Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:25 AM

Just seen on TalkLeft, John Ashcroft's fishing expedition is casting a wider net:

The U.S. Justice Department has subpoenaed Planned Parenthood for the confidential medical records of hundreds of women as part of its defense against challenges to a federal law that bans a type of late-term abortion, the family planning organization said on Thursday. Attorney General John Ashcroft said this month the records were needed to find out whether the procedure, called "partial birth abortion" by its critics, was medically necessary.
<snip>
Planned Parenthood said subpoenas had been served on Tuesday at six of its locations -- Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, Washington, Kansas City and Pittsburgh. ABC News reported that the subpoenas demand hundreds of women's medical records.

Here's the full Reuters story. For more information on Ashcroft's earlier subpoenas aimed at teaching hospitals, here are my posts on the initial news story and one court's ruling.

As Ellen Goodman wrote about the USA PATRIOT Act, if you value privacy, it's past time to reel Ashcroft in.

Added later: I'm beginning to suspect that these subpoenas have been written so broadly (in terms of number of patients and the amount of information requested) as a scare tactic to drive patients away. It's become a common tactic among anti-abortion groups to stalk the clinic staff after hours. In Texas, people are harrassing construction workers to prevent a new Planned Parenthood clinic from being built.
The mere existence of these subpoenas prove that patient medical records aren't as private as promised. Not that the government will actually release a list of names and procedures, but they're certainly raising the spectre of exposing these secrets. And even that threat may be enough to deter some of the most vulnerable patients from getting the medical help they want or need.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:01 AM

Got a lot of work stuff keeping me busy today, so my review of Silent Shakespeare last night will be delayed (along with all the other socio-political stuff I want to write). But it's Friday, which is traditionally Cat Blogging Day around the blogosphere, and I simply have to share this photo which has to be one of the cutest cat pics I've seen recently:

(click to enlarge)

Isn't it annoying how cats always get in the way when you're trying to read?

On a related note, while playing with Boopsie yesterday, Ian discovered that she's a southpaw. When attacking string/ribbon/toys/(us) she consistently leads with her left. Ooh! Sinister...

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:45 PM

Aw heck, I've sent this comment to two other blogs, may as well post it here.

First of all, it definitely appears that whitehouse.gov has stopped providing direct links to its press briefings in the last two days. Fortunately, I know how to extrapolate the URLs.

Second, the issue at hand is the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. They have said they need a 60 day extension in order to complete the task they've been assigned. [I won't bother sharing the litany of ways the administration has delayed and denied them resources.] Officially, President Bush has said he supports extending their deadline, but yesterday Speaker Hastert announced he would not permit the necessary legislation to do so, which stops the process.

And (after all that leadup), get a load of today's press gaggle:

Q Claire, can I ask about the 9/11 Commission? Speaker Hastert has said he does not support extending the Commission's time frame for doing their work. Will the President push him to change his mind and support an extension and let an extension go through Congress?

MS. BUCHAN: Well, the President has made his views clear. He supports an extension of the 9/11 Commission. That is the White House view. And we've worked very cooperatively with the 9/11 Commission to ensure that they have all the information necessary to do their job. So the President believes it's important work.

Q Will he press Congress to approve the extension as is necessary for the Commission to do what he says he supports them doing?

MS. BUCHAN: As I said, the President has made his views clear, and that's where it stands from our standpoint as the President --

Q So I'll take that as a "no"?

MS. BUCHAN: Well, the President supports an extension and we've stated that and continue to support it.

Q But when something is really important to him, he often presses Congress over and over and over in speeches and through his staff and public remarks to do what he wants them to do. Will he do that on this issue?

MS. BUCHAN: I've indicated the President's view and he has made that clear. The President's view is that we support an extension.

Q There are reports that Speaker Hastert had rejected a personal plea from Andy Card to extend the deadline. Is that your understanding of it, as well, that Card had requested personally to Hastert to extend the deadline?

MS. BUCHAN: I don't have specifics on conversations they've had. But as I said, our view, the White House view, is to support an extension and that's where that stands.

In other words, it's pretty clear that the administration considers a politically-expedient but toothless statement preferable to taking any actions towards that end. My sympathies in advance for anybody wanting or needing closure from this report. It looks like you'll have to wait a while longer for a truly thorough investigation.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:15 PM

Well, now that that's out of the way, I might be able to ramble about other things that have been on my mind.

This idea was partly inspired by Jo Fish's comments regarding Nancy Pelosi's new blog:

Unfortunately, it's being run by a staffer and it seems to be a wee bit out of touch and condescending to those of us in blogtopia, I think...

More politicians and elected officials are starting blogs to communicate with supporters and constituents.

I enjoy research (that's an understatement -- research is a passion; a necessity of mine as much as food and water), write well, love politics, understand blogging (stylistically, technologically, and who's who).

I wonder whether anybody's hiring researcher/analyst/bloggers? Or am I ahead of the curve in thinking this would be a useful skill combination?

[Downsides: I'm not the only person with this combination of skills; I haven't studied politics academically, although having a Master's in LIS sets me above the competition in other ways; I could see many politicians considering this a low-paying job or a task they can delegate to interns, both to save money and because of the perception that technical savvy is inversely proportional to age; Finally, I don't know if anybody's even thinking along these lines, much less whether any such openings exist...]

That given, this kind of information conduit is an incredibly important role for a campaign/politician/elected official that shouldn't be taken lightly. Done well, it can benefit the campaign. Done poorly, it can harm relations with the public (see the comments to Pelosi from Jo and others). Like technical support (another profession I believe is shamefully undervalued), communicating with supporters and constituents (and potential donors?) shouldn't be left to amateurs.

I suspect eventually this kind of thing will be subsumed into Marketing/Communications departments, but unless someone has the traffic of Dean's BlogForAmerica, blogging wouldn't be a fulltime job. And combining the blogging with information-gathering makes sense; to write effectively, one has to understand the issues and what other people are talking about. The DNC Research Department blogs at Kicking Ass, so there is successful precedent...

At any rate, I'm just musing aloud (or, more accurately, akeyboard). This is a set of skills I have, that I enjoy using, and that I think would be useful, though I don't think anybody's currently hiring for them at the moment. If readers can think of other disciplines or positions which this combination would be useful, I'd love to hear about them. Just trying to keep my options open and think outside the box.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:11 AM

Taking a break from the important issues and back to library science for a moment.

In the latest issue of KM World Magazine, I saw a quote that:

We know that roughly 50% of most Web searches are abandoned

To begin with, this statement raises several doubts. How did they calculate that? What does it mean "50% of most"? How many is that "most"?

But more to the point, they seem to be treating this statistic as a problem to be solved, as a sign that people aren't finding what they want half the time, and that's not necessarily true.

I'm an incredibly heavy web searcher, and an incredibly good one. I'd guess I'm at least in the 95th percentile, and probably higher.

And just looking at my own search patterns, I don't always click through to any links on my search results, and those are considered successes. A few reasons why my searches may appear abandoned, yet actually give me the information I need.

• Because Google gives a line or two of context in the results, sometimes I find the information there and don't need to open any links.
• Sometimes I will Google on a word that I'm unsure of the spelling of. If it's incorrect, Google will often suggest the correct spelling. No need to open any links.
• Similarly, I often use Google definitions and the automatic link of search terms to dictionary.com, which give me information without opening links
• Sometimes the relevant information I'm trying to find is not contained within any links, but just based upon the number of results returned.
• Even when I need several iterations of search terms to refine my query until I get the results I want. [These terms yield too many; this yields too few; this one's just right!]

All these cases may look like abandoned searches to somebody merely monitoring website statistics, because I'm not , but they are providing me with the useful information I'm looking for.

At any rate, I guess I just don't see the significance of that statistic.

Anybody with more academic (or professional) background in information retrieval care to enlighten me?

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:50 AM

Well, that was fast.

Several bloggers have started looking at public statements by Senators and have found over 34 on record opposing it. Since 66 Senators are required for passage, it is D.O.A. Here's Democratic Underground's tally of opponents, and OxBlog is compiling a full list with documentation.

So, the right wing may make a lot of sound and fury, but it really will signify nothing legally speaking. They can't change the constitution. At least, not this way, not this go round.

Initially, I had a huge list of other blog posts on the issue that I wanted to share, but the issue is moving so quickly that it hardly seems worth it any more. Two particularly cogent quotes, and I think we can actually largely lay it to rest.

Anyway, given the amendment's now-certain defeat, I can probably lay the issue to rest. One last thing that needs clarification is Kerry's position. There have been a lot of misleading quotes attributed to him. For the record, he's spoken in favor of amending the Massachusetts constitution to bar same sex marriage. [But then again, as a U.S. Senator, he has no power in that area.] He opposes any attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution and believes the issue should be left to the states. The news clip that's been going around has been edited down to make it appear he's talking about the federal constitution, when he was really only talking about Massachusetts.

I think I'm going to conclude this post with this anti-marriage comment that I found pertinent, amusing and incredibly revealing in how succinctly it gets to the heart of the objections:

It astonishes me why 'a few hundred people' can just rip out the testicles out of America and stick em in a lockbox.

Calling Doctor Freud...

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:05 PM

Interesting. Around lunch, I went looking for today's Scott McClellan briefing. And Whitehouse.gov has had no links to it whatsoever -- not to the live video feed, not to the transcript. Even now, no links to today's briefing, the only news some comments with the Georgian President.

I finally just found it by typing in today's URLs (news stories have the URL format http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/YYYY/MM/YYYYMMDD-N.html, where N increments with each story. The first story of the day is -1, the second -2, and so on) and eventually tracked down today's transcript.

Only one element I want to share with you:

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's views have been very clear on that. He believes that states have the right to enter into legal arrangements that they so choose, and that would include civil unions.

So there you have it. So much for Group 3 voters. One of the triggers for those analyses was this Washington Post article in which CWA director Bob Knight said "conservatives will balk if Bush sanctions an amendment allowing civil unions. And a subsequent article confirms he's already lost that group's support:

Concerned Women for America says because the president's remedy leaves the door open for states to make "other arrangements," it is therefore "defective" -- and CWA cannot support it.

I wonder why they appear to be hiding today's briefing? Regardless, that doesn't change Scott McClellan's unequivocal comments, which I will just repeat for the record:

[The President] believes that states have the right to enter into legal arrangements that they so choose, and that would include civil unions.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:30 AM

Sorry, but I'm still really captivated by the realization I came to in my previous post, so I'm trying to write it out a little more succinctly.

This isn't a (typical) two-sided issue. Opinions can be divided into three major groups (and two possible minor ones):

Group	Marriage?	Civil Unions*?	Comments
1.	Support	Oppose	Insist upon parity and reject anything that might suggest separate-but-equal
1.5	Support	Support	Left off my original list; they're open-minded
2.	Oppose	Support	Reject use of the term "marriage" but Support granting all commensurate rights to same-sex couples
3.	Oppose	Oppose	Do not want to sanction any rights to same-sex couples
4?	Are there any total agnostics on this issue? Libertarians or the like?

^* For the sake of this argument, civil unions includes domestic partnerships, and other terminology used for legal arrangements that provide some, most or all of the benefits of marriage without being called marriage.

Furthermore, there are really two ways the proposed marriage amendment could be written:

1. Prohibiting same-sex marriages, but allowing civil unions
2. Prohibiting both same-sex marriages and civil unions

Combining that with the constituencies above, the following preferences emerge:

Group	Marriage?	Civil Unions?		Amendment A	Amendment B
1.	Support	Oppose		Against	Against
1.5	Support	Support		Against	Against
2.	Oppose	Support		For	Against
3.	Oppose	Oppose		Against	For

Looking at the table, politicians who favor the amendment seem to be at a distinct disadvantage. They only appeal to two constituencies, and it's an exclusive-OR relationship. Members of these groups have already stated they would rather see no amendment than one which treats civil unions in the "wrong" way.

On the other hand, those politicians who oppose the amendment (which includes Kerry, Edwards, and much of the Democratic Congressional leadership) will appeal to a much wider swath of groups than amendment supporters.

And this doesn't include the folks who oppose gay marriage but don't want to amend the constitution over it.

Now, this analysis says nothing about how many voters each group contains. It's entirely likely that there are more people in Groups 2 through 3 than in 1 through 2. But any proposed amendment will only win approval from one group, while the other three will invariably oppose that wording. So unless 2 XOR 3 alone is greater than all the rest, it's still a losing issue for amendment supporters.

At any rate, even if polls state that a majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, it looks like making an amendment the focal point of debate is going to backfire on the Republicans. I can't believe Rove blundered this badly.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:21 AM

I'm beginning to think that Bush's push for a Constitutional amendment may actually be a good thing for marriage supporters and those who want the Republicans out of office.

Get a load of this Washington Post (Flash) slideshow. On the one hand, you have happy families hugging and kissing and rejoicing in their love. On the other, you've got angry protestors waving nasty signs. [And a couple photos of pensive politicians to round out the whole thing.]

I'm sure the slideshow is intended to present a balanced portrayal, but the newlyweds look so much more... sympathetic... than any of the other groups. These are weddings. These are marriages. The more such couples there are, the more images of them, the harder it will be to heartlessly break them up.

As I pointed out during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, there are three sides in this debate:

1. Those who want same-sex marriage legalized and will accept nothing less.
2. Those against same-sex marriage, but supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships/marriage under any other name but marriage.
3. Those who oppose same-sex marriage and oppose civil unions et al.

Since Lawrence v. Texas last summer, Bush has been trying to be as vague as possible on gay rights issues in order to appeal to as many people as possible. I mean, as long as he only spoke out, people in Group 1 could say to themselves "well, he may be personally against it but won't take any action, so it's safe to vote for him."

Today's announcement just cost him the support of Group 1 voters, but he's still straddling Groups 2 and 3, trying to appease them both. But less than a day in and even that strategy is proving wobbly.

At the same time as Scott McClellan is trying to reassure Group 2 voters that the President's not a total homophobe and civil unions will still be possible under his proposed policy, Group 3 organizations are adamantly saying that they "cannot support" any wording that might allow civil unions.

Now that he's spoken up, Bush can't remain silent any longer. He has to take a stand on civil unions, and either way will alienate Group 2 or Group 3.

Every way Bush goes he's bound to lose.
As will other conservatives in the GOP. [The rest of this sparked by Josh Marshall's observation on the Republican reaction]

Extrapolating further, it is true that Democrats are generally stuck straddling Groups 1 & 2 (pro-marriage and anti-marriage civil union supporters). However, by making this amendment the focal point of the argument, Republicans have made it much easier for Democrats to please both groups, just as it's more difficult for Republicans to straddle their constituents.

Democrats and liberals merely have to oppose the amendment to retain the support of them both. Opposing the amendment means leaving it up to states and localities to decide as they will, regardless of the politician's personal beliefs. It means a patchwork of different laws across the nation, and court cases for another decade at least. But opposing the amendment preserves the viability of both groups' preferred outcomes.

Wow. I think Bush and Rove just framed the issue in the worst possible way for themselves!

I was going to post more about all the good material on the blogosphere and newssites, but I think I'm going to stop to ponder that revelation/observation further. [And get some sleep]

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:45 PM

Howard Bashman just found the following stunner of a news story:

Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry

BOSTON?Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre- existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

Yes, yes, the story is from The Onion, but read the rest of it. It had me laughing out loud, and it feels good to laugh after the heavy and stressing political news of the day. [And my sympathies to our state rep, Michael Festa over his impending "personally dreaded wedding" wedding. You'll just have to read who the lucky groom will be.

Of course, now I'm pondering who among our female friends I'd want to pair off with, if I were forced to split up with Ian under such a scheme...

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:40 PM

Well, the transcript to today's press briefing has just been posted. The press seems to be a bit punchy today:

MR. McCLELLAN:  Good afternoon. I'd like to begin with a statement by the President.
Q   Another one?

Onto the issue at hand, the overwhelming majority of questions dealt with same-sex marriage. And the press corps was on the ball and working together, not only having the evidence and exact quotes, but frequently following up on other reporters' questions that McClellan dodged. This isn't going to be a BusyBusyBusy abbreviation, because I found too much worth repeating. But I have abbreviated matters significantly.

Here's how it began:

Q   Scott, on the day's other big announcement, four years ago, in the South Carolina primary debate, the President was asked, "So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?" And the response of the President was, "The state can do what they want to do." When did the President change his mind that the issue of gay marriage was not a matter for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN:  John, the President has always firmly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. He has always held that view. And I think what you're referring to is that the President has talked about how states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements. And that's what the President is referring to.

Q  The words in the question were "gay marriage," and I do realize that the President has opposed gay marriage, but when did he --

MR. McCLELLAN:  The President's view was very well-known during the campaign of 2000, that he believes marriage is a sacred institution. And he supported efforts to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage.

Q  Which is what I just said. But my question was, to go to the actual substance of my question, was, when did the President change his mind that this was not an issue for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Again, I dispute the premise of your question. His views have always been well-known on this very issue.

Q  Yes, but he always described it as a state issue. Now he's describing it as a federal issue. When did he change his mind?

MR. McCLELLAN:  No, no, he said that states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements.

The next reporter asked whether this was a campaign issue (see, people are already viewing this move as a political ploy!) and then it went right back to the unanswered aspects of the first question:

Q  Scott, two questions. Just to follow up on John's, he was asked in that debate specifically about gay marriage, not about states having the right to form contractual arrangements, domestic partnerships or civil unions. So did he misspeak, when asked directly about gay marriage, when he answered, it should be up to the states?

MR. McCLELLAN:  What I'm telling you is that the President has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman; that it should be an institution that is protected. And that's what the President has always made very clear. John was talking about a change, and I don't see that.

Q  Well, but in that actual quote he was directly asked, and the words, "gay marriage" were used in the question to him.

MR. McCLELLAN:  No, I think the President's views are very well known, and they are what they have always been.

And Bush has been trying to tag Kerry with the "flip-flop label!?? More questions on civil unions and domestic partnerships, then oops...

Q  Scott, can I have a rebuttal, since you mischaracterized my question?

McClellan appears to explicitly state the president would support civil unions. [Isn't that a triumph? Civil unions are the conservative fallback position? Who would've imagined that at the time of Vermont's ruling!] Then some pointed questions asking "how does gay marriage weaken society, in the President's view?" which McClellan keeps glossing over. Reporters ask more and more insistent questions, delving into how much role the President's faith had in the decision, who he consulted, and questions on which passages in the Bible he might've used. Someone points out that it can take as long as seven years to pass a constitutional amendment; what happens in the meantime. McClellan punts and says that's why they have to start now. Back to political calculations...

Q  The Democratic National Committee has criticized President Bush for the statement claiming that it's a political ploy in an election year.

MR. McCLELLAN:  And? Do you have a question?

Q  Your comments.

Somebody squeaks in a question on Haiti, then this zinger:

Q  Back on gay marriage. What do you say to moderates in your own party who say that the President can no longer be taken seriously as a compassionate conservative, as he likes to call himself, by endorsing this kind of amendment?

MR. McCLELLAN:  I don't know who is saying that, number one. But the President is someone -- well, who is that?

Q  Well, for one, there are some gay rights activists, Log Cabin Republicans, and more broadly, some --

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think that people recognize that the President arrived at this decision based on his long-held beliefs and based on principle. And they recognize that the President is someone who believes that everybody in our society should be treated with respect and dignity -- he has always spoken out very forcefully on that matter -- and that while we may disagree on this issue, we can have a very civil discussion about it.

Maybe folks should bookmark that comment, and question the President about maintaining a civil discussion when the homophobes in his party become less-than-civil.

Let's see... questions on whether the President supports any particular wording or will be pushing for a vote before recess. Then another question on the President's opinion on civil unions. McClellan dodges any yes/no answer that would confirm a position, but gives vague assurances:

Q  You said that as governor of Texas he would not have supported a civil unions law. But am I correct in assuming that now he would like to see an America where states can enact civil union laws for homosexuals, but not call it marriage? Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, this debate centers on marriage, and the definition of marriage. And some people have sought to redefine this sacred institution. And that's why the President has come out strongly in support of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Q  I just want to know if maybe you can explain what the President's view is as to the difference between a civil union and marriage. Because many people might argue that in the eyes of government, even heterosexuals married is really just a civil contract between those two people to protect them legally and financially --

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think he defined marriage. He believes marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. That's how he would define it.

Q  Is there a difference that goes beyond semantics?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Legal arrangements that states want to enter into, they certainly have that right. The President has made that very clear. This is a debate about marriage, and an enduring and lasting institution in this country.

And then, me-owch!

Q  One more on the threat the President sees from gay marriage. What is, in the President's view, a greater threat to this enduring institution of marriage, a same-sex couple establishing a stable marriage, or the staggering divorce rate, the out-of-wedlock birth level and travesties like Britney Spear's marital fiasco? (Laughter.) What --

MR. McCLELLAN:  There are so many different things in there, but --

Q  And then what is he going to do -- which is the greater threat?

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think -- look back to the President's State of the Union address, and he talked about the importance of values that we hold so dearly in this country. And he talked about the importance of changing our culture, and ushering in a responsibility era. He's long held those views.

Q  So he would like to see a lower divorce rate, lower out-of-wedlock births, and Britney Spears behave herself? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, actually, I think if you look at some of the steps that we've taken in the welfare reform reauthorization, we have proposals in there to help strengthen marriage and help individuals.

Q  Scott, can I just ask again, the same sort of question? If he supports allowing the states to choose civil unions, how does a civil union not weaken society --

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, again, and let me --

Q  -- in the way a gay marriage does?

MR. McCLELLAN:  -- and let me make clear, he has said that he would have opposed it for his state of Texas. And what he has said and always said is that states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements. That's what he's made clear. When you're saying, support things, that's not quite the way he looks at it.

Q  Does he feel that allowing civil -- the states to choose civil unions would weaken society?
<snip repetitions and evasions>
Q  But what does the President think is the difference between a civil union and marriage?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I don't know how I can make it more clearly that the President has said that repeatedly.

And finally the closer:

Q  Also, this would be the first time since the Prohibition era that a constitutional amendment had been sought that would actually restrict rights in America. Though there may be some people in this room who remembers how well the Prohibition amendment went down, does the President really want to be the first President since the Prohibition era to deny people rights?

A lot of spin and hot air, but the heat is definitely on the administration. Hopefully, if I have more time, I'll look up comments from conservatives to see whether this was an acceptable offering, or if they're still unsatisfied with his wishy-washiness...

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:01 PM

Speaking of backlash against Bush's decision, while reading the news this morning, I saw the following Washington Post article:

Log Cabin Republicans, which supported the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000, has warned that it will break with the campaign if President Bush formally endorses the proposed amendment, as White House aides have said he intends to do.

"If the effort to write discrimination into the Constitution and use gay and lesbian Americans as a wedge issue becomes a centerpiece of the president's reelection campaign, then it's really the line in the sand for this organization," Guerriero said. "We've been extremely loyal to this president and party through thick and thin . . . but we are forced by this particular moment in history not to sit silent in what has emerged as the cultural war that far right groups have been wanting for years."

I'll confess, I have some doubts they'll stick to this pledge (because (a) they've put up with such an awful lot of rhetorical bashing from the party over the years and (b) really, where else will they go? [On the other hand, they can continue to support Republicans in other races. Still, I wonder whether this will just be a withdrawal of support or if they'd actively work against candidates who support this amendment. But I digress.]). I suppose we'll have to see.

Their website isn't terribly up-to-date, but in a two-week-old press release, they warn:

“Log Cabin will fight the Federal Marriage Amendment all across this county, state by state, if we must. We will use our political resources to stop anyone from writing discrimination into our Constitution,’ said Log Cabin Political Director Mark Mead.

“We are disappointed that some Republicans leaders have abandoned the conservative principles on which this party was built. Liberty, equality and Federalism form the bedrock of Republican values. Some in our party have turned away from these principles to satisfy the radical right. Simply put, this is politics over principle,’ added Guerriero.

Pandering to the radical right will alienate the centrist, fair-minded swing voters who will ultimately decide the winner of what promises to be a close Presidential election. The President´s re-election campaign should be centered on fighting terrorism, cutting taxes and jump-starting the economy. Now, following the same failed path of 1992, we hear the echoes of Pat Buchanan that helped lead to the defeat of the first President Bush.

There's much more, but the last paragraph is both particularly harsh and echoes much of what I've been predicting about this announcement.

Update at 4:35 PM: Twenty minutes ago, Andrew Bayer wrote: "Just heard this on Signorile - pending board approval, the Log Cabin Republicans will be withholding their support from Bush."

Updated 5:45 PM The Log Cabin Republicans have just issued a new press release; it's mostly a repeat of their earlier message with no explicit threat not to support the president. Maybe that's coming later?

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:30 PM

Well, the professional film critics have finally gotten to see Mel Gibson's epic. There seems to be a theme here:

Boston Globe

A paragraph to itself in the middle of the review:
[A]ny parent -- no matter how devout and well-intentioned -- who takes a child to this movie is guilty of abuse. Period.

Associated Press

[T]he idea that children should see "The Passion" as a learning device -- that churches are organizing screenings and theater trips for their parishioners and catechism classes -- is truly shocking. Grown-ups -- even true believers -- will have difficulty sitting through the film. Just think of the trauma it will inflict on kids.

Roger Ebert

This caveat is printed at the start and end of the review:
Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

The Chicago Tribune has an entire article as a parental advisory, and even CBN doesn't recommend it for anyone under 13. Meanwhile over in New Zealand, the film received an R16 rating (noone under 16 admitted; similar to a US NC17, rather than an R), and Christian groups are lobbying the rating board to lower it so their kids can see. And many church groups here in America are already planning major group outings. I guess they take the expression "suffer the children" literally.

The grossout factor has convinced me. I don't think I'm going to be seeing this film.

In other news, President Bush has finally publically spoken out in favor of amending the constitution to bar same-sex marriages.

I know this news seems dismaying, but in some respects it's a good thing. Since Lawrence v. Texas last June, Bush has been incredibly evasive and avoided getting pinned down. He's trying to build a coalition straddling centrists and libertarians on one side and the hard-core religious right on the other. Anything he says to appease one group will alienate the other. So he's been trying to have it both ways, saying he's "troubled" but taking no actions. Having anonymous administration officials leak that he would support the legislation without publically taking a stand.

And this has been hurting him politically. Read Scott McClellan's press briefings since Valentine's Day.

Even if you don't agree with the sentiment behind these comments, can't you just feel the frustration in those questions?

The fact that the President has to speak out on this issue means that he needs to do something to appease his "base." The whole point of a base is having a group of supporters whose votes can be counted upon. Then you can expand out from there to appeal to other constituencies and thus get a majority of the electorate. If the base is disgruntled, if Bush has to take measures that risk his broader electability in order to keep them satisfied, that doesn't bode well for winning the center.

So I don't see this as quite so bad news as many are taking it. The very fact Bush was driven to make this statement shows the weaknesses in his support. That's not to say we can be complacent about this, but the cloud does have a silver lining.

And I'm not even going to get into parsing the President's remarks. If the problem is "activist courts" making decisions that should be left to voters, then for consistency sake he should accept the judgements of democratically-elected officials who came to the same conclusion. But his attacks on voters' choices in San Francisco, New Mexico and Chicago show that his rhetoric against unelected judges is not a principled stand, but merely the closest convenient argument. [For a different opinion on this, see Dave Neiwert, The theocrats' stealth attack on the courts (also here)]

RJ has a few suggestions on things to do and not to do.
I suppose this means it's time for me to get off my duff and find all the links on why the amendment as currently worded is an over-broad Trojan horse. As happened to the Massachusetts legislature two weeks ago, pointing out the holes in the wording and showing how each revision is unacceptable, the more time they have to spend rewriting it and the longer it will be before it passes.

BTW, I know many readers are frustrated with the Democratic party, but take a look how DNC Kicking Ass is spinning the announcement:

This isn't a stand based on his principles; it's a strategic campaign move based on his falling poll numbers. Bush and his political team knows that he has failed to create jobs, failed to give health care to more Americans, failed to fund our schools, and lied repeatedly about his record.

Bush can't run on his record, so he's come up with a plan to divide Americans on a wedge issue like same-sex marriage to bolster his failing campaign. And he's willing to do it by staining the Constitution with an amendment that forbids rights instead of protecting them — the only amendment to do so save Prohibition.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:41 PM

Between 12:15 and 12:30, while taking a stroll across the grounds of the office park for exercise and fresh air, a robin flew past and landed in a nearby tree. I got a close look, and he seemed fat and healthy.

So there you have it. The first robin of spring (at least, spotted by me) in Woburn, Mass.

[BTW, I know the American robin is extremely different from the European bird known as robins. But for anybody from Europe who might be reading, do you have a similar concept of the robin as harbinger of spring?]