There's sanity in Alaska politics after all

Old news on the blogosphere by now, but I'm doing a little happy dance anyway: Mr. Wayne Anthony Ross's nomination for attorney general by Ms. Sarah Palin was soundly rejected today (35 agin, 23 fer). I am, however, utterly astounded that as many as twenty-three members of the legislature thought Ross was sufficiently sober and appropriate to be confirmed. They would be:

John Cohill, R-North Pole (of course!)

Nancy Dahlstrom, R-Anchorage

Anna Fairclough, R-Eagle River (are you surprised?)

Carl Gatto, R-Palmer (nah--not him!)

John Harris, R-Valdez

Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage

Carl Johnson, R-Anchorage

Wes Keller, R-Wasilla (ah, yes, Mr. Wingnut. No surprises there.)

Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks (I recall some real silliness from Kelly, but I would have thought he'd have more respect for the law. Well, maybe not.)

Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage

Charisse Millett, R-Anchorage

Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau

Mark Neuman, R-Wasilla

Kurt Olson, R-Soldotna

Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks (Jay! Come ON! I thought you had more sense!)

Bill Stoltze, R-Eagle River

Con Bunde, R-Anchorage (This man's reputation extends statewide, which is too bad.)

Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River

Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla

Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage

Linda Menard, R-Wasilla

Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage

Gene Therriault, R-North Pole (Another one who shows sense from time to time, but still, I remain unshocked that he voted this way.)

So there you have it. The list of people who don't seem to get that when a nominee starts out with an agenda, this is bad; that when the nominee isn't too concerned about what's legal, this is bad; that when the nominee is blatantly bigoted against a group of citizens, that this is bad; that when the nominee has no concern for the needs and legal issues of half the state, this is also bad; that when the nominee is not just colorful, he's insensitive and rude, that's bad. These are politicians who don't have good judgement, I'd say. Apparently the overriding factor for them was that they felt they Must Show Party Loyalty. This seems to be the general pattern for Republicans in recent years: Party Solidarity Above All, and to hell with the country or what's good for the state or the people or the Rule of Law.

Go figure.

Watch them carefully. Look at their records. Decide for yourself. I intend to keep a sharper eye on them than I have been.

Of wingnuts and crackpots

I decided to remove the labels "Wingnut Wes" and "Crackpot Coghill" because these people are not always wingnutty or cracked. Despite my frothing posts below, and my serious lack of anything related to genteel, ladylike responses to these acts of heavy-handed legislative lunacy, these guys aren't two-dimensional and do come up with things I agree with and can support. Sometimes.

That said, I stand by my political viewpoint on these particular issues. And I froth for damn good reasons. The big, heavy club approach is inappropriate, and librarians should not be expected to act in loco parentis.

More stupidity on the state front: let's just kill a few pregnant women, why don't we?

I obviously have not been paying attention. Just look at this crap that the Legislature is trying to pull! Wingnut Wes is at it again, along with our hometown fave, Crackpot Coghill. I am so mad I could just spit!

The Anchorage Daily News printed this story on Jan. 22:

JUNEAU -- A House committee approved a proposal Monday that would make a medical procedure widely known as a "partial birth abortion" a felony in Alaska. The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill to revise the current law so it conforms to federal standards. A floor vote -- and a spirited debate -- is expected later in the legislative session. No one spoke out against the bill during a brief public comment period.

Committee members debated an amendment that would allow termination of a pregnancy that "poses substantial risk of permanent injury to the pregnant woman's physical or mental health."

But bill proponents say a portion of the law not under revision sufficiently takes into account the mother's welfare if her life is endangered. The proposed amendment failed.

According to Life News, there's no time when this procedure (which is grisly and grueling and ONLY undertaken for serious medical complications) is ever medically necessary. What a load of waffle!

This is simply an attempt to enforce an unscientific, religious worldview upon the bodies of women who are in desperate need of medical help. I wrote about this in an editorial when the Supreme Court decided that women were too fragile to deal with regret and that therefore a ban on this kind of procedure was perfectly acceptable. Conforming to "federal standards" means conforming to sheer nonsense! This is RELIGIOUS WINGNUTTERY!

And you know what? women are going to die because of it. They won't be able to get the medical help they need, and so they'll get to die for some puffed-up self-righteous bastard of a legislator's religion.

So what else is new?

Stupidity on the state front: librarians as nannies

I got around to reading my mail from the Alaska Library Association listserve, and found this ugly little thing under a rock:

HB 353: "An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet sites at public libraries and to library assistance grants," sponsored by Representative Wes Keller, a twit from Anchorage (there's more--see the next post). Here's their lovely little press release:

House Bill 353 will encourage public libraries to assure that our young people do not have access to adult internet sites. Presently, there is cost effective software that allows responsible adults to prevent access to sites that could be considered objectionable. Parents and guardians of children use this software to prevent access.

While children are prevented from accessing these sites at home, some public libraries do not use this blocking technology and staffing limitations prevent libraries from monitoring. A simple installation of the software will prevent children from reaching adult sites without the need for a monitor.

Because of the concern that denying access might be considered unconstitutional, and because blocking software might block sites that are necessary for research, HB 353 includes language that allows adults to request that the software be disabled. The courts have already ruled this is an acceptable compromise.

HB 353 is also reactive in its approach should a library refuse to purchase and install the software. The bill would restrict state and local grant money to the library for refusal.

Right. Punish the bastions of free speech for daring to allow kids to look up words like "scrotum" on the Internet. Or perhaps even view one without pulling their pants down in the bathroom. Crap. Bludgeon our libraries, why don't you, Wes? It is NOT a librarian's responsibility to censor. Anything. That is completely counter to what libraries are FOR. And to punish them with a big fat stick like this in a regressive way is stupid. Why not simply provide funding for the software instead, and make it available to any library that wishes to use it? Bet you'd have a lot more takers and a lot less resistance that way.

Goddamn retrograde neanderthal wingnut busybodies! I HATE this kind of thing. What a waste of the Legislature's time. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we need to cut the session down to 30 days, so they only deal with what is absolutely necessary. They've obviously got way, way too much time on their hands.

Rex, oh, Rex, where are you? Arise, librarians and freethinkers of Alaska! Unite against the forces of darkness!