Good Thing Khartoum Doesn't Have Internet Access

So I just came across this from the CBC

A man from Prince Albert is preparing to leave for Sudan to work undercover in the fight for human rights.

Mohamed Daoud is volunteering with the Sudan Human Rights Organization, a group banned in his country of birth.

He's going alone, but once over there he hopes to meet with other members of the organization in order to investigate human rights violations.

[edit]

Daoud e-mails people in his organization and contributes to online articles that are often critical of Khartoum's military government, which has been accused of allowing the killings in Darfur to continue.

He plans to meet secretly with people from his cyber-society when he gets to Khartoum.

The government has loosened its grip on human rights organizations somewhat in recent years, but watching the government is still a dangerous pursuit, Daoud said.

"Usually governments in that part of the world, they don't recognize human rights groups. They don't like them. They don't give them any freedom to work. So it's hard for them to work publicly," he said.

You know, if you have been critical of Khartoum and realize that going there is dangerous, but still intend to go there "undercover," it might be in your best interest not to announce your intention to the CBC.

Hyperbolic Hootenanny

Some interesting clips from yesterday's anti-gay rally in front of the Capitol.

"Marriage is under attack!" cried out Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), also at the rally.

"We can have anarchy!" warned Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.).

Hmmmm. I think they're finally onto us. I often attack things by arguing that I should have a right to join them. It's all part of the Homosexual Agenda-- fall in love with someone of the same sex, have a wedding ceremony and declare your love before friends and family, live as married people do, do things like buy a house together, have children, and spend your life trying not to worry about being denied the right to see each other in a medical emergency. It's all part of the radical homosexual agenda to bring society to its knees by seeking out ways to have our families turned into political punching bags.

But it gets more insane, because if we don't amend the U.S. Contitution to ban same-sex marriage then this is going to happen:

Said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute: "We [will] have boys who are going to be in with your girls in the locker room and the restrooms."

Apparently with same-sex marriage legalized in 1 of our 50 states this is already happening:

Added Exodus International's Alan Chambers, who said he quit homosexuality 14 years ago: "Our children are being raped every day of school by what's being taught. Are you mad? I'm mad. I'm so mad. God have mercy."

Huh? Thanks for making it so easy for us to point out the obvious-- that you're out-of-your-gourd crackpots who wouldn't know reality if it kicked you squarely in the ass.

Wait a sec, the shared bathroom threat sounds familiar, it harkens back to another battle over a constitutional amendment. Except for that one should have been ratified but wasn't because of the distortions and paranoia of right-wingers-- the ERA. It's downright Schlaflyesque.

So, enough with this already. I suppose we'll hear more about this issue designed to manufacture right-wing outrage from now until November, then again in the summer of '08.

Anti-Reality Force Field

Who do you suppose makes them, Halliburton?

Clearly this guy has one, as reality makes a dead stop at the tip of his nose.

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."

He must be referring to nuclear war, right? Iraq? or maybe children dying from hunger or preventable diseases? bird flu?

Nope, it's gay marriage. Nothing is more important than using the U.S. Constitution to nullify a few thousand marriages that are only recognized in 1 out of 50 states-- all in the name of defending marriage and protecting American families. Makes you wonder if he's breathing something other than air. Even more stunning is that he is from Louisiana, so you'd think that he'd believe that hurricanes are a bigger threat than gay marriage.

Fortunately today's cloture vote was 49-48, not enough to reach the floor for an official up-or-down vote. Lovely! Now that is what I call "real progress"! (In 2004 the vote was 50-48.)

Sir, I dub thee Demagogue of the Day.

By the way, John McCain can officially kiss his chances of right-wing support good-bye in 2008, as he voted against it. (Dodd, Rockefeller and Hagel didn't make it to the vote.

Just how obvious and desperate...

is the GOP GOTV-machine?

This afternoon Bush is preparing to (re)proclaim his "strong" support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning all states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Why? The Senate is scheduled to vote on the issue on tomorrow. The bigger "why?" is that there is an election in 4 months and they want to piss off the right-wing voters so that they remember to vote against the "homo-lover" party.

So, here's the test, does this last minute, last ditch effort really count as "strong" support from Bush among social conservatives? Or will they wise up and see through this ridiculously transparent stunt? (Then again, some of these people actually believe that same-sex marriage is the biggest threat facing America today. Go figure.)

Is it also possible that the corners of Rove's favorite wedge issue aren't as sharp as they used to be. In the absence of any high-profile stories about same-sex marriage will this strategy flop? Will it backfire among people who rank dozens of other issues as having a higher priority than banning complete strangers from marrying via the constitution? (War, terrorism, economy, jobs, health care, bird flu, to name a few.) Massachusetts has not shriveled up and fallen into the ocean, heterosexuals have not divorced in droves citing "gay marriage" as the cause.

I have a theory-- or perhaps it's just wishful thinking-- that it is possible that the issue is losing its power. More importantly, that it doesn't have the neverending, perennial strength of the abortion issue.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP can sucessfully resurrect the gay boogeyman for the 2006 election cycle.

The Cutting Edge of Marital Fidelity

From the Associated Press:

A (Malaysian) man who apparently severed his penis in an attempt to convince his wife that he was faithful to her was recovering after surgery to reattach the organ at a northern Malaysian hospital, a news report said Tuesday.

The 41-year-old man, who was not identified, got into an argument last Friday with his wife, who found a text message on his mobile phone from another woman. The man was heard by his son shouting that he wanted to prove he was not having an affair, the New Straits Times reported.

The assertion was followed by loud screams and the man emerged from his room bleeding profusely, his 14-year-old son quoted as saying. His wife rushed him to hospital.

Michelle Malkin's Moralizing Strikes Out

On her blog, Michelle Malkin refers to a recent USA Today article that described the Colorado Rockies pro baseball team as "an organization guided by Christianity — open to other religious beliefs but embracing a Christian-based code of conduct they believe will bring them focus and success." Malkin hails this as "refreshing" news, and she writes:

Wait until the ACLU hears about this.

Unlike so many other professional athletes in debauchery-filled locker rooms, the members of the Colorado Rockies baseball team do more than say token prayers. Its managers take faith and character seriously.

But Malkin manages to make herself look particularly silly because, as she herself notes, subsequent articles in two Colorado newspapers reported that USA Today misrepresented the influence of religion on the team. Malkin admits that the USA Today article may have "got it wrong," although she wonders if the real explanation might be that the team "doesn't want 'bad publicity' over the fact that many of its players hold Christian prayer meetings instead of partying."

Of course, had Malkin taken the time to actually read these articles, she would have understood why several Rockies players took issue with USA Today's depiction. For example, this is what Rockies pitcher Jason Jennings told the Denver Post about the original article:

"It was just bad. I am not happy at all. Some of the best teammates I have ever had are the furthest thing from Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to have good character. They can be separate. It was misleading."

The Denver Post article also clarified this point:

The (USA Today) story stated that men's magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Maxim could not be found in the Rockies' clubhouse, but that Bibles were present.

Several players read Maxim in the visiting clubhouse during the Padres' series this week. Two separate issues sat on the center coffee table Wednesday.

"I have never seen a Bible (out in the open) in our clubhouse," said pitcher Aaron Cook, who has led the team's chapel service during spring training. "Most of the guys on this team are Christians, but not all of them. And the fact is you don't build a winner around just Christians. If that was the case, everybody would be doing it."

I could understand a Christian conservative writing a post like the one Malkin wrote if it had been written on the day the USA Today article appeared. But what amazes me is this: Malkin actually wrote her post praising the Rockies' "Christian" behavior and excerpting 7 paragraphs of the original article after the follow-up articles revealed that USA Today had seriously misrepresented the team.

It's one thing to be smug and ignorant. But it's another to remain smug and ignorant even when subsequent reports shatter your conclusion.

Brewing Storm

I don't know if this is getting any play in the US press, but it was a big story here a couple of days ago (for some reason, Blogger wouldn't let me post anything yesterday). The European Court of Justice, the highest judicial organ of the EU, struck down a post-9/11 deal between the EU and the US under which European airlines have to give the US government a bunch of information about all of their passengers on flights to or over the US.

EU functionaries and airline officials are busy trying to find a fix so the deal can be put back in place. The court stayed its order until September, and chances are a solution will be found before then. Otherwise, transatlantic air traffic could be severely affected, and some airlines are already sounding dire warnings.

It's important to realize that the court did not say that passengers have a basic right of privacy, such that a deal like this one is inherently improper. The problem was that, in ordering the airlines to provide the information, the EU's Council of Ministers violated a privacy directive created by the all-powerful EU bureaucracy: the Commission. So presumably the directive could simply be amended, though EU law is such a byzantine and boring subject that I can't claim to know what complications might be involved.

However, I can attest that this particular complication sounds very much like the EU that I know and love:

It is understood the commission will look at drawing up a new directive by the end of September, which will be difficult because Brussels shuts down for six weeks over the summer.

Even if the deal can be rehabilitated eventually, privacy advocates are happy about the court's decision. They've been going on TV to tell everyone that the US system doesn't make anyone safer, and in fact it's counterproductive because it produces a flood of data that security agencies can't handle.

I don't know about that, but I did find this both amusing and troubling:

On numerous occasions, European aircraft have had to turn back halfway across the Atlantic because the US homeland security department has "red flagged" a passenger on board after studying data provided by airlines.

In many instances, this has been a result of mistaken identity - in some cases caused by spelling or other errors on the US authorities' watchlists.