The Mark

Peter Pride

Tomorrow (Sunday) is the annual Pride Parade in Chicago.

That means that someplace in crowd, mixing with the sweaty scantily clad men and leather daddies, will be our friend, Peter LaBarbera. [Link contains photo.]

Please report any sightings of this intrepid defender of family values. After all, we have to make certain that the right-wing watching are . . . well, watching. After all, how can one be certain that homosexuality is bad and heterosexuality is good unless one walks in the Pride Parade, ogling at every shirtless — and maybe more! — young man, out in the heat after a long march, dancing to disco . . . nevermind, I have to go now.

Oh, by the way: what event would in the Gay Games would be the best for an undercover right winger to enter?

Sears Target, Part 2: Scare Tactics

Well, we now have some more information about the arrests in Miami.

Mr. Gonzales acknowledged that the men, who had neither weapons nor explosives, posed “no immediate threat.” But he added, “they did take sufficient steps that we believe does support this prosecution.”

In general, Mr. Gonzales said, homegrown terrorists “may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda.”

News of the arrests touched off widespread television coverage of the plot against the Sears Tower, one of the tallest buildings in the world. But details of the indictment disclosed Friday at news conferences in Washington and Miami presented a less alarming picture. The indictment made clear that a pivotal role was played by an unidentified undercover F.B.I. informer who posed as a Qaeda member and met repeatedly with the reported ringleader of the group, Narseal Batiste.

More on Narseal Batiste:

But an uncle said he could not believe Batiste is capable of masterminding the murder of innocents.

“He’s a follower more than a leader,” said John J. Ford, 67, of Chicago. “He wasn’t no ringleader about nothing.”

And how serious was the threat?

Cline and other officials stressed there was no evidence the alleged plotters took any action in Chicago. They said they had no information that the men arrested had visited the Sears Tower to study it or make plans.

The plot “was never an actionable plan and, therefore, no one was in danger,” said Andrew Velasquez, head of the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communication.

People who have offices in the Sears Tower don’t seem too concerned, either.

From all the reports, it seems like this group of seven “terrorists” were not even capable of executing a major terrorist plot that involves the Sears Tower. After all, they even had to ask the undercover agent for boots [see last question] and a video camera.

These guys deserved to be busted up for the actions they took. It’s just like making a joke about a gun in the airport security line: the TSA takes the statement seriously, and gives your bags a thorough search.

But nothing that I’ve seen justifies the type of national and international press sought by the Department of Justice. This was not the kind of threat that should involve the Attorney General in a press conference. Arrest these guys, and give them a good scare. But there’s no need to make a national stink about it.

Or is there?

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at a political luncheon in Chicago, denounced the decision to reveal the existence of the financial monitoring program and the earlier-disclosed National Security Agency surveillance program.

?What I find most disturbing about these stories is that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,? Cheney said. ?That offends me.?

As Columbo Says, “Oh . . . And One Last Thing”

Archpundit should be back today, but I hope he’ll indulge me in one last post, especially on an issue that really burns me up.

For those of us who have progressive or liberal views on social issues, it’s no secret that the cultural right lies. It doesn’t matter whether the discussion is about evolution, homosexuality, women’s rights: the Right simply refuses to accept the world as it is, relying instead on their version of reality.

Here’s yet another example:

In a groundbreaking study that could influence the debate over sex education, researchers have found that consistent use of condoms significantly reduces the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.

University of Washington researchers will report Thursday that female college students were 70 percent less likely to become infected with human papillomavirus, or HPV, if their partners always wore a condom during sex than those whose partners used condoms less than 5 percent of the time.

For many years now, pro-life-anti-sex fanatics have attacked comprehensive sex ed programs by arguing that condoms are ineffective against sexually transmitted infections. Their only basis for this argument was that HPV — Human Papilloma Virus — is transmitted skin-to-skin, and thus condoms do not prevent transmission. In fact, some conservative congressmen pressured the FDA to require warning labels on condoms.

Well, they were wrong.

In the meantime, how much damage did their scare campaign do? How many kids were taught that condoms were ineffective? How many kids believe this and stop using condoms, when they clearly prevent the transmission of disease, including HPV?

There’s a cost to the war on truth waged by the Right. And I think that young people are paying the highest price.

More Fun With Conservatives

Since Arch is out of town and can’t make light of Petey’s investigations into the homosexual lifestyle, I thought we can examine another right-wing darling: pro-life nurse Jill Stanek.

A couple of weeks ago, Jill posted the following observation:

“Abortion proponents attempting to answer that question should run into a problem. By trying to protect one flank, they’ve exposed another.

“To be consistent, the abortion industry’s definition of when a pregnancy begins should agree with its definition of when it ends. But the two don’t jibe.”

She then argues that the pro-choice stand on abortion procedure bans (what the pro-lifers call “partial-birth-abortion”) is hypocritical.

Well, since when is the end of something the exact converse of its beginning? Following that logic, pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception — the moment when an organism has a full set of chromosones. So, does life end when the chromosones are finally separated? Does that mean that life ends when the last cell containing chromosones has finally decomposed?

There are plenty of other fun logical fallacies in both her post and the original article. Today’s challenge: who can list the most obscure logical fallacy made by Jill.

On a side note: I will give Stanek credit for her willingness to engage in debate with those who disagree. Her exchanges with Eric Zorn are a particularly good example. So, I fully expect Jill to stop by here. Hi, Jill — welcome. Don’t blame Arch for this post; I’m just a lowly guest poster having a bit o’ fun.

UPDATE: I lied about leaving Petey alone today. I found a new technique in reparative therapy that he can investigate:

Christian psychotherapist Richard Cohen, board president of the ex-homosexual education and outreach organization known as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), is addressing criticism leveled against certain therapy techniques he uses on clients with homosexual desires.
. . .
Cohen’s methods have raised some questions, however; and he has lately taken sharp criticism over a May 23 appearance on Cable News Network (CNN), in which he demonstrated a technique that involves cuddling a male client in his lap.

I’m Not On The List

The Tribune has the full clout list on its web site. (PDF file.)

Coming on the heels of Blagojevich’s clout list, which may or may not be a fake, here’s the question: what about the people left off?

One of the great ironies about the ethics problems faced by Blagojevich is that the big complaint among Democratic operatives in the first year was that they did not have access to state jobs. (Full disclosure: I fall into that category.)

The new administration’s hiring process was chaotic, and many Democrats who has worked with and around state government were locked out. Their names do not appear on the clout list. Conversely, many of the names on the clout list are unknown to long time operatives. And downstaters who had been locked out of state jobs by Republicans complained that they still could not get access to state jobs.

The Daley list, on the other hand, seems to be about right in terms of who should have been “rewarded” after the successful Daley campaign.

In retrospect, it seems that the chaotic hiring should have been the first warning sign of the biggest failure of the Blagojevich administration. Say what you will about his politics, Daley knows how to run the city. Blagojevich, on the other hand, has done a lousy job in the day-to-day running of the state.

It seems that their respective levels of managerial competence can be seen in how they handled their first challenge: who to reward after a successful campaign.

UPDATE: Illinois is not the only place where patronage is being investigated.

2006 Isn’t Even Over Yet: Big Box and 2007

Am I the only one who feels we’re not really in an election year? Virtually every statewide race is pretty much decided and there’s no real chance that either state chamber will switch control. Sure, there are a couple of good congressional races, and the Governor’s race might heat up . . . but really, outside of speculating on John Stroger’s health, there’s not much going on.

So what’s a political junkie to do? This one is going to start speculating about the next election cycle!

We can start with this curious polling:

“Chicagoans overwhelmingly favor wage and benefit standards for Wal-Mart and other “big-box” retailers, even if it places jobs at risk, according to a new poll commissioned by proponents to turn up the heat on the City Council.”
Read More