What Would Jesus Drive?

Fresh and renewed after a week of rest after their successful ten year boycott of Disney, the American Famaily Association has set their eyes on that other great domestic Satan- Ford Motor Company:

A conservative Christian group launched a boycott against Ford Motor Co. Tuesday, saying the second-largest U.S. automaker has given thousands of dollars to gay rights groups, offers benefits to same-sex couples and actively recruits gay employees.

“From redefining family to include homosexual marriage, to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda, to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality… Ford leads the way,” American Family Association chairman Donald Wildmon said in a statement.

Apparently when doing God’s work, you damned well better be driving a Chevy- cuz those folks at GM know how to keep the fags in place. With the auto industry in dire straits, I hope this boycott is as successful as the Disney one:

The AFA recently ended a nine-year boycott of The Walt Disney Co. over Disney’s decision to extend benefits to same-sex couples and promote gay-related events at its theme parks. The boycott appeared to have little effect, since Disney reported higher earnings and increased theme park attendance during that time.

And in case you forgot who these clowns are, they are the same jerks who earlier this week were deriding Arlen Specter over his position on stem cell research.

Life is really busy when you are a wingnut, and I can’t wait for the comments claiming I am anti-Christian for discussing these jerks. Really, though, at some point can we agree that at least we should thank Fred Phelps and his ‘God hates Fags’ goons for their refreshing candor? I prefer them over all these charlatans who pretend to have an air of respectability.

And, because irony knows no boundaries, I offer you this:

The ABC summer reality show “Welcome to the Neighborhood” portrays Christians as bigoted, self-righteous and judgmental.

The program features seven diverse families vying for a new house on a suburban cul-de-sac. The neighbors get to pick the winners.

But Movie Guide’s Ted Baehr said the Christian contestants will be the ones people love to hate…

“ABC is really making a tremendous mistake in terms of audience,” he said. “The audience out there wants positive portrayals.”

Baehr said TV shows that do not debase people of faith are at the top of the ratings.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, suggested paying some attention to the sponsors of the program.

“Find out who the advertisers are and contact the advertisers,” he said. “That’s the best way to impact a television program or series.”

But he cautions: Be careful that in your calls to ABC and its sponsors you don’t become the stereotype you’re protesting.

Where would people get the weird idea that members of the AFA are bigoted, uncouth, self-righteous, judgemental or prejudiced?

Filibuster Update

I have given the Republicans no slack for their seeming willingness to blow up the Senate by exercising the nuclear option, but if the Democratic activist I saw on Hardball tonight is any indication, it is going to happen, and I can;t fault the GOP.

This idiot, having learned nothing, said that the Democrats should filibuster Scalia, Thomas, and she would have to think about Sandra Day O’Connor. If three sitting justices are too extreme for the modern Democrats, then they have lost their damned minds.

Arthur Andersen

The SCOTUS overturned the Arthur Andersen Enron related conviction today, and that has Arianna pissed:

The sour cherry atop this icky sundae is todays announcement that that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of one-time accounting giant Arthur Andersen. Andersen, you may recall, was one of the key players in the Enron debacle, guilty of (among many other things) obstructing justice by shredding thousands of financial documents. Sure, the conviction was overturned on a technicality — in this case, bad jury instructions — but how come these guys always seem to skate by on technicalities?

So the divide is getting wider, average Americans are finding it harder and harder to get by… and the guilty are let off the hook on a technicality. Its Back to the Future, Corporate American Style.

For all intents and purposes, Arthur Andersen was destroyed by this conviction and other Enron fall-out.

Which, I guess, gives them plenty of time to skate.

*** Update ***

Rick, in the comments, reminds of the other aspect of the Huffington post (in the Huffington Post, no less!) that was silly- it wasn’t a technicality:

The ruling today zeroed in on the fact that jurors were told they could convict Andersen even if they found that the accounting firm “honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful.”

The opinion, by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was practically forecast when the case was argued before the court on April 27. During the arguments, the justices peppered government lawyers with hostile remarks.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, called the government’s theory “weird,” and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor remarked: “If this thing is so confusing, how is a businessperson supposed to know what to do? How’s a lawyer to know?”

It was clear that the Houston jury that convicted Andersen on June 15, 2002, had trouble sifting the evidence. The panel deliberated for seven days and at first declared itself deadlocked before deliberating three more days and finding the firm guilty of one count of obstruction.

Upholding this ruling would have been a disaster for everyone.

And, just because I have to since I have a comments section, let me state that my belief that this was a screwed up set of jury instructions in no way absolves Arther Andersen for their shitty accounting practices that allowed Enron to do all the crappy things they did. If the public at large really knew all the crap that banks and others did to let this get this far, there would be fireworks.

Curious, George!

American Spectator.

(via Hanks)

SCOTUS Nominee Short List

Via First Draft, the AP short list for possible SCOTUS nominees.

Put on Your Seatbelts

For those of you who think I hate all Christians, you better strap on the seatbelts, because you are bound to get some sort of whiplash from my reaction to this:

Conservative Christian groups have grabbed control of nearly a dozen Conservative Party ridings across Canada and vow they will ensure the party adheres to a strict right wing agenda including an end to same-sex marriage.

Candidates with close ties the Canadian branches of groups including Focus on the Family and other American evangelical groups have won party nominations in three provinces: Four in British Columbia, three in Nova Scotia, and one in Ontario. The groups also have succeeded in having their members win votes to become riding association presidents elsewhere in the country.

And they say that it is only the beginning.

The Globe and Mail reports that the groups are preparing to put up candidates for Conservative Party nominations in other regions as the country prepares for an election late this year or early in 2006.

Horror of horrors. Christian Conservatives are, *GASP*, nominating candidates for the GENERAL CANADIAN PUBLIC to vote on?

How awful!

Wait a minute… Isn’t this how a democracy is supposed to work? You nominate candidates who articulate a clear position, and then people vote on whether on not they accept the candidate and his/her positions?

This is bad, how?

All this sort of hysteria does (“and they say that is only the beginning”- why, if elected, they may actually follow through on their campaign platforms!) is give people the opportunity to hide behind the ‘persecuted Christian’ nonsense which resonates in far too many people’s minds already.

I Thought The Same Thing

Bill Roggio:

If you are al Qaeda, and you are interested in interdicting or attacking CIA air services that transport captured high value targets, how would you go about finding out how the CIA is moving these prisoners around? Would you:

a) Attempt to penetrate the CIA and dig into the inner workings of these operations.
b) Invest heavily in paying off workers at local airports and in charter airlines across the Middle East and Asia to provide intelligence on suspicious flight activities.
c) Read the New York Times.

If you answered “c”, you are correct. Today’s New York Times provides intimate detail on the charter flights used by the CIA to ferry prisoners across the globe.

I have to admit, when I read the front page of the Times this morning, I thought the same damned thing. Why are they publishing this, particularly when they had a collective six-month aneurysm about Valerie Plame?

Fill me in, if you can.

So much for taking a break.