10 Most Beautiful Birds

A while back, there was a "meme" (whatever that is) going around for all birders to name their top ten most beautiful birds. (Now there's a new one for bird songs, too.) I'm probably missing the train by several hours here, but here's my top ten most beautiful birds, in no particular order:

1. Cardinal
2. Indigo bunting
3. Dark-eyed junco (incredibly cute)
4. Red-tailed hawk
5. Mallard (male--sorry, female)
6. Snowy egret
7. Barn owl (love that face)
8. Bluebird
9. Rose-breasted grosbeak
10. Ruby-throated hummingbird

Dreaming of Digiscoping (or even a camera)

It's official: I've begun my search to find a cheap way to set up a digiscoping rig. Mind you, I have no digital camera, no spotting scope, and no experience with real photography. However, I view these facts as irrelevant. Don't go getting in my way with the facts, people. Mere obstacles have never stopped me for long.

I've visited more digiscoping and photography sites in the last few days than I can remember, but probably the most interesting and promising to a financially challenged person such as myself was http://www.pbase.com/roygoh/homemade_digiscope, in which a homemade spotting scope is constructed from surplus-store lenses and some PVC pipe, all for less than $25. Now THERE'S some ingeniuity!

Now the camera--that's going to be a little more difficult. I would love to fork over a few hundred bucks and get a Nikon CoolPix of some sort, as it seems to be the most used camera among the digiscopers I saw online. But--that will have to wait for some pennies from heaven, I'm afraid.

Meanwhile, I'm checking out the surplus lens web site (www.surplusshack.com), trying to find the appropriate lenses (and to even figure out just what makes a lens appropriate). It's slow going.

Any suggestions out there? Help? I'm poor, I'm completely uneducated about terms like "focal length," and I don't have a camera—but I'm efforting these things as we speak! Any help would be appreciated.

Sound Science, Not Religious Dogma

Cervical Cancer Vaccination for Pre-Teens

By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Writer
June 29, 2006

ATLANTA - Taking up a potentially explosive issue among religious conservatives, an influential government advisory panel Thursday recommended that 11- and 12-year-old girls be routinely vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also said the shots can be started for girls as young as 9, at the discretion of their doctors.

The committee's recommendations usually are accepted by federal health officials, and influence insurance coverage for vaccinations. (full story)

Not so fast Mr. President ...

Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantánamo

By JOHN O'NEIL and SCOTT SHANE
The New York Times
June 29, 2006

The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that the military tribunals it created to try terror suspects violate both American military law and the Geneva Convention.

In a 5-to-3 ruling, the justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. (full story)

The Hours

Time, time, time—see what's become of me. --Paul Simon

There's just never enough time for me to do all the things I want to do in a day. I try not to squander my hours here on earth, but it seems even the long summer days aren't long enough for me. Work, sleep, eating, loving my family, and other daily chores leave little time for taking a leisurely walk and looking for birds. I suppose I'm a dawdler, spending hours at a time reading a book I've already read, or watching a movie I've already seen. But I love re-reading good books, and good movies never get old or tiresome. Still—birding time is precious.

I've been making an effort to go out after dinner along Rte. 45 to watch for flocks of cedar waxwings. I saw a couple last week, and as the waxwing was a long-time life bird, I was thrilled. But the light was fading, and I wasn't able to see their true color. For the last few evenings, however, it's been raining – a lot. No flooding here like in the southeastern corner of the state, but my yard is definitely soggy.
We live next to a big marsh, so birds and other wildlife are abundant. I just wish the rain—and the clock—would stop, so I could stay out there and appreciate it all.

Adulterers in Chief?

The GOP's top three contenders for the 2008 race are the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history. http://www.alternet.org/story/38015/

Ripped off by my own hometown

As most experienced birders know, there is a huge birding festival in Harlingen, my hometown since the eighth grade. (I'm now a little older than that . . . like 27 years older than that.)

Why wasn't this festival going on when I lived there??? All these big time birders go to that festival. The worst part is that I found out that one of the big bird sanctuaries is literally right behind my parents' neighborhood!

Here I am, in Central Penna., far far away from the cool birds of the Valley.

Ripped off, man. Harlingen kinda sucked when I lived there. Now it's a hip and happening birdy place. Figures.

Avian wonders from my childhood

My first review! courtesy of my sister Mary. Here's what she said about my new little blog:

"That’s just the cutest. It’s like looking at a newborn baby or something. I just love it.
Did you include the owl that tried to kill you – was that a great horned owl? What about Chacha lakas (sp?), pelican’s from SP Island, and the notorious RGV Big Bird with eyes like silver dollars?"

by way of explanation:
I grew up in the Rio Grande Valley, in Raymondville, then in Harlingen, home of the RGV Birding Festival.

There was indeed a great horned owl that tried to kill me. When I was about five, my father knifed this owl while on a hunting trip--the owl was only stunned, though, and when Dad got home with it, the owl got up and came after me, flapping its great wings and terrifying me.

Chachalacas are a very loud, small turkey-sized bird common in the Valley--they literally scream "cha-cha-lac! cha-cha-lac" and the racket can be quite deafening.

A pelican at South Padre Island did indeed gulp its big mouth over my dad's entire arm once, when Daddy was fishing, and when we were kids (early 70s) an urban myth began to circulate about this giant bird in the Valley, and people took to calling it Big Bird. No facts on that one, unfortunately.

So--those facts are now on record, Mary. Somehow, I overcame these terrors and now I watch birds for amusement!

George Bush and Rush Limbaugh Starring in "Prison Break: I'm NOT above the law?"

Coming to a theatre near you? Well, it should be ... and well before the 2008 elections!

Funny how the 'law and order' president suddenly has no problem ignoring the law. The Associated Press reports:

The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation's security.

"There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary committee Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and constitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

And when the president thinks he is above the law, why shouldn't those who support him? Take for example Rush -- I've never met a drug I didn't like -- Limbaugh! Looks like Rush had a little secret that's no secret anymore!

Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription.

Customs officials found a prescription bottle labeled as Viagra in his luggage that didn't have Limbaugh's name on it, but that of two doctors, said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

A doctor had prescribed the drug, but it was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes," Roy Black, Limbaugh's attorney, said in a statement.

When will conservatives learn that the law applies to ALL of us.

My somewhat lame life list so far

Okay--meeting one of my birdy wishes today and listing the birds I've documented on my life list. I have an original Peterson's birding guide first published in 1934, and it's got a life list in the front--very handy. I'm listing even the more common birds here (robins, etc.) just for grins. And I'm only counting the birds I've actually been able to identify with certainty. The millions of seagulls I saw in my childhood trips to the beach, etc. will have to wait until I take my binocs and my birding books with me back to the beach. All these birds were seen in Central PA unless otherwise noted. Many were just seen on my first real birding expedition with some real birders--Alice and Roana Fuller, Dorothy Bordner, and another woman Nan from their birding club.

Great blue heron
Snowy egret (South Carolina)
American bittern
Canada goose
Mallard
Sharp-shinned hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Sora
Rock dove
Mourning dove
Road runner (Texas)
Screech owl (Texas)
Horned owl (Texas)
Nighthawk (Texas)
Ruby-throated hummingbird (Texas)
Barn swallow
Bluejay (Texas)
American crow
Black-capped chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Mockingbird (Texas)
Catbird
Brown Thrasher
Robin (Texas)
Eastern bluebird
Cedar Waxwing
Starling (Texas)
Prairie warbler
House sparrow
Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Baltimore oriole
Purple grackle
Cowbird
Cardinal
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Indigo bunting
Purple finch (or what Audubon calls "house finch")
American goldfinch
Dark-eyed junco
Chipping sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Song sparrow

A little lame, but I'm working on it.

Rick Santorum ... what a loser!

o

Diet Coke + Mentos = Water Show

My first picture

This isn't even a picture of a bird. It's our cat, Sweet Kitty Kisses, sitting in the cage of our bunny, Niblet. He doesn't have ears because his mother chewed them off when he was just born. Apparently, this is common in the animal world--mothers eating their young (or parts of them, at least). He just has that little stump on one side. The other side is flat.

Because I don't want a flurry of jealousy to occur, I'll also include a photo of Miss Kitty Claws, our other cat.

This is Clawsie, sleeping on Niblet's cage.

Both kitties are birders as well, often practicing their bird-calling skills from their perches in our open windows. I'm sure their motives are just as pure as mine--just to watch our feathered friends do what they do. . . .

On Binoculars

My binocs are an old pair of Leupolds I picked up for twenty bucks at the antique flea barn in Fort Worth, TX. (I used to live there--native Texan.)
The specs:
9x35 magnification
7.3 degree angle of view

Is that good, I wonder? I like them. They're pretty old, I think. They have gold rings around the eye chambers (chambers?), focus adjusters for each eye (definitely awesome when you wear contacts), and they smell kinda old and neat. I like them very much. I checked the Leupold site and found that their "gold ring" series (is that what I have, because mine have the gold rings?) are pretty expensive. Maybe I got a good deal for $20. Who knows? They work, anyhow.

Maybe someday I'll get some really powerful and expensive ones. But I doubt it. I spend most of my meager pocket money on snacks and food, woodworking tools and wood, and other such non-bird-related hobbies. Still--this birding thing is a lot of fun.

What kind of binocs do you have?

What kind of bird book do you have?

So the first thing I got when I wanted to start birding was a book. I bought one of those little Audubon mini-books with full-color photos of birds of the East (I live in Central Pennsylvania). I definitely prefer color photos rather than the color illustrations.

I used that for a couple of years--not much variety in that book, and certainly it's more of a "oh, I saw that bird the other day! That's what it's called!" kind of book. I realized I needed a true birding book.

At a local charity booksale, I found a copy of Roger Tory Peterson's first book--for only a dollar. It was first printed in 1934! It's an incredibly easy to use, helpful book. Lots of illustrations (what do you expect for 1934?), descriptions of the birds, key identifiers of different types of birds, transcriptions of bird songs, etc. The book has been very helpful.

I've been told by a real birder that I need to get the newest edition, but I'm kinda attached to my old little hardback guide. Still, I suppose next time I'm at the bookstore, I should check out the new one. Probably has lots of photos and stuff. I wonder if Peterson is still alive.

I've heard of other guides--Sibley's, the Stokes'--but I'm partial to Peterson's.

My birdy dreams

What I'd like to have happen on this blog at some point:
1. photos of birds
2. a digiscoping camera thingie to take photos of birds
3. my life list
4. someone big-time like Birdchick reading my blog--even once!
5. questions for other beginning birders

That'll do for starters.

Welcome to Beginning to Bird!

This web site is especially for people new to birding, like me. I've always loved nature and watching birds, but I'm making the formal declaration now that I am a "birder"--albeit a novice one.

Welcome to my site, fellow beginners! If you're a pro and you happen on this site--enjoy the laughs you'll no doubt get at my feeble and amateurish attempts at both blogging and birding.

Time to Give Republicans the Boot!

Here are a few reasons why YOU need to register and VOTE in November:

Senate Defeats Democrats Minimum Wage Increase

By REUTERS
June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a proposal pushed by Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage in increments from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour by January 1, 2009.


House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act

The Associated Press
June 21, 2006

Washington - House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.


GOP Kills Bill to Police Halliburton

By Bob GeigerAlterNet
June 20, 2006

Republicans in Congress have made it clear they're willing to fight for military contractors' right to lie, cheat and defraud taxpayers.


Clearly the Republican agenda is to protect corporate interests over the interests of hard working Americans. And, to try and prevent some Americans from exercising their right to vote! It's well past time to give many of these Republicans their 'pink slip'.

Rove ... a national embarrsement

Murtha to Rove: He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big- fat backside- saying stay the course!

From Meet the Press:

Russert: Cutting and Running

MURTHA: He's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside-saying stay the course. That’s not a plan! We've got to change direction. You can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying seventy pounds on their backs, inside these armored vessels-hit with IED's every day-seeing their friends blown up-their buddies blown up-and he says stay the course? Easy to say that from Washington, DC.

from CrooksandLiars.com

Shattering the Stained Glass Ceiling

Woman Is Named Episcopal Leader

By NEELA BANERJEE
Published: June 19, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 18 — The Episcopal Church elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada as its presiding bishop on Sunday, making her the first woman to lead a church in the history of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Many Episcopalians gathered here for the church's triennial general convention cheered the largely unexpected choice of Bishop Jefferts Schori, 52, the lone woman candidate in a field of seven and one of the youngest people vying for the job. Her election was a milestone for the Episcopal Church, which began ordaining women only in 1976.

At the last general convention, in 2003, the church consented to the election of an openly gay man, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The decision deeply offended some Episcopalians in the United States and many Anglican primates abroad, who saw it as blatant disregard of Scripture. Since then, some United States congregations have left the Episcopal Church, and primates overseas have threatened schism.

Bishop Jefferts Schori supported Bishop Robinson's election in 2003, and the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada permits the blessing of same-sex unions. Moreover, that Bishop Jefferts Schori is a woman could further strain relations with three dioceses in the United States and many Anglican provinces that refuse to ordain women as priests and bishops, critics of the vote said Sunday.

But Bishop Jefferts Schori held out hope of mending any breaks that her election or previous positions on issues may cause. (full story)

Roberts-Alito Supreme Court Eviscerate Fourth Amendment

Law enforcement officials are no longer required to "knock and announce" before entering your home. The New York Times reports:

The 5-to-4 decision left uncertain the value of the "knock-and-announce" rule, which dates to 13th-century England as protection against illegal entry by the police into private homes.

The justices' lineup in this case, which upheld a Detroit man's conviction for drug possession, may become a familiar one as the court proceeds through its criminal-law docket. In addition to Justice Alito, those who joined the majority opinion by Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The decision answered a question that the court had left open in 1995, when it held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas that the traditional expectation that the police should knock and announce their presence was part of what made a search "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The amendment bars unreasonable searches.

Justice Scalia said the knock-and-announce rule was designed to protect life, property and dignity by giving the homeowner time to respond to the knock and eliminating the need for the police to break down the door. But he said the rule has never protected "one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant."

Throughout his opinion, Justice Scalia made clear his view that the right at issue was a minimal, even trivial, one — "the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes," he said at one point — that could not hold its own when balanced against the "grave adverse consequences that exclusion of relevant incriminating evidence always entails."

The majority opinion was sufficiently dismissive of the exclusionary rule as to serve as an invitation to bring a direct challenge to the rule in a future case.

Justice Scalia surveyed changes in the legal landscape since 1961, when the court in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio made the exclusionary rule binding on the states. Noting that the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter constitutional violations by making them costly for the prosecution, Justice Scalia said there was less need for deterrence today, when the police are better trained and when the ability to bring civil rights suits against the government has greatly expanded ...

The conditions that made deterrence necessary "in different contexts and long ago" no longer exist, Justice Scalia said, adding that a strict application of the exclusionary rule as envisioned by the court in 1961 "would be forcing the public today to pay for the sins and inadequacies of a legal regime that existed almost half a century ago."

It is rare to find Justice Scalia, a self-described "originalist," incorporating evolving conditions into his constitutional analysis. Almost always, when the court in a constitutional case takes account of changing conditions, the result is an expansion of constitutional rights, rather than, as Justice Scalia advocated in this case, a contraction.

With the Fourth Amendment gone, is the First Amendment next?

For a look at why the Supreme Courts decision is so dangerous consider the following:

Elderly Couple Hurt in Raid on Wrong House

The Associated Press
March 28, 2006

An unidentified elderly Horn Lake couple were hospitalized Thursday after police burst into their home thinking it housed a methamphetamine laboratory.

* * * * * * * * * *

San Antonio Police Department to probe storming of wrong house

By Jesse Bogan and Elaine Aradillas
Express-News Staff Writers
November 22, 2002

San Antonio police, who continued to apologize Thursday for storming the wrong Southwest Side duplex, said they'll meet next week to review the foul-up that sent an innocent man to a hospital with minor injuries.

* * * * * * * * * *

Man killed in police raid on wrong house

October 6, 2000

LEBANON, Tennessee (AP) -- A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house.

* * * * * * * * * *

Five Die in "Wrong House" Raid

By Claire Wolfe
For the SacredBull News Service

PHOENIX -- Federal agents wearing black ski masks and looking for a bail jumper kicked in the front door of a house Sunday. The raid, which began as a case of mistaken identity, ended with five dead and three wounded, police said.

* * * * * * * * * *

Clarksville police apologize for raiding wrong home

By CHANTAL ESCOTO
The (Clarksville) Leaf-Chronicle

Clarksville Police Chief Mark Smith said he will offer two residents a written apology for officers' mistakenly raiding their home Friday night ... ''What justification can you give to kick a 54-year-old man who's down on the ground,'' Meeks said about Elliott, who is a Vietnam War veteran. ''All he saw was men in masks with rifles. He was terrified. Then to get knocked down and stomped. They picked him up like a suitcase. The Police Department said they acted in normal procedure, but that's not normal.''

* * * * * * * * * *

Yet Another "Wrong House"

A SWAT team seeking to serve an arrest warrant bashed in a window and a sliding door entering the wrong address.

According to a March 19, 1995, Associated Press story, the Oldsmar, Florida SWAT team broke into the home of 31-year-old Charles Inscor, knocking him from his bed and detaching him from a machine assisting his breathing, before realizing they had the wrong house.

* * * * * * * * * *

Police Raid Wrong House and Damage It

The Associated Press
June 16, 1991

A police antidrug squad overturned furniture, destroyed appliances and smashed a toilet into bits during a raid this week. Then the officers discovered that they had raided the wrong house.

The errant raid occurred Wednesday at the home of Lloyd Miner, a 33-year-old construction worker, who says officers hit him with blunt objects, possibly flashlights, to make him lie down. He was held in jail for about five hours.

World's Most Unhinged Lunatic

Naked Truth about Ann Coulter

o

More on Karl Rove from the Huffington Post

Karl Rove: Dreyfus or Valachi? The Press Needs to Find Out

by RJ Eskow
Huffington Post.com

In the same breath he used to announce that Karl Rove won't be indicted, his attorney indicated he won't make "any further public statements" about the situation. Many questions remain, however, and the public has a right to know.

Who knows? Maybe those other witnesses were lying, and Karl's completely innocent. If so, why would his attorney zip his lip like that?

You'd think that an innocent man and his lawyer would be eager to go on record to clear his name - but Rove hasn't even pledged to "find the real killers."

As it stands, the public record on Rove's behavior is damning. And now, the Bush/McClellan mantra about "not commenting on an ongoing investigation" - often used while they were, in fact, commenting on it - is now inoperative. It's Q&A time.

Media Matters (courtesy FDL) leads off with the most critical one: Given what we know about Rove's disclosure of sensitive information, shouldn't his security clearance be revoked? That's what his security agreement requires, which is why "sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials(have) urged President Bush to suspend (his) security clearance."

The press has had its feisty moments of irritation on this topic, but they've usually been self-centered in nature. You're not telling me what I want to know. You're playing games with me. But the country deserves to know whether a leaker is sitting at the seat of power with access to highly classified data. We need to know how the Administration will ensure that harmful, politically-motivated leaks won't occur again.

We deserve to know whether Rove cut a deal in return for an agreement not to indict him. Conservatives are already lining up to describe him as a man unjustly accused, as if the Plame investigation was a modern-day Dreyfus Affair. But if he's a criminal who turned states' evidence to avoid indictment, he's not Alfred Dreyfus. He's Joe Valachi.

So that's the next question: Is the President's Senior Advisor a Dreyfus or a Valachi?

There are many more questions that need to be answered, too, including this one: Prosecutors turn witnesses when they're after a bigger fish. Who would that be in this case?

But the first question isn't for the White House. It's for the media: Will you pursue this story until it's resolved, now that the artificial barrier's been removed by the White House? Judging by CNN's swallowing of White House spin (as in this video clip entitled "Watch how Rove announcement helps the White House"), I'm not optimistic.

Karl Rove's behavior in the Plame Affair was sleazy. We deserve to know whether it was illegal. We also have a right to know whether we'll be protected from any further security breaches for political reasons. If the prosecutor believes there are more leakers in the White House, we should know that.

We also deserve to know whether we have a press corps that's up to the task.

JUSTICE DEINED: Rove Won't be Charged in CIA Leak Case

The question to ask today is: Who got to Patrick Fitzgerald? Was he or his family threatened? Was he paid off? How in the world is it possible for Karl Rove to walk free?

The ring-leader of the most corrupt administration in history will now be free to master mind yet another election fraud. The American people deserve better. We deserve a justice system that holds everyone accountable, regardless of their wealth or influence.

This is a sad day.

-----------------------

Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

By DAVID JOHNSTON, The New York Times

WASHINGTON (June 13) -- The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." (full story)

Senate 'hate-speech' gives license for violence

The rhetoric from the right in the Senate debate over a federal marriage amendment gives some twisted individuals license to commit violence. For that reason I wasn't surprised to learn about a hate-crime in New York.

You have probably heard the old saying, 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.' What little child hasn't said that in response to hurtful comments directed their way by one of their peers.

But the truth is that words CAN hurt. Particularly when they are taken to heart by people who lack a moral compass to help them determine the proper response to something they disagree with. There are individuals all across this country who are living on the edge of sanity, and even a gentle nudge can send some of them right over the cliff.

They lack the critical thinking skills necessary to determine right from wrong, and when they are told that an entire class of people are responsible for the "destruction of the American family" they don't have the ability to know it's just political posturing for votes.

Singer Kevin Aviance was severely beaten in New York City this weekend. The police arrested four young men on hate-crime charges. Aviance suffered a broken jaw and other injuries in an attack by a group yelling anti-gay slurs.

He suffered head trauma and was in stable condition in a Manhattan hospital, where he was being treated for his injuries.

Aviance performs in drag but was "dressed like a boy" when he was attacked, said his publicist Len Evans.

It doesn't matter to me how he was dressed, no one should be beaten simply because other people might not agree with how they live their lives.

Conservative Republicans have argued that hate-crime laws punish people for what they think. That's a load of crap. Those boys have a right to think whatever they want about whether or not a person should be gay. But they DON'T have a right to beat someone up because they are gay, or perceived to be lesbian or gay.

Your right ends where my body begins. You don't have a right to harm me, because you don't agree with the way I live my life. And if you do, there should be an added punishment because you are not only hurting me but you are sending a message to everyone else like me that 'you could be next.' That is not acceptable.

Aviance had hoped to perform at NYC's Gay Pride festival in a couple of weeks. He may not be able to sing due to his injuries, but if he is able to take to the stage his mere presence will speak volumes to standing up to hate!

Find out how your Senator voted in the marriage debate and if they voted for an amendment call them up on Monday and tell them 'shame on you.' No one should ever debate in favor of bigotry and intolerance -- and it must never become part of our Constitution.

Guantanamo's First Suicides Pressure US

from Truthout.org

Three prisoners, all held without charges, are found hanging in their cells. "People have been indefinitely detained for five years without any prospect of ever going home, or ever seeing their families, or ever being charged, or having any resolution," said Jumana Musa, an advocacy director for Amnesty International in Washington. "There is no question serious psychological trauma comes from that."

Jon Stewart v. Bill 'The Gambler' Bennett on Marriage Equality

Post "Hump Day" Fun!

The Pipettes - "Your kisses are wasted on me"

Republican Diversion Tanks

Not only did Republicans lose the vote on the federal marriage amendment, as expected, but they actually lost by more votes than in 2004. Looks like their luck may have run out -- again! That said, I thought folks might appreciate the following:

Pledge to Protect the Constitution

Talk about misguided priorities, the Republicans in Congress are at it again. On Monday they decided same-sex marriage was a more important topic for discussion than the serious energy crunch Americans are facing. More serious that the immigration crisis, the war in Iraq, or the president rattling his saber at Iran. So guess what the new big topic is ... the Pledge of Allegiance.

That's right, Republicans in the House are getting ready for a debate on a bill called the Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 2389). It seems that Michael Newdow is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. So big a threat that the House will consider a bill that would strip the federal courts of their ability to hear cases involving recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

The concept is called "court stripping" and it's the newest tactic being used by conservative Republicans to slam the federal courthouse door in the face of Americans seeking to protect their constitutional rights.

The Pledge Protection Act, scheduled for a mark-up in the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow (June 7), undercuts the separation of powers between the different branches of government and limits the legal options of religious minorities.

This isn't the first court stripping bill Congress has debated, and it probably won't be the last. Congressional leaders would rather kowtow to religious right leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell -- especially in an election year -- than protect the constitutional rights of us all.

For more information on this visit the Americans United for Separation of Church and State web site at www.au.org.

Tony 'deer-in-the-headlights' Snow on Civil Rights

Crooks and Liars has a great video of Tony Snow talking about the proposed federal marriage amendment. It seems that Snow forgot to read the Rove handbook about not using the words "same-sex marriage" and "civil rights" in the same sentence.

Tony Snow signaled that Bush considers an amendment barring same-sex marriage a "civil rights" matter, then stumbled when asked to define civil rights...

Q: You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?

MR. SNOW: Not -- well, these -- it --

Q: Is this a civil right?

MR. SNOW: Marriage? It actually -- what we're really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for -- meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore --

Q: And you would equate that with civil rights?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just saying that I think -- well, I don't know. How do you define civil rights?

Q: It's not up to me. Up to you.

Read the transcript

How Gullible are Religious Right Voters?

Religious right activists are the most gullible people on the planet. They actually believe Republicans in Congress, and the president, care about issues like same-sex marriage, abortion and flag burning. When do you think they will realize that Republicans only care about these subjects in an election year?

In "Politics of the Alter" Newsweek reports:

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.

You can practically set your watch by when the Republican leadership will bring the subject of same-sex marriage up for debate. If it's six months before an election it must be time for the debate!

Can't these folks realize they are being used? Like good little foot soldiers they march out to the polls on election day thinking their vote will actually make a difference! Yet year after year, and with some issues decade after decade, the end result remains the same. Abortion is still legal, it's still legal to burn a US flag in protest (though I can't remember ever hearing of someone actually doing this) and same-sex couples are getting legally married in this country.
Guess what issue WON'T be debated in 2007?

If you guessed same-sex marriage you are smarter than the average Religious Right voter!

Thank you Rev Barry Lynn

Bush Backs Federal Marriage Amendment

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
June 3, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

"Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance."
--------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Reverend Barry Lynn!

Just the facts ...

o

WARNING: US Troops Hazardous to Iraqi Civilian's Health & Safety

The American public is still dealing with news of the massacre at Haditha -- in which women, children and men were executed by U.S. Marines -- as we learn of yet another tragedy. The Associated Press reports that:

U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday.

Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses.

Rushing a loved one to the hospital to give birth is an emotionally charged time. Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass during the shooting, said he didn't see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

BuzzFlash.com weighed in saying: "The war hawks will argue that the Marines were under intense pressure -- which they were -- and these 'sort of things' are to be expected in war. They will excuse the horrific actions as an inevitable outgrowth of a war without rules ... And they are right, you know ... Not that these GIs should be excused from accountability, but the real people who should be tried and sentenced are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice."

It's time for the administration to admit it made a huge mistake invading Iraq. It's time to remove from power the individuals who are roadblocks to resolving thidilemmana -- Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. And it's past time to remove from power thindividualal who lied to the American public to justify getting the US into this quagmire -- George W. Bush.