between the ages of 12 and 24 who’s willing to marry a crazy old coot. Shakespeare’s Sister has the story. I’m not sure whether to laugh or puke.

Michael Thelemann, 45, of Bray, OK, has put a sign in his yard offering to pay $1,000 for a virgin bride between the ages of 12 and 24. His neighbors are none too pleased, with at least one saying she feels like she’s “living down the street from a pedophile.” Gee, I can’t imagine why she thinks that. Thelemann, on the other hand, just thinks his neighbors are “wicked.”

He thinks his neighbors are wicked? Sounds like projection to me.

I’ve been invited to join the team at The Green Knight, one of my very favorite blogs! The writing is excellent, the analysis is thoughtful, and I really appreciate the progressive faith perspective. The Green Knight has been part of my blogroll, and a daily read for me, for some time now. If you’re not already a reader, click over and check out Green Knight, The Whamstress, and — now — yours truly.