A Beginner's Mind

2008 brings a whole world of possibilites... change... excitement...

2008-01-02T15:50:00.000-06:00

Seein' green...

2007-11-09T09:00:00.000-06:00

Currently, I am sitting in lovely San Francisco, working at the Green Festival.
Last night I attended the Green Business Confrence dinner. Organic Valley won the 4th annual Green Business Leadership Award and I listened to Simran Sethi talk about the different stories of green businesses. It was an inspirational evening... making all these things we are trying to do, seem like it really does matter.
Green is good!

Scorecard Information on 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates

2007-11-04T11:31:00.000-06:00

Courtesy of Global Stewards:

This page includes scorecard information for 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates on the environment, civil liberties, women's rights, labor rights, civil rights, education, and animal rights. Votes were compiled from Project Vote Smart.

Joe Biden-
League of Conservation Voters: 95% (2005-2006)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 92% (2005-2006)
Planned Parenthood: 100% (2006)
AFL-CIO: 93% (2006)
NAACP: 100% (2005)
National Education Association: A (2005-2006)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 60% (2005-2006)

Hillary Clinton-
League of Conservation Voters: 83% (2005-2006)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 83% (2005-2006)
Planned Parenthood: 100% (2006)
AFL-CIO: 93% (2005)
NAACP: 95% (2005)
National Education Association: A (2005-2006)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 100% (2005-2006)

Chris Dodd-
League of Conservation Voters: 95% (2005-2006)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 80% (2005-2006)
Planned Parenthood: 100% (2006)
AFL-CIO: 100% (2006)
NAACP: 90% (2005)
National Education Association: 80% (2003-2004)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 100% (2005-2006)

John Edwards-
League of Conservation Voters: 37% (2003)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 60% (2001-2002)
Planned Parenthood: 100% (2001)
AFL-CIO: 100% (2003)
NAACP: 94% (2001-2002)
National Education Association: 60% (2003-2004)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 60% (2003)

Mike Gravel- not available

Dennis Kucinich-
League of Conservation Voters: 100% (2005-2006)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 100% (2005-2006)
Planned Parenthood: 56% (2006)
AFL-CIO: 93% (2005)
NAACP: 96% (2005)
National Education Association: 88% (2003-2004)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 100% (2005-2006)

Barack Obama-
League of Conservation Voters: 98% (2005-2006)
The American Civil Liberties Union: 83% (2005-2006)
Planned Parenthood: 100% (2006)
AFL-CIO: 93% (2006)
NAACP: 100% (2005)
National Education Association: A (2005-2006)
The Humane Society of the U.S.: 60% (2005-2006)

Bill Richardson- not available

Jeffrey: A brave man, his lovely wife and the brain tumor

2007-10-08T16:23:00.000-05:00

Last September, Rev. Samurai Sam performed a wedding ceremony for Jeffrey and Lori.
Since then, life was progressing beautifully...
Until this August, when Jeffrey was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. They sucessfully removed the tumor and currently he is going through Chemo and radiation. Jeffrey is looking wonderful and keeping his spirits up!
Lori is working hard to earn some extra funds for the family, as Cancer is EXPENSIVE! You can make a donation here:
Can you spare-a-dollar?
Please keep our friend in your happy thoughts (or prayers if you do them) and lets all celebrate life!

Jeffrey, you are a brave man! We all love you and are pulling for your speedy recovery!

Live Music, Sustainability Workshops, Rural Heritage Exhibits, Tons of Fabulous Food, Beer and Dancing!

2007-07-08T16:40:00.000-05:00

If any or all of the above listed things strike your fancy...

Or, if you enjoy the amazing views of rural, South Central Wisconsin...

Come check out the 4th Annual

Kickapoo Country Fair !

This amazing event will take place Saturday and Sunday, July 28-29 on the grounds of Organic Valley's world headquarters in La Farge, Wisconsin, set in the ancient and beautiful hills of the Kickapoo River Valley.

This festival is a showcase of rural cultural traditions, farm and garden exhibits, music, dance, arts, natural and organic foods and cooking, green housing and renewable energy, community health and education, environmental responsibility, and eco-development.

The all-weekend event features organic farm tours, farmers & farm animals, sustainability workshops, hiking, the Butter Churn Bike Tour, tons of fabulous food, artisan vendors, not-for-profit & community exhibitors, family & kdis activities, all-day music, entertainment, and dancing!

RIP Jerry Falwell

2007-05-15T19:33:00.000-05:00

"The sun is setting in the sky, Teletubbies say goodbye"

Ah... bye, bye.

August 11, 1933 - May 15, 2007

Too Much Insult to Bear

2007-04-25T23:42:00.000-05:00

Being a liberal atheist, I've come to accept that I'm going to be in the minority opinion on certain issues. I can live with that. I've also learned to accept that no matter how hard I may try to have a beginner's mind and regard others' views objectively, sometimes the weight is too much to bear. How could it not be? Conservatives in America have drafted a line-up of some of the most vile, ignorant ideologues ever spewed out upon the popular airwaves. Any decent human being should be appalled on a regular basis at the garbage that comes out of the Right's sewer of opinion leaders. But sometimes, just sometimes, enough is enough.

I received an email today that may have finally contained about as much conservative ignorance and bile as I can reasonably tolerate. To lessen the damage to my psyche, I have to share this bit of vileness with all of you and cleanse my mental palate by having my own say. I almost pity the good friend of mine that sent me this; I wouldn't want any part of a political philosophy that espoused this sort of garbage.

And here we go...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear God,

Why didn't you save the children at Virginia Tech (and a slew of other schools where children were murdered over the past decade)?

Sincerely Concerned ~~Student~~ Theocratic Nutjob

Dear Concerned ~~Student~~ Rightwing Hack,

Sorry, I am not allowed in schools!

Sincerely,

God

First of all, what kind of wimpy, impotent God are we talking about here that anyone gets to tell him where he's not allowed? That's a pretty ballsy way to talk to the Creator of the Known Universe. That aside, this entire line of thought is complete bullshit. There are dozens of religious organizations on the Virginia Tech campus. Of course, that's not what this little dialogue with the Almighty is poking at anyway. We'll get to that in a moment. In the meantime, it's best to just meditate on the pissy self-pity evident in whomever wrote this little emasculation of God.

How did this get started?

Well, some nerd can't get laid as much as the cool liberal guys on campus so he joins the Young Republicans and grows up to write hate filled screeds from the cool comfort of his mom's basement. Am I close?

Let's see,
I think it started when Madelyn Murray O'Hair complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools. And we said OK.

Pitiful that I had to correct the spelling of O'Hair's name. I'm disappointed when the conservative theocrats can't even get the names of their favorite bogeymen correct. For the record, O'Hair's case, which was decided by the Supreme Court, had nothing to do with prayer. There is no ban on prayer in any school anywhere in the United States. Any student can pray, have a prayer circle, wear prayer beads, dance a rain dance...whatever they want. As long as they're not breaking any laws or harrassing any one else, the First Amendment guarantees their right to pray. The kind of prayer theocrats like the author want is the kind that is enforced by the school. They want my children, and yours, forced to pray to their conservative Old Testament God regardless of whether we want our children taught that garbage or not. We live in a nation of religious freedom and school officials are required to respect that. If conservatives want a Christian theocracy, they can find another country to ruin. This one's mine!

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible that says "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal and love your neighbor's as yourself," And we said OK.

Now that's the case that involved O'Hair. See the public, tax-payer funded school her son attended was requiring its students to read from the Bible that O'Hair did not believe in. She brought suit, as did others, and the Supreme Court wisely agreed that a government institution funded by taxpayer dollars had no business forcing children into a certain faith. Sure, the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". I wonder how well that worked out for the Cathars or the women of Salem or the people of Iraq? And it says "Thou shalt not steal". I wonder how well that's worked out for those crushed by usurious credit card rates, living with the largest gap between rich and poor in the world's history? And it says "Love your neighbors as yourself". How much self-loathing, then, must the people who claim to follow Christ have as they denigrate women for their sexual habits and condemn their gay neighbors as aberrations against the natural order? I wonder if the Bible has a word for someone who claims to believe something and yet acts completely contrary to that belief? If I recall, Jesus had a name for those folks...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehaved because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self esteem. And we said "An expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore..."

Hey, guess what? Dr. Spock was right, actually. Spanking children teaches them that they don't need to listen unless threatened with violence. It also teaches them that it's OK to use force to impose your will upon the weak. Hitting children is a sign of weakness and impatience. I wish I could say I've never failed as a father and succumbed to that weakness, but I can't. No child has ever yet grown up and lamented the fact that their parents didn't smack them around more often. We teach children that hitting is wrong. Maybe we should practice what we preach.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to get sued. And we accepted their reasoning...

Just to interject, I have to apologize for the appalling lack of literacy in this email. It's awful even by normal conservative hate mail standards. Back to the substance: again, it's a big load of what the Amish leave on the road in front of my house when they drive their buggies through. School administrators have many tools at their disposal to discipline unruly kids. Thankfully, beating them is no longer one of those tools. It's amazing that conservatives think it's actually preferable to have a government official physically assault their children from time to time. I wonder if those same conservatives would have no problem with being beaten themselves the next time they get a parking ticket or are late on their taxes? Apparently to conservatives, discipline always means corporal punishment of some kind. Kinda kinky when you get right down to it...

Then someone said let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said, that's a grand idea.

Yes, because by God how can we properly beat that slut back into submission if she can hide the rightful punishment of for her sin from others? It's so hard to to shame these young whores when you give them freedom of choice over their own bodies! Really, we just need to go back to the days when only the rich got safe abortions. You can be sure that the teenage harlot next door (or in the next room) won't be getting around much any more with a good staph infection from a botched back-alley abortion. Ah, the good old days!

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said that's another grand idea...

Because as every good conservative knows, if you ban sex education and birth control, teenagers will just stop having sex. How scary is it that certain of these people actually believe that having sex for fun is wrong? And Christians try to tell me that being an atheist must be unfulfilling! Maybe that explains the tremendous divorce rate in our 80% Christian nation. Call me crazy, but I don't think a long, slow death from AIDS is a desirable outcome of a night spent engaging in one of the most natural acts in which any two humans can engage. And I can guarantee that if, one day, some pimply-faced little weasel does the nasty with one of my sweet, innocent little girls, I'll personally give a wet, sloppy kiss to whatever school official gave the little bastard the condom he better damn well be wearing.

And the entertainment industry said let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence and illicit sex...
And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide and satanic themes...
And we said it's just entertainment and it has no adverse affect and nobody takes it seriously anyway so go right ahead.

Dear God this email just gets stupider as it goes along. First of all, no one is claiming that the bad things named above in entertainment are not bad for children. Quite the contrary. It's one of the few issues on which both conservatives and liberals largely agree. However, that doesn't mean we should suddenly throw free speech out the window just because not every shred of entertainment material produced is family appropriate. My favorite show is The Sopranos; it's violent, profane and generally has at least one scene set at The Bada Bing in every episode. I love the show but I damn sure do not allow my children to watch it. There's this magical red button on my remote control that says "Power" and I find it protects my children from pretty much anything I find objectionable on TV. My advice to the folks complaining about our entertainment media's effect on children: get off your lazy asses and start parenting your own kids! Stop expecting the government or the church or the school or whomever to do it for you. If you don't want your kids watching rated R movies and listening to gangsta rap, then don't let them. Grow some bolts and stop being a weak parent whose only solutions are bitching and spanking. Meanwhile, I'll continue watching Tarentino films and listening to Dr. Dre, because I'm an adult and I can handle it. And by they way: What the fuck exactly are "Satanic Themes"? Is it AC/DC ringing Hell's bells or John Constantine verbally sparring with Lucifer? It's Harry Potter again, isn't it? Damn him and his youthful hijinks!

Now we ask ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, class mates or even themselves. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with "We reap what we sow".

First of all, don't lay your crappy parenting on the rest of us, conservative theocrats! My children know right from wrong because I'm teaching them right from wrong. They have a conscience because I'm teaching them to have a conscience and treat others the way they want to be treated. Finally, stop blaming society, the society you're a majority of, Christians, for each kid that goes off on a psychotic rampage. The young man that committed those atrocities at Virginia Tech was mentally ill. He was a psychotic waiting to break and, if our gun laws made any sense at all, should never have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Indeed we do reap what we sow, conservatives, so stop sowing hypcrisy! It raises a bitter fruit...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At the end of the day, in all seriousness, Virginia Tech is the price we sometimes have to pay for living in a free country. It's a steep price and our hearts at A Beginner's Mind go out to the families and friends of those lost, including the killer's. It's a horrible price but the alternative is a police state; a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the bad guys and the psychotics make victims of us and it's tragic. But far more tragic would be a country that threw away all it's freedoms for the illusion of safety. Conservatives love to talk about the price of freedom, especially when flogging their latest favorite war, but balk when it comes time to pay that price. Virginia Tech has paid it for us all and we should respect their sacrifice by protecting the freedom for which they died.

Off To The Races

2007-04-14T08:16:00.000-05:00

You can practically smell the churned dirt in the air (or at least the horse shit) as the 2008 Presidential horse race rounds into its first curve. As it has always been my "policy" to answer questions emailed (samuraisam1@mchsi.com) or left in comments, I will try my poor hand at handicapping this mother of all electoral races.

The Democrats: Born to be Bland

Don't misunderstand me; I'm (mostly) a loyal party man. If nothing else, I understand what having the other party in power means for this country and the world. But I don't think I've been less inspired by the field of Democratic candidates at any time since, well, 2004. I have great respect for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; I think they are fine politicians. Perhaps a little too fine, especially where their politics comes into play. The one lesson I keep hoping the Dems will learn, and yet never do, is that issues are secondary to personality in the eyes of our electorate. Sad but true. Conservatives didn't vote for Bush twice because of his positions on foreign military interventions or government profligacy (he was against both back when he was a governor running in 1999). They voted for him because he had swagger and confidence. He presented himself as a cocky, git 'er done type of guy, in direct contrast with Gore's reserved academic. A large chunk of this country wants a strong father figure as President, regardless of the person's actual ability to do the job. I think we're seeing the high price paid for that sort of blindness, but the reality is what it is.

In any case, I really think Obama and Clinton are missing the boat on this yet again. Democrats have the issues on our side. We know this, the Republicans know this and yet they continue to win big in elections. The reason is because the Republicans are much more tapped into our national image consciousness. They treat winning the Presidency as a PR contest and it works. Democrats treat it as a an intellectual contest between competing ideologies. That's what it should be, of course, but in our nation of 30-second soundbites and celebrity worship such a contest is a pipe dream.

Therefore, my thoughts on the Democratic ticket are this: John Edwards. Assuming Al Gore really isn't going to run, which I don't believe he is, John Edwards stands the best chance to win the field. He's been by far the most consistent on his positions, which helps limit the moronic attack ads from the Right. He also just radiates personality, which is key to winning a big national election. He's a familiar name, a familiar handsome face and a sympathetic figure with a winning smile and confident humility. He also has that Presidential magic; that special ability to appear 10 feet tall and flushed with conviction in his speeches. As much as I also like Bill Richardson, whom I think would make a great VP candidate, I just don't think he can muster the national recognition to overcome the other 3 candidates.

As for Dennis Kucinich, well, keep trying, buddy. You've got a whole pocket full of good ideas who's time will come in about 20 or 30 years.

Democratic Primary Winner: John Edwards with Bill Richardson as his VP.

The Republicans: Down on the Upside

Boy is it hard out there to be a Republican these days. The failure to deal with Katrina, the largest foreign policy disaster in American history and more scandals then you can shake a congressional subpoena at have built a public almost openly hostile to the GOP. In spite of 6 years of total control in Washington, government spending is out of control, abortion & birth control are still legal, flag burning is not a crime and our military is cracking under the strain of an unending foreign occupation. So much for that permanent majority, eh Rove?

On this side of the fence, again we see the power of celebrity. Is there any other possible reason for the sudden interest in Fred Thompson? Not that he's not a loyal Republican; just that he's not a very prominent one in any political sense. By far his biggest claim to fame is playing a fictional lawyer on TV. That may be compelling enough to thrust him along for now, but I believe that thrust will burn out long before Fred reaches that Presidential orbit.

John McCain, the Democrats' favorite conservative Republican, has crashed and burned the worst of any Republican candidate and I doubt he even has the chops to make it to February 2008. McCain's strategy has been to hug Bush as close as he can and run on the war. Too bad a large majority of the country left Iraq, at least in their minds, a long time ago. McCain's jetpack to the top has now become an anchor, pretty much solidifying his place as one of the most prominent also-rans in American political history.

Rudy Giuliani, America's mayor and the one Republican left who can still flog 9/11 for political gain has the lead and I believe he'll keep it. While he's certainly far more socially liberal than any other Republican on the national scene, that doesn't seem to be bothering the Republican rank and file (yet). I believe they've had their fill, at least for now, of the Christian theocrat movement that's gripped the party for some time. Giuliani may not be a staunch conservative but he is a loyal party Republican and has no problem running his political opponents into the ground. And he looks great in an evening gown! Truly an election of firsts for America: a black man, a Latino, a woman and a drag queen...

Finally, Mitt Romney. Notwithstanding that the Christian right thinks Mormonism is a satanic cult, Mitt just isn't going to get it done politically. He may be the one candidate for whom his stance on various issues will sink his candidacy. Mitt's trying so hard to fling himself bodily into the arms of the right wing and I think they're going to throw him right back. Given his 180 degree reversal on just about every social issue, from abortion to gun control, the Democratic political strategists have to be licking their chops at the attack ad options Romney gives them.

In a larger sense, I think Mitt's actions give the lie to a favorite Republican talking point after the 2006 election: the soft, chewy center of American politics is what the American people want. I believe Romney's political flip-flopping demonstrates just what a fallacy the Mythical Middle really is. The Republicans are running towards the right wing base as quickly as they can, not the middle. They know what the middle really is: the Democratic party.

Bipartisanship is a myth used by political losers to erode the power of their more successful rivals. As a progressive, I don't want bipartisanship. I want progressive policy and I know I cannot get that from Republicans, just as the staunch conservatives aren't going to get their political agenda from the Democrats. That's why we have parties, to advocate different platforms and different visions for the country. Not to play "go along to get along" and show how much back-slapping camaraderie can be manufactured on The Hill.

In any case, my pick:

Republican Primary Winner: Rudy Giuliani and I have no idea who he'd consider for VP. Maybe Sam Brownback to woo the religious authoritarians?

Overall winner:

Are you kidding me? John Edwards, of course. I may be shamelessly partisan but I honestly can't foresee any way a Republican wins the next Presidential election. They've got the worst Republican President in history to follow. They have no issues to run on and no way to both embrace conservatism and distance themselves from an extremely unpopular President. And no, Richard Viguerie, calling Bush a liberal isn't going to convince anyone, if it even convinces you.

(Thanks to reader GB for the question. -S. Sam-)

Bushido Book Review: Self Made Man by Norah Vincent

2007-04-11T21:56:00.000-05:00

Every now and then I manage to tear myself away from my Dungeons & Dragons informed taste in novels (I'm re-reading The Wheel of Time) and actually read something of social relevance. Of late I've read two great books, one novel and one non-fiction. It's the latter I'd like to mention here.

I recently finished reading Norah Vincent's Self Made Man and I was, frankly, stunned by what I read. It's such common knowledge, especially among progressives, that white American men live the most charmed life on Earth. Which is true, of course, but it's not always a cake walk being a guy in our society and Vincent does a brilliant job of laying out the particulars. She does an excellent job comparing and contrasting her feminist beliefs to the reality of the male experience and results aren't very pretty for either sex.

Not only does she disguise herself as a man but she does it in some of the most testosterone-charged environments imaginable. Living through a bowling league, a strip club, a Catholic monastery and a pressure cooker sales job lets Vincent bear witness to the worst that men have to offer. And yet, she still finds room for sympathy and understanding even in the face of all that troubled manliness. Vincent's book goes many miles to remind all of us that our patriarchal society doesn't benefit any of us, even men, except occasionally in the most superficial of ways. And we all, men and women alike, pay a high cultural price for that little sliver of white male privilege.

As a final example of Vincent's astuteness, she finally puts into writing one of the greatest truisms about the American male: We're all, on some level, Johnny Cash fans. Amen, sister!

All Hat No Cattle

2007-04-11T21:47:00.000-05:00

I have to take just a minute to pile on Don Imus. Notwithstanding my opinion that his show was stuffy and boring, I think it's wholly appropriate that his simulcast on MSNBC has now been sacked. There is nothing special about an old white guy who is sexist and racist; they're a dime a dozen. Nor, as I put in comments below, do I think Don should be thrown in jail or otherwise prosecuted for what he said. Free speech is a wonderful thing. But free speech has its consequences as well.

Don Imus is free, as an American, to go around saying degrading things about women and minorities. America is, nominally, a free country. But that doesn't mean he should get paid to say those things nor enjoy the celebrity of having an audience to digest his garbage. What he did was nothing new or even very original. But it was thoughtless, ignorant and cruel. In all the news coverage of this (and boy are the other cabloid news networks beating this dead horse like it was Anna Nicole's corpse) it seems very little is being said about the unfortunate victims of Imus' "humor". These ladies did nothing to Imus. Their crime was just being young and different in the eyes of a crotchety old fart lucky enough to get paid for being one. Perhaps Imus' impending meeting with them will do him some good; they reacted to the situation with poise and class.

So, goodbye Don. Maybe now MSNBC will have something interesting to watch in the morning. And one more grumpy old racist misogynist will ride off into well-deserved anonymity.

Another one of "April's Fools"

2007-04-10T12:02:00.000-05:00

Don Imus, a MSNBC / CBS radio host, has been suspended for two weeks for calling the Rutgers female basketball players “nappy-headed hos.”

---Thus landing him at the top of my fools list (or possibly I should rename it: "stupid mother-fuckers" list)

---TWO weeks? Only two weeks? How is a two week vacation going to make up for this?

“What I did was make a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context,” Imus said on his show Tuesday morning, the final week before his suspension starts.

---A COMEDY CONTEXT? I don't hear anyone laughing:

"There's no question that this was so wrong on so many levels: racist, sexist, misogynistic," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "It wasn't much of an apology," Gandy said of Imus' attempts to repair the damage. "He didn't say actually he was wrong. What he said was he was insensitive and thoughtless. In other words, 'Well, of course, it's all true. I just shouldn't have said it on the air.'" Appearing on Sharpton's show, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also raised the issue of chauvinism. "I mean, who says 'hos' publicly?" she asked. "What is that? That is probably one of the most derogatory things any woman -- black, brown, yellow, white -- could even ever experience."

Will the ignorance ever end?

~Happy Spring Holiday~

2007-04-06T16:36:00.000-05:00

Exploring Easter ~
Easter is a time of springtime festivals. In Christian countries Easter is celebrated as the religious holiday commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but the celebrations of Easter have many customs and legends that are pagan in origin and have nothing to do with Christianity.
Scholars, accepting the derivation proposed by the 8th-century English scholar St. Bede, believe the name Easter is thought to come from the Scandinavian "Ostra" and the Teutonic "Ostern" or "Eastre," both Goddesses of mythology signifying spring and fertility whose festival was celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox.

So, why eggs?
Of all the symbols associated with Easter the egg, the symbol of fertility and new life, is the most identifiable. The customs and traditions of using eggs have been associated with Easter for centuries
Originally Easter eggs were painted with bright colors to represent the sunlight of spring and were used in Easter-egg rolling contests or given as gifts. After they were colored and etched with various designs the eggs were exchanged by lovers and romantic admirers, much the same as valentines. In medieval time eggs were traditionally given at Easter to the servants. In Germany eggs were given to children along with other Easter gifts

And what about those bunnies?
The Easter bunny has its origin in pre-Christian fertility lore. The Hare and the Rabbit were the most fertile animals known and they served as symbols of the new life during the Spring season. The bunny as an Easter symbol seems to have it's origins in Germany, where it was first mentioned in German writings in the 1500s. The first edible Easter bunnies were made in Germany during the early 1800s.

***Gives a new thread of credibility to "doing it like rabbits", huh?

Ronin Around

2007-04-03T20:24:00.000-05:00

As Gifted-1 said, we're getting back into the swing of things. It's been a hectic six months since I my last post and I apologize for the absence. So much has happened, both in our lives and the world at large that I could write all night and not be satisfied!

Thanks to everyone who kept checking back. I'm committed to getting back into the swing of things.

For now, I'm on a surprise business trip to the Chicago area (my third trip in as many months!) and must get some rest. More to come...

S. Sam

Bubba: The answers you are searching for

2007-04-02T18:51:00.000-05:00

SO, "Bubba" left a comment, asking why I felt the following people were "fools."
I needed more space, than the comment box would allow...

Here are just a few examples of why the following men (IMHO) are 'totally off their rockers':

Charlie Daniels (directly from the horse's mouth or the jack's ass ~ his personal website)-
"I believe that the universe and everything in it was created, not evolved,by an Almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God.I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I believe that he walked this earth for thirty plus years performing fantastic miracles including raising the dead.I believe he was nailed to a cross and that the blood that he shed was forthe remission of sin that he was laid in a grave and rose on the third day and now sits at the right hand of The Father interceding for those who believe in him and that one day sooner than later he will be coming back to earth to claim his rightful place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.I believe that the salvation of Jesus Christ is available to all and that he is the way the truth and the light, the only path to God.I believe the Bible literally, the Old Testament and the New Testament, when it says the whale swallowed Jonah I believe he actually ingested Jonah and regurgitated him."
- I'm sorry but this is just plain insane. Where is the critical thought?
"I for one am sick and tired of hearing some Muslim get on some television show and complain about how they are portrayed in our society.It could be solved very simply by declaring sides in the coming battle and condemning the Islamic terrorist forces around the world. They can be both Muslims and Americans but if they're living in a country they would take uparms against it's high time they declared themselves."
- He really needs to get his redneck out of his ass.

Don Manzulo - I grew up in a town very near to where Don and his family lived. My husband went to church with him, as a child and has many a story. He is an elitist jerk and I don't like him.

James Dobson -
I'm really not sure if there is anyone out there that disgusts me more than James Dobson, he is one of the worse hate-mongering bigots of our times! Here are a few examples of his "tamer" quotes: "My observation is that women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership."
“[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent "any circle of people who love each other," approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic."

Jerry Falwell -
He has been at the center of many controversies over the years including a number of run ins with the Federal Elections Committee and the IRS. He even blamed the events of September 11th, 2001 "on abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America."
Don't forget his other quotes, such as "Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc. are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status."
And talks about the teletubbie Tinky Winky like he is the anti-christ "He is purple — the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle — the gay-pride symbol,"

Toby Keith-
He is an idiot.
Oh, Justice will be served and the battle will rage.This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way.
I'd like to put a boot in his ass!

April's Fools ~ 100 of them

2007-03-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Unlike most of the other nonfoolish holidays, the history of April Fool's Day (aka All Fool's Day) is not totally clear.
Instead of staging some lame on-line hoax, I really feel like the joke has been on all of us for the last 6 years.

So, in honor of April Fools Day ~
I have compiled my top 100 list of Fools (in no particular order):

Ahmed Chalabi
Alan Keyes
Alberto Gonzales
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Brittney Spears
Charles F Stanley
Charlie Daniels
Charlton Heston
Chuck Colson
Condoleezza Rice
Craig Gross
Craig Manson
Daniel Shayesteh
David Brooks
David frum
Dennis Hastert
Dennis Miller
Dick Chaney
Don Manzulo
Don Martin
Donald Rumsfeld
Dr Kirk Cameron
Dr. James Kennedy
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Dr. Phil
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer
Dr. Terry Mortenson
Elizabeth Kantor
Fred Phelps
George W Bush
Geraldo Rivera
Grover Norquist
Hugh Hewitt
Jack Abramoff
James Dobson
James Inhofe
Jed Babbin
Jerry Falwell
Jim Sensenbrenner
John ashcroft
John Bolton
John Gibson
John Gizzi
John McCain
John Podhoretz
John Yoo
Jonah Goldberg
Julaine K. Appling
Karl Rove
Kate O'Beirne
Kirk Cameron
Lou Sheldon
Mark Foley
Mel Gibson
Michael Chertoff
Michael Savage
Mike Brown
Mike Johanns
Mitch McConnell
Neil Cavuto
Newt Gingrich
Pat Boone
Pat Buchanan
Pat Robertson
Patricia Heaton
Paul Cameron
Paul Weyrich
Paul Wolfowitz
Reverend Don Wildomon
Rich Lowry
Richard Mellon Scaife
Richard Viguerie
Richarl Perle
Rick Santorum
Robert Davis McCallum, Jr
Robert McGovern
Robert Novak
Sam Alito
Scooter Libby
Scott McClellan
Shawn Hannity
Steve Forbes
Tedd Haggard
Ted Nugent
Ted Stevens
Toby Keith
Tom Cruise
Tom Delay
Tom Friedman
Tom Selleck
Tom Tancedo
Tony Blair
Tony Perkins
Tony Snow
Trent Lott
Tucker Carlson
Victor Davis Hanson
William Bennett
Willie Aames

[Politicians] never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge. -- Thomas Reed

Hopping Back on the Bloggin' Train...

2007-03-24T01:24:00.000-05:00

Spring has sprung and we're springing back to action.

With a new look ~ a new attitude ~ and hopefully some new comments from you!

Wishing You and Yours

2007-01-01T13:11:00.000-06:00

A happy new year

Happy Holidays!

2006-12-19T13:03:00.000-06:00

Seasons Greetings
Happy Diwali - the Festival of Lights
Happy St Nicholas Day
Happy Hanukkah
Blessed Yule ~ Winter Solstice
Merry Christmas
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Boxing Day
and a prosperous New Year to all, as well as my apologies if I missed anything.

Sorry ~ We have been on journey...

2006-12-08T16:08:00.000-06:00

...and will return soon!
Thanks for your patience and loyalty.

Silly man... Tits are for kids!

2006-11-17T22:37:00.000-06:00

Ah, another great display of American ignorance and intolerance...

Delta Airlines actually kicked a woman off one of their planes for breast-feeding her baby.

Emily Gillette said she was discreetly breast-feeding her 22-month-old daughter on Oct. 13 as their flight prepared to leave Burlington International Airport. She said she was seated by the window in the next-to-last row, her husband was seated between her and the aisle and no part of her breast was showing.
{snip}
"It embarrassed me. That was my first reaction, which is a weird reaction for doing something so good for a child," Gillette said Monday.

This issue is close to my heart {of course, but is also essential to the health and well-being of our children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has a lot to say on the issue, including:

Although economic, cultural, and political pressures often confound decisions about infant feeding, the AAP firmly adheres to the position that breastfeeding ensures the best possible health as well as the best developmental and psychosocial outcomes for the infant. Enthusiastic support and involvement opediatricianns in the promotion and practice of breastfeeding is essential to the achievement of optimal infant and child health, growth, and development.

I for the life of me, can not understand why we {the American public} continue to have thesridiculousus issues when other countries are fine with it. Wait... is it because people are S-T-U-P-I-D? I implore you to put down the beer, take off your blinders and get your head out of your conservative ass!

For more information on breastfeeding, mothers' issues or to sign the petition to tell Delta Airlines to get a clue and be supportive of breastfeeding mothers. {And tell Congress it's time to pass the Breastfeeding Promotion Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding mothers. Clearly this law is needed now!} Visit momsrising.org and take some action!

In the words of Howard Dean...

2006-11-08T23:48:00.000-06:00

Boo-Yah!

Democrats took the House, the Senate and... Rumsfeld has resigned. Could today get any better?
... Impeachment, perhaps? ;)

What's on your beginner's mind? Election Day:

2006-11-07T00:51:00.000-06:00

Have you or are you voting today?
If so, where?

Straight ticket or depends upon the race?

Are you voting on any amendments / resolutions?
If so, what?

Any comments?

Freaky Friday

2006-11-03T01:03:00.000-06:00

November 3

1892 - The first successful automatic telephone system was introduced in Laporte, IN. Almond Strowger, the inventor, came up with the idea because the non-automatic system made it possible for his customers calls to be intercepted by his competitor. Strowger ran a funeral parlor.

1900 - The first National Automobile Show opened in Madison Square Garden in New York City. A total of 31 car makers put their autoware on display.

1934 - The first race track in California opened under a new parimutuel betting law. Bay Meadows, in San Mateo, is still a favorite of pony players in the Bay Area.

1941 - The classic Jerry Gray arrangement of String of Pearls was recorded by the Glenn Miller Orchestra - on Bluebird 78s. The recording featured the trumpet of Bobby Hackett.

1952 - Frozen bread was offered for sale for the first time. A supermarket in Chester, New York featured the stuff. It was an invention of a local baker who used the quick-freeze technology developed by Clarence Birdseye (of Birdseye frozen foods fame).

1953 - Nanette Fabray starred in the first color TV program to be sent coast to coast. The telecast, from the Colonial Theatre in New York City, was broadcast via WNBT, New York to Burbank, CA.

1953 - The Rules Committee of organized baseball restored the sacrifice fly (credited to a batter who flies out to drive in a run). The rule had not been used since 1939.

1956 - The classic MGM film, The Wizard of Oz, was first seen on television. The film cost CBS $250,000 to show. The movie was shown 18 times between 1956 and 1976, and you can probably catch it again no matter what year it is.

1957 - Sam Phillips, owner of legendary Sun Records in Memphis, TN, released Great Balls of Fire, by Jerry Lee Lewis. Looking carefully at the original label, one will find credit to Lewis and “his pumping piano.”

1960 - The Unsinkable Molly Brown, opened on Broadway. The play would become an American theater standard and a smashing career launch for Shirley MacLaine.

1962 - Billboard magazine dropped the “Western” from its chart title. The list has been known as Hot Country Singles ever since.

1964 - For the first time, residents of the District of Columbia were permitted to vote in a presidential election. The ratification of the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (in 1961) gave Washington, D.C. citizens the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States (not for members of Congress, however). Before that (since 1936), D.C. residents had voted only for party officials and delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

1972 - Singers Carly Simon and James Taylor were married in Carly’s Manhattan apartment. The couple was said to be the highest-paid couple in the world -- next to Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Carly and ‘Sweet Baby’ James would divorce years later, but we hear they are still good friends.

1975 - Actor David Hartman became coanchor of ABC’s Good Morning America. Hartman’s co-host was actress Nancy Dussault.

1979 - The Eagles had the number-one album in the U.S. The Long Run started a nine-week run at the top these tracks to remember: The Long Run, I Can’t Tell You Why, In the City, The Disco Strangler, King Of Hollywood, Heartache Tonight, Those Shoes, Teenage Jail, The Greeks Don't Want No Freaks and The Sad Cafe.

1986 - “The Fight for Fort Knox” was announced this day. ‘Marvelous’ Marvin Hagler and ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard agreed to duke it out in April, 1987. The two were guaranteed at least $23 million. (Leonard won in a 12-round split decision.)

1990 - Vanilla Ice was number one in the U.S. with the single Ice Ice Baby, from the album To the Extreme. “Ice Ice Baby Vanilla, Ice Ice Baby Vanilla...”

1992 - Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton (and running-mate Al Gore) easily defeated President George Bush and VP Dan Quayle to win the U.S. presidential election.

1996 - George Foreman won a 12-round unanimous decision over Crawford Grimsley in Tokyo. The aging (actually the oldest heavyweight champ) collected a purse of about $5 million.

2000 - Movies making their first U.S. runs this day: Charlie’s Angels, with Camerin Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu (the angels), Bill Murray and Sam Rockwell ; and The Legend of Bagger Vance, starring Will Smith, Matt Damon, Charlize Theron, J. Michael Moncrief and Bruce Mcgill.

Candy Corn... anyone?

2006-10-31T00:30:00.000-06:00

History and Customs of Halloween

Halloween is an annual celebration, but just what is it actually a celebration of? And how did this peculiar custom originate? Is it, as some claim, a kind of demon worship? Or is it just a harmless vestige of some ancient pagan ritual?

The word itself, "Halloween," actually has its origins in the Catholic Church. It comes from a contracted corruption of All Hallows Eve. November 1, "All Hollows Day" (or "All Saints Day"), is a Catholic day of observance in honor of saints. But, in the 5th century BC, in Celtic Ireland, summer officially ended on October 31. The holiday was called Samhain (sow-en), the Celtic New year.

One story says that, on that day, the disembodied spirits of all those who had died throughout the preceding year would come back in search of living bodies to possess for the next year. It was believed to be their only hope for the afterlife. The Celts believed all laws of space and time were suspended during this time, allowing the spirit world to intermingle with the living.

Naturally, the still-living did not want to be possessed. So on the night of October 31, villagers would extinguish the fires in their homes, to make them cold and undesirable. They would then dress up in all manner of ghoulish costumes and noisily paraded around the neighborhood, being as destructive as possible in order to frighten away spirits looking for bodies to possess.

Probably a better explanation of why the Celts extinguished their fires was not to discourage spirit possession, but so that all the Celtic tribes could relight their fires from a common source, the Druidic fire that was kept burning in the Middle of Ireland, at Usinach.

Some accounts tell of how the Celts would burn someone at the stake who was thought to have already been possessed, as sort of a lesson to the spirits. Other accounts of Celtic history debunk these stories as myth.

The Romans adopted the Celtic practices as their own. But in the first century AD, Samhain was assimilated into celebrations of some of the other Roman traditions that took place in October, such as their day to honor Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruit and trees. The symbol of Pomona is the apple, which might explain the origin of our modern tradition of bobbing for apples on Halloween.

The thrust of the practices also changed over time to become more ritualized. As belief in spirit possession waned, the practice of dressing up like hobgoblins, ghosts, and witches took on a more ceremonial role.

The custom of Halloween was brought to America in the 1840's by Irish immigrants fleeing their country's potato famine. At that time, the favorite pranks in New England included tipping over outhouses and unhinging fence gates.

The custom of trick-or-treating is thought to have originated not with the Irish Celts, but with a ninth-century European custom called souling. On November 2, All Souls Day, early Christians would walk from village to village begging for "soul cakes," made out of square pieces of bread with currants. The more soul cakes the beggars would receive, the more prayers they would promise to say on behalf of the dead relatives of the donors. At the time, it was believed that the dead remained in limbo for a time after death, and that prayer, even by strangers, could expedite a soul's passage to heaven.

The Jack-o-lantern custom probably comes from Irish folklore. As the tale is told, a man named Jack, who was notorious as a drunkard and trickster, tricked Satan into climbing a tree. Jack then carved an image of a cross in the tree's trunk, trapping the devil up the tree. Jack made a deal with the devil that, if he would never tempt him again, he would promise to let him down the tree.

According to the folk tale, after Jack died, he was denied entrance to Heaven because of his evil ways, but he was also denied access to Hell because he had tricked the devil. Instead, the devil gave him a single ember to light his way through the frigid darkness. The ember was placed inside a hollowed-out turnip to keep it glowing longer.

The Irish used turnips as their "Jack's lanterns" originally. But when the immigrants came to America, they found that pumpkins were far more plentiful than turnips. So the Jack-O-Lantern in America was a hollowed-out pumpkin, lit with an ember.

So, although some cults may have adopted Halloween as their favorite "holiday," the day itself did not grow out of evil practices. It grew out of the rituals of Celts celebrating a new year, and out of Medieval prayer rituals of Europeans. And today, even many churches have Halloween parties or pumpkin carving events for the kids. After all, the day itself is only as evil as one cares to make it.

Daylight Saving Time (Not Daylight "Savings" Time)

2006-10-29T00:10:00.000-05:00

FYI: just in case you are as confused as most of us...
Daylight Saving Time Extended by Four Weeks in U.S. Starting in 2007:

August 8, 2005 Update: President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act, which extends Daylight Saving Time (DST) by four weeks from the second Sunday of March to end on the first Sunday of November. Extended Daylight Saving Time will begin in March 2007. See below for the new "spring forward, fall back" dates for the next few years.
Every spring we move our clocks one hour ahead and "lose" an hour during the night and each fall we move our clocks back one hour and "gain" an extra hour. But Daylight Saving Time (and not Daylight Savings Time with an "s") wasn't just created to confuse our schedules.

The phrase "Spring forward, fall back" helps people remember how Daylight Saving time affects their clocks. At 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April, we set our clocks forward one hour ahead of standard time ("spring forward").

We "fall back" at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October by setting our clock back one hour and thus returning to standard time. The change to Daylight Saving Time allows us to use less energy in lighting our homes by taking advantage of the longer and later daylight hours. During the six-and-a-half-month period of Daylight Saving Time, the names of time in each of the time zones in the U.S. change as well. Eastern Standard Time (EST) becomes Eastern Daylight Time, Central Standard Time (CST) becomes Central Daylight Time (CDT), Mountain Standard Time (MST) becomes Mountain Daylight Tome (MDT), Pacific Standard Time becomes Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), and so forth.
Daylight Saving Time was instituted in the United States during World War I in order to save energy for war production by taking advantage of the later hours of daylight between April and October. During World War II the federal government again required the states to observe the time change. Between the wars and after World War II, states and communities chose whether or not to observe Daylight Saving Time. In 1966, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act which standardized the length of Daylight Saving Time.

Arizona (except some Indian Reservations), Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have chosen not to observe Daylight Saving Time. This choice does make sense for the areas closer to the equator because the days are more consistent in length throughout the year.

Other parts of the world observe Daylight Saving Time as well. While European nations have been taking advantage of the time change for decades, in 1996 the European Union (EU) standardized a EU-wide European Summer Time. This EU version of Daylight Saving Time runs from the last Sunday in March through the last Sunday in October.

In the southern hemisphere where summer comes in December, Daylight Saving Time is observed from October to March. Equatorial and tropical countries (lower latitudes) don't observe Daylight Saving Time since the daylight hours are similar during every season, so there's no advantage to moving clocks forward during the summer.

(Thanks about.com)

Mid-term elections '06

2006-10-23T23:21:00.000-05:00

Did you know that until 1913, all of our U.S. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, rather than elected by the people? That’s the way the "Founding Fathers" wanted it and it took the 17th amendment to change it. Today, about 1/3 of the 100 senators and all 435 representatives are up for re-election every two years. Yes, right in the middle of every president’s four year term in office, we up and hold an election that could turn the balance of political power in Congress upside-down.

This year voters will select 33 Senators (currently held by 18 Democrats and 15 Republicans) and all members of the House of Representatives (currently made up of 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent and 2 vacancies).

So like many, I'm sure... I had never seen the importance of mid-term elections, until now!
2006 is marking a possible turning point for the House and the Senate, so I urge you to go V-O-T-E on November 7th. I will be making my first journey into the all important mid-term booth.

Silly Sunday...

2006-10-22T23:59:00.000-05:00

Entertainment for today:

Political Cartoon Rorschach Test ~ Get a copy of your political profile

My results:
You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Democratic loyalist. You are appalled by the way Republicans are turning America into a theocratic, corpo-fascist police state, and you'd gladly walk through a furnace in a gasoline suit to elect a Democratic president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Republican Party and every intolerant, puritanical, imperialistic, greed-mongering, Constitution-shredding ideal for which it stands.

The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz ~ 10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to President Bush

I took it:
Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.

Courtesy of Bart Cop:

Republican says what????

2006-10-19T23:13:00.000-05:00

Past, Present (and I'm sure future) Republicans say the dumbest things:

From the "top" on down (way down)...

"I like my buddies from west Texas. I liked them when I was young, I liked them then I was middle-age, I liked them before I was president, and I like them during president, and I like them after president."
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
"I can only speak to myself."
"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"
"I'm a follower of American politics."
"I'm the master of low expectations."
--George W. Bush

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George Bush Sr.

"We see nothing but increasingly brighter clouds every month."
--Gerald Ford (president, 1974-1977), speaking to a group of Michigan businessmen about the economy.

"If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it."
--Calvin Coolidge, US President

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
--Dan Quayle, Former VP

"What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them."
--Former First Lady Barbara Bush (on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 05 2005)

"I AM the federal government."
"Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."
"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" (to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept 9 05)
--Tom Delay

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."
"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."
"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."
--Donald Rumsfeld

"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
"The public doesn't care about figures." -discussing his economic views
"Don't worry about that." -on the environment
--Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well."
--FEMA Director Michael Brown

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
--Trent Lott

"We do many things at the federal level that would be considered dishonest and illegal if done in the private sector."
--Donald T. Regan, President Reagan'sChief of Staff

"The Internet is a gateway to get on the net."
--Bob Dole

"Wherever I have gone in this country, I have found Americans"
--Alfred Landon, Losing Republican Candidate 1936

"Half the world does not know the joy of wearing cotton underwear"
--Texas Sen. Phil Gramm

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing."
--Christopher Shays, Republican congressman of Connecticut (on the Schiavo case)

"There are so many women on the floor of Congress, it looks like a mall."
--Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)

"I'll hire blacks as long as they can do the cotton-pickin' job."
--Evan Mecham (governor of Arizona, 1987-1988)

"We have every mixture you can have. I have a woman, two Jews, and a cripple."
--James Watt (Secretary of the Interior, 1981-1983), describing an Interior Department advisory group.

"Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25."
--Mary Anne Tebedo, Colorado state senator

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." (at the Republican National Convention '92)
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."
--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club"

(Sources include Dr. Politics, Political Humor at about.com, Stupid GOP Quotes and more)

This Day in Women's History ~

2006-10-18T15:01:00.000-05:00

Women's History for October 18th~
1541: Margaret Tudor died (sister of Henry VIII of England and grandmother of Mary, Queen of Scots)
1836: Ellen Scripps born (journalist, publisher, philanthropist; worked with U.S. Sanitary Commission and the Freedman's Bureau)
1849: Sarah Heston Rorer born (cookbook writer, cooking teacher, dietitian)
1881: Elizabeth Bagshaw born (physician, birth control advocate)
1889: Fannie Hurst born (writer, screenwriter)
1929: Women declared "persons" under Canadian law, in the " Persons Case"
1956: Martina Navratilova born (tennis player, gay rights advocate)
1947: Laura Nyro (Nigro) born (singer-songwriter)
1948: Ntozake Shange born (playwright, poet, writer)

Quote for Today~
The purpose of a woman's life is just the same as the purpose of a man's life: that she may make the best possible contribution to her generation.
— Louise McKinney

Somewhere over the rainbow...

2006-10-11T23:48:00.000-05:00

Happy National Coming Out Day!

People are shouting:
I'm Coming Out!

National Coming Out Day is an international event which gives gay, lesbian and bisexual people the opportunity to "come out" to others about their sexuality. It also provides a means of increasing the visibility of gay people. In the United States, the day is facilitated by the Human Rights Campaign's National Coming Out Project (NCOP).

The first National Coming Out Day was held on October 11, 1988. This date was chosen for the annual event in commemoration of the 1987 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. It also marks the anniversary of the first visit of the AIDS Memorial Quilt to Washington, D. C.

Many communities and college campuses sponsor activitities such as dances, film festivals, workshops, literature booths, and rallies on National Coming Out Day.

Bringing Out The Dead

2006-10-11T21:45:00.000-05:00

No doubt the news has traveled far and wide by now: the death toll for the Iraqis stemming from our invasion and occupation is many magnitudes greater than has been reported. A new study titled “The Human Cost of the War In Iraq” conducted by a joint team of doctors from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad places the number at a ghastly 654,965. From the study:

Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion.We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate—
in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.

This study was conducted by the same research group that did the 2004 study reported in the British medical journal The Lancet; a report which estimated 100,000 casualties then and was lambasted by the conservative media for its supposedly “flawed methodology”. Unfortunately for the Pro-War crowd, it looks like that first study wasn’t so far off the mark after all:

Since the 2006 survey included the period of time contained in the 2004 survey, we could compare these two results for the time frame from January 2002 through August 2004. In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the
number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000.

That these two surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys.

Given that, according to General Tommy Franks, the U.S. “doesn’t do body counts” it seems awfully hard to believe that The Decider could come up with a number so far off from this study. Yet he did just that, as CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux pointed out during this morning’s presser:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN: Thank you, Mr. President. Back on Iraq, a group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure and do you consider this a credible report?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don’t control it a credible report, neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.

Now, I’ve read the entire study, including the appendices, and I’m very curious as to just why Bush, Casey and the ubiquitous “Iraqi officials” doubt the findings. Do they challenge the statistical model used? If so, I’d like to see that critique spelled out in detail. Do they have a better study that gives a more accurate portrayal of the death toll? Again, that information needs to be made public. We live in a putative democracy and are responsible for the violence our government commits. We have a right and a responsibility as Americans to know, as do the Iraqis.

Or could it be that what Bush, Casey and the Unknown Iraqi Officials really doubt is the political expediency of admitting to the American people and the world that this debacle has cost hundreds of thousands of lives? I certainly realize that we never went to Iraq with any intention of helping anyone but the Republican party and the Neo-conservative fantasy worldview. But many conservatives are still deluding themselves that we're on some sort of mission from God to save Iraq from itself. 650,000 dead sure sucks all the humanity right out of that humanitarian mission, does it not?

Always Be A Good Boy, Don't Ever Play With Guns

2006-10-09T23:49:00.000-05:00

Words by Mr. Johnny Cash that a certain Wisconsin State Representative, Frank Lasee of Green Bay, would do well to heed. Representative Lasee is the genius behind the Doc Holliday theory of stopping school violence: arm the teachers. From WisPolitics:

“To make our schools safe for our students to learn all options should be on the table,” said Lasee. “Israel and Thailand have well trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin.”

Boy, is that ever a huge gamble Representative Lasee is making with the lives of our children. There are more unpleasant variables in his plan than a weeks worth of Algebra 2 homework. For one, any time more weapons are introduced into a school, the greater the chance for accidental violence. Lasee proposes having the firearms locked up until needed, which would virtually negate their swift use in an emergency anyway. Another problem is the potential for the guns to get into a student’s hands. No school is a maximum security institution; they are one of the most common targets of mischief break-ins. Yet another big variable is the possibility of collateral damage. While Representative Lasee and his NRA owners would certainly like everyone to forget it, the fact is that most of our gun control laws are designed to protect innocent victims. There’s a reason Wild West shoot-outs were made illegal and it wasn’t because liberals wanted Wyatt Earp’s gun.

Also, the United States bears little enough resemblance to Thailand and Israel. Both of those nations took to arming teachers for the teachers’ protection, especially in Thailand. The idea was not to create an army of paramilitary educators but rather a line of personal defense against the very real threat of terrorism in those countries. The U.S. is dealing with a completely different school violence problem here and trying to address it as a terrorist issue is a terrible misread. Not everyone who commits violence is a terrorist and not every violence problem has an anti-terrorism solution. Violently disaffected youth, like Harris and Clebold, or deranged nuts like Charles Carl Roberts IV act in an entirely different moral framework from a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Another gem from Lasee:

“In Israel and Thailand several lives have been saved because criminals don’t want to attack schools where well-trained marksmen and women may return fire.”

Does Representative Lasee honestly believe that armed teachers will be a deterrent to some kid who turns the wrong corner in his head and decides to shoot up his school? Again, these are not calculated acts of terrorism but rather the playing out of twisted rage from demented minds. Lasee certainly understands this, which is why what he’s really suggesting here is that schools will be safer because teachers and administrators may be able to maim or kill potential assailants. The issue, again, of collateral damage notwithstanding, that’s an incredible amount of discretion to be granting our educators and school administrators. I’m only barely on board with our law enforcement officials having life-or-death discretion in matters; adding thousands of more people with that power and introducing them into an environment as stressful and unpredictable as a high school is a disastrous idea. What will Representative Lasee say, assuming his plan passes the Legislature, when an overreacting teacher shoots the first innocent child by mistake? It’s inevitable; it will happen. Is that a price Wisconsin is willing to make it’s children pay in order for the illusion of safety, as safety bought with potential violence is always illusory? Not for me, not for my children…

It's Only The End Of The World...Again

2006-10-09T21:26:00.000-05:00

I doubt anyone can truly claim to be shocked by North Korea’s atomic bomb test on Sunday. After all, it’s been largely a matter taken on faith since at least 2000 that Kim Jong Il had or was developing nuclear weaponry. While Bush’s Asix of Evil was only so much empty-headed political rhetoric designed to reinforce his paperback fiction view of the world, the regime of North Korea and its aims are deadly serious.

However, as with nearly every international crisis of the last six years, the Republicans in Washington and their mouthpieces are hard at work building North Korea’s actions into a roiling thunderhead of pants-wetting terror, cunningly brewed to send average conservatives screaming in terror to the polls in November. Fox “News” today was a veritable smorgasbord of unearthly chills. Shiny CGI missiles exploding over California, launched by the platform-heeled tyrant of Pyongyang but handily intercepted by that most glorious of all Republican boondoggles: the missile defense shield. Guest after guest postulated about the possibility of military action, shoving aside all obligation and consequences of that “other war” in a place, unlike North Korea, where weapons of mass destruction don’t actually exist. The fear and hysteria was palpable, as were the furtive whispered prayers by the rightwing punditry for a new war that would be everything the last isn’t. Never mind that our war with North Korea never really ended, nor the pervasive experience of mankind that demonstrates how war is never what politicians and pundits plan it to be. Never mind any of that because fear sells and fills ballot boxes.

As usual, the reality on the ground is not quite the same as the garish bleating of the conservative media sheep or their crooked GOP shepherds. North Korea is dangerous, certainly, but much more so to its neighbors than to the U.S. First of all, any hypothetical that demonstrates a North Korean missile attack on the west coast of the United States is assuming an entire library of facts not in evidence, the chief of which being a North Korean missile capable of delivering such a blow. Dr. David C. Wright, writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists, had the following to say about North Korea’s missile technology:

Assessments of North Korea’s military capability often portray North Korea as possessing a long-range nuclear missile capability, or as able to rapidly acquire one. This is not true.

[...]

North Korea has short-range variants of the Scud missile, with ranges up to 500-600 kilometers for a payload of 500 kilograms, that are well tested.

Of course, North Korea has, since that article was written, tested some long-range missiles. The results of those tests from May of this year, are telling: the long range Taepo Dong missile failed 35 seconds after launch. The bottom line is that while North Korea is certainly a danger to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the region it, like every other enemy Bush chooses to name, is not a clear and present danger to the United States.

Which is actually not a surprise, given that Bush’s treatment of North Korea has been seriously at odds with his fiery rhetoric. For example, a summary by the Congressional Research Service from March 2003, lists the following as the Bush administration’s primary policy position on North Korea’s nuclear program:

(1) Continuing priority to Iraq: President Bush reportedly has said that he does not want two simultaneous crises. U.S. officials say they will rely on diplomacy and expect diplomacy to run well into 2003. They argue that North Korea’s actions do not constitute a crisis.

A rather muted reaction, given that North Korea is a much-ballyhooed member of Bush’s Axis of Evil and, unfortunately, actually does have the kinds of weapons programs that were used erroneously in selling the invasion of Iraq. It’s ironic, in an “Oops, there goes the planet” sort of way. North Korea may not be the doomsday army ready to trample apple pie and the American flag into the ground (Fox reserves that designation for Iran) but it is certainly many magnitudes a greater threat to the world than Iraq ever was. For all that Bush claims his job is protecting the American people (along with lecturing us like we’re all as stupid as he), apparently Bush doesn’t take his “job” very seriously at all. Almost as if he were nothing but an empty suit designed to raise campaign contributions for his father’s political allies…but I’ve said too much!

In all seriousness, a rekindling of the Korean War becomes a very real possibility after Sunday’s test. The drumbeat for war is page one of the GOP political hymnal and it looks to be a very ugly election year for God’s Own Party. Will it be the end of the world again, as Fox and its half-wit analysts claim? I hope not. I hope it’s all just more fear mongering by the Republicans in a vain hope to paper over their gross incompetence and ethical lassitude during the past 6 years. In any case, there’s no need for the GOP to scare us any further; just knowing that America’s fate in this time of crisis is in the hands of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld is enough to tremble the stoutest heart.

Anarchy in the Pre-K

2006-10-05T22:31:00.000-05:00

Our handsome son, Liam.

He is living up to his Anarchy in the Pre-K sweatshirt.
He also sports t-shirts that {accurately} read:
*I do my own stunts
*If you are close enough to read this, you are in my way
*Class Clown ~ Now Performing
*I'm definitely up to something

Liam is wild, crazy, stubborn, loves to test limits, brilliant and oh so funny! He has been known to teach adults how to use remote controls, can hook up a DVD player {and it works} and has mastered every child-proofing device out there!

Doing My Part... Promoting a Fair Wisconsin!

2006-09-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

Marriage is finding that one person you want to annoy, for the rest of your life!

If you have been reading this lovely blog long, you should know that one of the causes that I am most passionate about, is gay marriage (and gay rights, in general). I am horrified by the insane amount of time and money that is wasted by our government, trying to deny citizens basic human rights!

365gay.com is one of the sites I check fairly often. I have been very pleased with how they have covered the Wisconsin issues. There are A LOT of us (heterosexuals) here in this state... Dedicated to supporting our GLBT brothers and sisters in their journey towards marriage (if they so choose). We are not all cheese hat wearing, cheap beer drinking, belching, farting, green and yellow, conservative bastards...

I love the ads Fair Wisconsin has been running. Lynn's Story is so touching ~ you can view it off their site, if you're not lucky enough to live in America's Dairyland.
So, I am putting my money (or time) where my mouth is! Next Sunday I will start volunteering at Fair Wisconsin's LaCrosse office. The goal is to make sure people know if they support civil unions, they should oppose the ban!
This proposed amendment goes way beyond banning marriage for gay couples. It will also ban civil unions and threaten any legal protections for unmarried couples.
A majority of Wisconsinites support civil unions, which could offer many of the rights of marriage to gay couples. Statewide polls have shown that around 60% of people in our state support civil unions or marriage for gay couples. I wish it were more, but hey... the start will be making sure that this does NOT pass in November!

We love who we love... why shouldn't we ALL have the choice to make it "official"?

American Justice?

2006-09-26T20:50:00.000-05:00

Anyone doubting that there is a class divide in this country is likely a conservative, since class warfare, like racism, is a myth on the political right. However, for the rest of us, that divide, that gulf, is almost impassably wide and growing every day. Besides the economy, one of the many areas where that divide is most notable is in our judicial system.

First, the news, via RedOrbit.com:

More than 2 1/2 years after pleading guilty for his participation in Enron Corp.'s collapse, financial whiz Andrew Fastow's fate was to be revealed Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt was expected to give Fastow 10 years, which the former chief financial officer previously agreed to. Hoyt can't increase his sentence but could reduce it.

According to Fox "News" this afternoon, Fastow actually received a 6 year sentence, of which he'll serve probably half. Roughly a three-year prison sentence for Andrew Fastow, who's complicity in Enron’s criminal activity led to the following:

Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. The collapse wiped out thousands of jobs>, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.

Now, by comparison, here’s an example of another kind of criminal behavior. I have a friend who had repeated run-ins with the law over his marijuana habits. He like to use it, made money selling it and generally was not very good at not getting caught with it repeatedly. At the end of the day, he was charged with multiple felonies, including intent to distribute; charges which, all told, left an 11-year prison sentence hanging over my friend’s head, of which he was guaranteed to serve at least 6 in a state penitentiary here in Wisconsin.

Fortunately for my friend, Wisconsin has a drug court program that allows those facing prison time over drug offenses to eventually get those charges dismissed. It requires years of community service, counseling, fines and a basic surrender of a large chunk of one’s civil rights to the government, in exchange for the promise of a clean slate at the other end. My friend was fortunate enough to make it through to that clean slate; many don’t.

The point is this:

One of these men ruined thousands of people. He materially damaged their lives, costing them their livelihoods, their retirements and basically burned the corporate safety net many of us rely upon today in the absence of sensible government programs. This man caused untold emotional anguish to these thousands, leaving their futures uncertain at best, all while earning millions in the process. He helped largely destroy the 7th largest company in the United States, costing thousands of investors billions of dollars. At the end of the day, this man’s malfeasance caused economic damage on par with a natural disaster, and he’ll likely serve 3 years in a minimum security prison for his actions.

The other man was smoking weed a few times, once with a whole coffee can of it in the trunk. He claims he only sold it to other adults and committed no violent crimes of any kind in the process. He hurt no one physically or economically, save himself, and really did emotional harm only to those who know and love him. Even he doesn’t know how much money he actually made selling marijuana, but at the time he entered the drug court program he had no job, no car, no house; really, no assets or income of any kind. He was completely destitute. At the end of his day, he spent 3 years in a state drug court program, paying thousands of dollars in fines, surrendering to home searches, random drug tests, curfews, job restrictions and many other limits on his freedom. He lived every day with the threat of at least 6 years in a maximum security prison should he ever slip up even the tiniest bit.

Given all that, I pose the question:

Is this "justice" in any sense of the word?

Torture Deserves No Compromises

2006-09-26T04:12:00.000-05:00

I am more than a little horrified to think that our nation is actually busy having a high-level debate (between certain Senators and the President, no less!) about how exactly to interpret the Geneva Conventions against torture. If there is any issue under the sun about which all Americans should be able to agree, it ought to be that we are universally against torture of any kind. After all, it’s awfully hypocritical for America to proclaim the supposed divinely inspired equality of all mankind while our President and Senate haggle over just how much inhuman cruelty it is permissible to visit upon our war detainees. Gone already is the presumption of innocence for these people, our fellow human beings. Their humanity was stripped away when they were convicted of being swarthy Middle Easterners in the presence of an American “War on Terror”. Their rights as human beings lie as mute casualties of our collective fear. No great nation can act this way and still claim greatness.

It’s not as though our nation doesn’t have experience with dehumanizing others and committing torture against them, either. I just watched Mississippi Burning again this weekend and was struck as powerfully as ever by how close our putatively free society sits to Nietzche’s abyss. We look into it again and again, seeing different strange faces over the years as whole segments of our society embrace hatred of that stranger. So it is again today, with the “War on Terror”. Too many Americans looked into the face of the evil that bled us on 9/11 and saw not a ragtag bunch of religious extremists who scored the ultimate sucker punch, but a roiling mass of existential evil bent on the destruction of free society. The Bush administration and its complicit Republican Congress whipped that fearful horse into a frenzied gallop, running campaigns and public policy on delusions of Al-Qaeda’s grandeur. And for those of us who were, and remain, skeptical about the breadth of the Islamic extremist threat, there has been nothing but contempt and attacks upon our patriotism. Bush and his sycophants in the rightwing media have used their bully pulpits and media megaphones to shout down dissent, sowing fear and hatred against the dreaded "Other" once again in America. Even the slightest voice of reason that penetrates that mighty Wurlitzer is welcome.

Which is why, I think, it was so easy for many liberals, against their better judgment, I hope, to give Senator John McCain and friends at least a somewhat interested ear when they began to question Bush's proposed dismantling of the Geneva Conventions. The legend of McCain’s moral individuality, his "maverick" status, is grossly undeserved yet one of the most persistent myths in Washington. McCain is, and always has been, a loyal conservative Republican with a penchant for talking a bigger game than he plays. He consistently votes with his party, regardless of his rhetoric in the policy debates. It should have been no surprise to anyone, liberals especially, that McCain would eventually agree to a "compromise"; which, among Republicans, means doing whatever Bush wants with a little phony political theatre to entertain the rubes. I don’t doubt John McCain is against torture, but I also don't doubt that he's much more invested in a Republican majority and a future McCain presidential administration than he is in a principled moral stand. We’ve been around this block too many times for me to believe that McCain and his fellows actually believe taking Bush and Hadley at their words is a compromise of any kind. It was election year politics and nothing more.

Given that it was nothing but strange Washington kabuki, the silence of the Democrats during this debate is possibly the most damning mark against us in some time. For a party that continually battles the well-worn conservative stereotype that Democrats do not stand by their principles, failing to vocally take a stand against gutting the Geneva Conventions may possibly be the worst political mistake the party’s made this election season. Even I am beginning to doubt whether the leadership of my party has any sort of grasp of what motivates American voters. Voices like Russ Feingold’s, who has been vocally against the Bush administration’s torture policies, are welcome, but Russ isn’t the prominent national voice that a Clinton or Reid is. The Democrats were largely silent, hoping that this might finally be the issue that splits the Republican party apart while again forgetting how passive-aggressive and opportunistic that approach appears to the voters. Torture should be a no-brainer issue for Democrats; they should have been shouting from the mountaintops about what a disgusting display of immoral hypocrisy the entire Republican debate was. National security is not the end that justifies all means, but the Republicans will continue to use it that way if their ambitions remain unchecked.

Instead, most of what we got from my Democratic party was similar to President Clinton's remarks on Meet the Press: a pragmatic support of the Geneva conventions. That’s not to say that defending the Conventions on a pragmatic basis is not worthwhile or effective; torture doesn’t work and its use does put Americans at risk. Unfortunately, the electorate does not vote on issues pragmatically. The Republicans, Bush and Rove especially, understand this very well. Rarely does Bush try and defend his policies from a practical point of view. Instead, it's high-minded rhetoric about "clashes of civilization", "good versus evil" and our "duty to history". While that approach is not intellectual and not very enlightening about the issues, it is effective in winning elections. And, at the end of the day, losing elections is the only thing that is going to stop movement conservatism from permanently damaging our democracy.

For my own part, I think the pragmatic arguments against torture are needless. Some issues can stand purely on their moral foundations. A ban against torture in any form is one such issue. The Geneva Conventions are writ broadly and somewhat vaguely on purpose: to force those abiding by them to question their governments’ policies on an ongoing basis. What Bush seeks to do, and what other violent authoritarians, such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile have sought to do, is define torture down to specifics in order to weaken the Geneva Conventions. There is no need for specific, delineated rules about torture for any nation, unless that nation wishes to know where the limit lies in order to walk as closely to it as possible. That, I believe, is what the Bush administration is attempting to do: set a standard so specific that it leaves a vast array of inhuman depravations legal. There should be no need for a debate on the pragmatic reasons against torture; the sickening, inhuman immorality of it should be the beginning an end for our nation, or any other. We have no claim to decency as a nation or a people otherwise.

A Stern Warning

2006-09-25T20:01:00.000-05:00

From Admiral Kirk and RedOrbit.com:

Almost every day, the great antennas of NASA's Deep Space Network turn to a blank patch of sky in the constellation Ophiuchus. Pointing at nothing, or so it seems, they invariably pick up a signal, faint but full of intelligence. The source is beyond Neptune, beyond Pluto, on the verge of the stars themselves.
It's Voyager 1. The spacecraft left Earth in 1977 on a mission to visit Jupiter and Saturn. Almost 30 years later, with the gas giants long ago seen and done, Voyager 1 is still going and encountering some strange things.

I know this seems cool, being the first man-made object to ever leave the solar system about 10 years hence, but read between the lines, people! When V’ger comes back looking for The Creator and James Dobson’s great, great, great, great, great grandson tries to beam up a King James Version, we’re all getting vaporized!

Send a letter to NASA and demand that they take action immediately. We cannot allow science to bring about the end of the world. That’s religion’s job…

Happy Autumnal Equinox & Congratulations to Lori and Jeffrey!

2006-09-22T17:31:00.000-05:00

Friday evening marked the Autumnal Equinox and precisely at 11:03 Samurai Sam officiated a beautiful wedding ceremony, uniting Lori & Jeffrey. Please send them your best wishes for a long and happy life, together!

As Insubstantial As A Dream

2006-09-19T20:59:00.000-05:00

I had to drop in for just a few minutes and talk about this whole dust-up with the Pope, seeing how it's all over the news still. I have to admit that I don't understand what the big deal is exactly. Benedict is a firm believer in a strict constructionist view of Vatican 2; which means he clearly believe Islam to be an inferior religion to Christianity. I would wager that most of the 80% of Americans who are Christian feel the same way. There is an enormous amount of ignorance in the Western world about Islam, and it's been an especially virulent ignorance since 9/11. This whole situation seems to me another symptom of that ignorance, agitated by a man who clearly ought to know better diplomacy than to quote a 14th century ideologue's insult of Islam. If anyone should know that the eyes of the world are upon them, it's the Pope.

Personally, I find it hard to fathom a much less substantial argument than one that centers around whose faith is superior. As an atheist, it seems to me the most pointless debate possible; the nature of the unknowable. How many angels are dancing on the head of this pin, and which magic man holds it in his hand, the Jew or the Arab? As if world events should truly turn on such questions...

Further, all the phony outrage on both sides is ridiculous. What do Muslims care what the Pope says? And why does the Western world care so much about what offends a tiny fringe group of Muslims? The "clash of civilizations" is nothing but a weird pantomime; pretend slights and feigned offense. It's really quite strange...

[I will be back to regular posting soon, assuming my career doesn't kill me. - S. Sam]

The Youngest of the bunch turns 1!

2006-09-19T00:02:00.000-05:00

On September 8, 2005 our lives changed. We were graced with the presence of our beautiful Cecelia Rose. 9 lbs 4 oz, 20 inches of pure sweetness!

A million dollar smile... and she's just a year old! Wow... can you imagine two? three? thirteen?

Rumors of the Samurai’s Death: Unfounded

2006-09-17T23:43:00.000-05:00

It has been determined that the famed Samurai Sam is alive and well! He is currently working on some top-secret projects (4 presentations for the man, this week) and an “underground” wedding ceremony (two liberals will be joined in holy or un-holy matrimony this Friday).

We will return with more insights into the world and criticisims of the conserative view, soon. Thanks for your patience!

Email From Outer Wingnuttia: Local Trouble Edition

2006-09-12T20:59:00.000-05:00

I'm often amazed at life's little coincidences. For example, the email I'm about to answer below. It's fascinating because it's actually from one of my co-workers, though I'm fairly certain he doesn't realize that Samurai Sam is laboring away for the very same corporate overlord as this erstwhile critic of my liberal leanings. Since this gentleman was nice enough to email me, I thought I'd post a response. Who knows? He may even be back to read it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bigotry Comes in Many forms; some blatant some subtle.

I agree, and they're all detestable.

How interesting that you blast people like Pat Buchanan and the mayor of Arcadia for their views, while at the same time profiting by allowing someone like "Ishkur" sell his wares on your website.

I consider "blasting Pat Buchanan" my patriotic duty as an American. He's an under-cover racist, seeking to forward the same agenda as notables like the Aryan Anarchist Skins while couching his goals in "reasonable" language (though the cracks will show when old Pat is pressed; he's nothing if not an angry bigot). As for the mayor of Arcadia: well, he's just another typical, small-town bigot, so ignorant and fearful of those different from he that he abuses the office of mayor in an effort to cater to his own prejudices. His entire racist platform is nothing but disaffected bar talk; the bitching of losers too busy grubbing in the muck of their own insignificance to wake up and see the beauty of our diverse world. Arcadia, like many small, white Midwestern towns, is experiencing the growing pains and uncertainty that come from a sudden influx of immigrants. It was no different back in the 19th century when Norwegians flooded the area. However, had the mayor even an ounce of integrity, he'd have used his position to foster fraternity and understanding between the old white community and the new Mexican one. That he chose the path he did says much about his character, or rather the lack thereof.

Finally, I posted "Ishkur's" Intelligent Design poster because I thought it was funny. If he/she made money from one of my readers, great! Good work deserves rewards.

Today's poster highlight shines the spotlight on the ridicule of people who believe that the Intelligent Design theory can reasonably answer more questions about our origin and development than the evolution theory.

No, it doesn't, nor was that my intention. It's a free country and a free people are allowed to believe whatever they choose to believe. However, that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is anything other than a half-baked attempt to circumnavigate the Second Amendment and get Biblical Creationism into public schools. It's not science, it's marginal theology and it fails to offer anything of use in understanding the natural world.

Intelligent Design doesn't answer any question, except for "What's a name for a political boondoggle designed to pollute our public science education with phony religious nonsense?" The theory of evolution is one of the best tested and researched scientific theories we have and just because it doesn't fit with a literal interpretation of Old Testament mythology doesn't make it any less the bedrock theory of numerous modern scientific disciplines. But, again, everyone's free to believe whatever they want. Just don't expect me to give weight and credence to whatever bit of mystical whimsy is in vogue today's conservative theists.

You don't appreciate the views of some currently in the headlines; neither do I.

True, I don't appreciate those advocating for a new segregation by immmigration status, endless unjustified and unwinnable war in the Middle East or a virtual Christian theocracy here at home. That's what you were going to say too, right?

But don't be a hypocrite and ridicule others or allow others to be ridiculed because of their disbelief in evolution.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to ridicule anyone I feel deserves it, just as they have the right to ridicule me in return. As a secular humanist in an overwhelmingly Christian country, I know all about having the minority view on matters metaphysical, so don't play the poor Christian victim card here. There is nothing hypocritical about my being dismissive of Creationism; I'm just as dismissive of astrology and witchcraft as well. The universe is an amazing place; adding a gaudy veneer of mysticism to it is like spray-painting a smiley face on the Venus de Milo.

And I'm spent...

I have to say that, as far as critical emails go, this one was pretty decent. Calling me a hypocrite and implying that I'm as bigoted as Pat "What white hood?" Buchanan is child's play for what we normally see on these here internets...

I Remember...

2006-09-11T21:31:00.000-05:00

I remember September 11, 2001. Oh, I've been accused many times of "forgetting" it, especially by people who think they somehow own the symbology of that day; the identity of it. But I remember it uncoupled from the lies and the wars that followed. I remember the day as it was, a day of tremendous shock and sorrow.

I was actually on the Metra when the first jet crashed into the North Tower. That would be the suburban commuter train that took us low ranking corporate functionaries from our middle class townhomes in Carol Stream or Hanover Park to the Chicago Loop. I slept the whole way to Union Station, much as I did every day. A beautiful morning walk, a stop at the Corner Bakery, a day like any other. But only for awhile.

I was working for a small real estate firm on Wacker Drive at that time and, upon arriving to work and getting settled into my office, decided to wander off to the complementary coffee break room. There I ran into our corporate accounting manager, who casually remarked how he'd heard that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I imagined a single prop airplane, some lost or drunk pilot carelessly joyriding and causing a spectacle on that beautiful morning. It was so easy to be that naive then.

But not for long. Soon other folks began to arrive at the office with terrible tales to tell. War! An attack on New York City. Several of us tuned in to Mancow (Rush Limbaugh with a sense of humor) just in time to hear of the second attack, this time claiming the south tower. Soon news reports were blaring across the airwaves, talk of terrorists and hijackings nationwide. See, no one knew in those few hours what the terrible scope of the attacks were nor if there were more to come. It was taken as an almost certainty that Chicago and maybe L.A. were in immediate danger. At the behest of Mayor Daley, many of us began trying to evacuate the Loop, glancing furtively at the skyline and wondering if we were about to see it as it was for the last time.

The most poignent moment of 9/11 for me came in that chaotic exodus. Thousands upon thousands of people streamed towards the train stations, wanting desperately to escape home, to comfort and sanity. Reports screamed out over the radio of panic and confusion at the Sears Tower and the Hancock building. As I half-walked, half-ran towards Union Station, a single, clarifying moment occurred. A low-flying jet, banking over Chicago, it's engines roaring. I watched thousands of people turn their gazes to the sky at once and then, reflexively, duck as they ran, believing, as I certainly did, that we were about to witness first-hand what we'd all been hearing about that morning. The sky was a perfect blue as that silver arrow eased lazily over the Chicago skyline and escaped north over the Miracle Mile.

And then it was over, the spell broken. We had been given a reprieve, been spared the agony of New York and Washington. Thousands of people packed the Metra and CTA, so many that the doors wouldn't close. I arrived home after being trapped standing for an hour and a half to Hanover Park. I watched on CNN the constant replay of the attacks and, later, the gut-wrenching agony of the towers' collapse. Gifted-1 and I spoke several times on the phone that morning, she from work near O'Hare and me from home, as fighter jets rumbled over head. They would be the last jets we'd hear for many days; an air-traffic silence over the greater Chicago area that was, in its way, just as unsettling as the attacks. It had the feeling of a changed America, an America under attack by an enemy many of us didn't realize we had...

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

In retrospect, the saddest part of 9/11 for me, beyond the death and destruction, was Al-Qaeda's success. They sought to terrify the American people, to cow us into believing that our freedom was a liability to our safety. And so many believed them; still believe them. Maybe now, this five years on, we can step back from that abyss and remember that we've always had enemies and our oceans have never protected us from them. The only existential threat we face is from within, not from the hills of Afghanistan or alleys of Baghdad. Al-Qaeda can do nothing to our nation that we don't allow, save bleed us a little. And we've always bled for our way of life; it's worth a little blood now and then.

There's No Such Thing As A "Docu-Drama"!

2006-09-08T10:34:00.000-05:00

I just caught a second or two of Fox "News" as I was fetching some coffee this morning and heard what I had been expecting for days concerning ABC's "The Path to 9/11" RNC campaign commercial...err..."docu-drama": a justification comparing it to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". Some lovely coiffed but intellectually vacant Fox commenter opined, and I quote as nearly as I can remember: "Democrats certainly weren't up in arms about Michael Moore's "docu-drama" blaming Bush for 9/11". The quote is surely not exact but it captures the flavor of what she meant even if I made part of it up. ABC's new standards for integrity are good enough for "A Beginner's Mind", right? Apparently there's an ethical exception to the truth as long as something can be called a "docu-drama", which is what this young spokesmodel for movement conservatism actually called Moore's documentary.

The differences between "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Path to 9/11" are many and no doubt the conservative talking heads pushing this bogus argument understand and are attempting to obscure those differences. Let's explore a few of them to see why Fox remains on the cutting edge of fabricated news...

First of all, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a documentary, not some meaningless pop-culture doublespeak term of no substance. Moore's film, which I have seen, takes a huge amount of factual information and then draws conclusions from it that are open to debate. It's certainly an opinion piece but those opinions are drawn on well-documented factual information. At no time does Moore create events out of whole cloth the way ABC's "docu-drama" does, such as the "Sandy Berger refusing to go after Osama bin Laden" scene that's elicited letters from former Clinton administration personnel. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a documentary which draws opinionated conclusions based on actual facts. "The Path to 9/11" is an historical fiction that attempts to re-write history to match what the GOP wishes had happened. They want to absolve Bush of all responsibility for the mistakes made by his office, while casting the blame for the worst terrorist attack in history onto the one President with the best anti-terrorism record of any we've had. I guess we'll have to scratch "integrity" and "accountability" off the list of those much vaunted "conservative values" about which we hear so much...

Second, Moore didn't advertise "Fahrenheit 9/11" as anything other than what it was: an opinionated documentary. He made no bones about his disgust with the Bush administration. "The Path to 9/11", on the other hand, has continually been marketed as an unbiased look at the events leading up to 9/11 based on the 9/11 Commission report, which is patently untrue. Notables such as Richard Clark, the former anti-terrorism director under Bush, has himself said that the movie presents scenes which are complete fabrications. This, along with the fact that only rightwing blogs and media outlets were allowed an advanced screening, surely indicates that "The Path to 9/11" has a clear and intentional agenda which ABC is deliberately trying to hide.

Finally, ABC, like several other major networks, refused to air "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it was released, deeming it to be too "politically charged". That much hypocrisy almost speaks for itself. Apparently being "too politically charged" is OK as long as it's the "right" politics. Disney (ABC's parent company) no doubt loves those Bush tax cuts and, thus, has a very vested interest in making sure nothing unfortunate, like, for instance, the democratic process, happens to that corporate welfare.

As a matter of course, I don't see anything so much wrong with ABC airing it's historical fiction about 9/11 as much as I mind how ABC is marketing this mess. ABC, sans Monday Night Football, is now easily the most useless non-Fox "News" station on the cable dial. If they wanted to air a GOP-approved mini-series about 9/11 for their hundreds of viewers, more power to them. But they must present it for what it is: a poor conservative's History Channel special.

[Lazy Blogger's Note: Rather than populate this post with 50 links to Atrios, I'll just suggest that anyone interested in doing so can use Eschaton as a works-cited page for all things related to this "docu-drama".]

The Two Economies

2006-09-05T14:33:00.000-05:00

Christy at firedoglake has a post up about the economy's role in election year politics which contains a graphic demonstrating the nationwide decline in median wages. She references John Edwards' speeches about "The Two Americas" that he gave during the 2004 election. In them he laid the groundwork for an old-fashioned populist campaign targeted at the working class, which I hope we see again next year. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is dwindling away as a result.

Yet every indication from the talking heads in the media and from the White House is that the economy is doing just swimmingly. And, from a certain perspective, the Republicans are actually somewhat right in that assessment of the economy (insert your own "stopped clock" joke here). The economy does continue to add jobs, inflation is higher than the Greenspan days but still quite low at around 3%, productivity growth continues, oil prices are declining and the stock market continues on a growth trend begun in June. Those are all positive signs of economic growth, yet anxiety about the economy remains the number one concern of American voters. Why?

The answer lies behind the numbers, as it often does. Every measure of economic growth that Republicans like to trumpet have one thing in common: they are good news to wealthy investors and capitalists but not terribly meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. Yes, business and equity growth is good for the country in the long term. I certainly don't dispute that. But a closer look shows that the benefits of all this growth really are not "trickling down" as a certain sainted Republican president once mendaciously claimed.

Job Growth

The latest jobs report indicates that the economy added about 119,000 jobs over the last month, which is certainly growth. Problem is, economists estimate that the U.S. requires roughly 250,000 new jobs per month to cover population growth and immigration. This means that fewer jobs are being created in the short term than will be needed in the long term. Thanks to the basics of supply vs. demand, this slowed growth puts downward pressure on wages. More workers than jobs means employers have an even heavier upper hand at the wage bargaining table than usual. Good news if you're a wealthy investor or capitalist; not so much if you're a working stiff already facing declining wages.

Low Inflation

Much of our collective worry in America about inflation stems from the 1973 oil crisis, which caused a steep and sudden downturn in our economy. That recession in turn led to a situation where fuel costs drove inflation higher while overall economic growth stagnated. This dreaded one-two punch, called "stag-flation" by many (personally, I hate the term), led to a new conceptualization of the role of government in monetary policy. In effect, the Federal Reserve began using its power to set the federal funds lending rate as a way to head off inflation. And it worked...sort of. The downside to Greenspan's success in holding down inflation is that wage growth is viewed as a key component of the same, while corporate profits are not. Meaning that efforts to hold down inflation often also stagnate or even depress wages, while giving investors a higher rate of return on their holdings. The rich get richer, etc...

Productivity Growth

Productivity growth is the golden goose of Republican supply-side economics. It's certainly what every modern economy wants: proof positive that its economic infrastructure is trending towards greater efficiency and optimal use of resources. However, there is perhaps no other aspect of economic growth that is more "Jekyll & Hyde" in regards to the "Two Americas" than productivity growth. For as long as wages are declining and productivity is growing, the working class is essentially being exempted from the fruits of their labor. The work force is producing more products and services more efficiently and yet receiving a diminishing piece of the economic pie. In fact, it's arguable whether or not this can even properly be called "growth" rather than just a redistribution of wealth from the working class to the investor class. Sadly, a rising tide in this case most certainly does not raise all ships.

Declining Oil Prices

Truly, a mixed bag, are oil prices. A softening of oil prices is certainly an economic plus in almost any respect. Fuel costs directly impact the poorest people the most, as costs for transportation and heating are only elastic to a point. After all, no matter how expensive gas gets here in the Dairy State, I still have to drive my 75 mile commute each day and keep Gifted-1 and the padawans toasty in the winter. Businesses can and do pass that cost through to the consumer, which is regressively damaging down the economic spectrum.

However, in the long term, low oil prices have led us to many of the problems we have today. High pollution rates, inefficient vehicles and a dearth of technologically advanced alternatives are just a few. Our dependence on cheap oil requires us to micro-manage the global oil market, as we represent 25% of the world's consumption. Anyone doubting that America's involvement in the Middle East revolves around this economic reality is fooling themselves. High oil prices encourage conservation and research into alternative technologies. These alternatives help the environment, create new industries, new jobs and advance our scientific and technological prowess. Plus, they begin to ameliorate our need to be directly involved in nations whose people are largely hostile to us after decades of exploitative U.S. energy policy. It's also worth noting that high oil prices actually help a fairly good size chunk of our investor class and work force, in the form of record profits for some of the world's largest corporations. A tough call; I lean towards the long view in that higher oil prices are better, though I think it's high time Big Oil shared some of those profits more equitably. Feel free to use the comments section to explain how wrong I am...

Stock Market Growth

Of all the economic statistics touted by conservative news outlets as signs of a great economy, nothing gets more press time than the stock market. All other indices may be trending negative, but as long as the Dow Jones and NASDAQ close higher, the conservative media is bullish. If you can stand the banality, just watch Fox's "The Cost of Freedom" on Saturday sometime to see this in action. Stock market gains bring out the Marie Antoinettes of the investor class; the plebes can just eat cake as long as that portfolio is growing. The stock market is never a particularly good indicator of anything other than the relative demand for equities. Stocks have long been the best performing investment vehicle over the long term, with a level of risk that is accordingly higher. However, outside of a possible 401(k), the vast majority of Americans either do not invest in stocks or have such paltry positions compared to the overall market as to be largely inconsequential. The market can rise or decline independently of other economic news in the short term, which means that all the face-time granted to the shallow market analysis given on cable news shows is almost entirely faux-intellectual mind candy for conservatives. It bolsters a certain impression of the economy that is largely meaningless in any practical sense to most of the country.

At the end of the day, the question arises again as to whether we're really experiencing economic growth when the vast majority of Americans are being excluded from the benefits of such. The practical effect of declining wages and growing productivity is a redistribution upwards of economic wealth. How much practical meaning does such growth even have when the vast majority of the country is excluded? An even better question would be what do we, as working class voters, need to do in order to rectify this inequality? Edwards rhetoric aside, it doesn't seem as if either political party has done much to help the situation. Republican fiscal policy sees wealth concentration as a positive goal, while Democratic policy seems lost in a post-populist wilderness. I firmly believe that if the Democratic party could only internalize "The Two Americas" into its policy platform, we could turn a close win in November into a bloodbath.

The alternative, the Republican fiscal path, leads down a very dark road eventually. Democracy and aristocracy cannot exist together for long, and the over-arching characteristic of aristocratic economic systems is a lack of opportunity for all but the wealthy. The day that most Americans finally realize that the "Land of Opportunity" has disappeared will signal a fundamental change in our social dynamic, one that could lead to some very ugly, though ultimately necessary, conflicts.

That day is fast approaching...

A Thing Of Beauty

2006-08-31T13:45:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I know everyone else has already linked to or reprinted this, but it's such an exquisite beauty I cannot, in good conscience, refrain from sharing it here. Keith Olbermann reminds us all what it is to be an American. And most certainly what it isn't.

Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

That Is The Sound of Inevitability

2006-08-28T15:47:00.000-05:00

It will probably be some light posting for me this week, due to some excessive "real world" activity that is demanding my attention. That sound pompous and self-important enough to maintain proper blogger gravitas? I'd hate to be considered unserious...

Anyway, in spite of the financial analysis boulder my inner accounting Sisyphus must roll, I thought I'd drop a quick thought on Iran. You know, Iran? The next war for which conservative "warhawks" are frothing at the mouth? Clearly both the United States and Israel, with Afghanistan, Iraq and Hezbollah under our collective belts, have demonstrated just what a spectacular success launching invasions can be as a tool for geopolitical change. Anymore of this kind of "success" and we might as well just elect an Islamist president and save everyone the suspense. Clearly a new direction is desperately needed to deal with the biggest challenge in the region: Iran.

I hear plenty of talk on NPR and read plenty of analysis in the news about how to address the issue of Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Naturally, I believe that opening up talks between Washington and Tehran is the best answer at this point. For all the bluster the neoconservatives and their fans have been espousing about a "military option" for Iran, the reality is that it's beyond our capability. Iran is many magnitudes a greater power than Iraq was when we overthrew Saddam Hussein, and that's been an unmitigated disaster. Short of a tactical nuclear strike against Iran, which would be the heavyweight champion example of tragic irony, no real military option exists for stopping Iran's uranium enrichment program. As I've discussed before, the technology for doing so is increasingly easy to come by; not to mention that the process for making nuclear power plant fuel and making fissile uranium is essentially the same. Economic sanctions are a paltry threat as well, considering Iran's vast oil supplies in the face of ever increasing world demand. Diplomacy is the only option available.

Only, here's the rub: I don't believe it will work. I've suspected for some time and now I'm fully committed to the belief: Iran will have a nuclear weapon, assuming it actually wants one, and there's not a damn thing the world can do about it. It's too late. The time when the U.S. could have acted as a moderating force in Iran's ambitions passed as soon as Bush vs. Gore was settled, if not years sooner. From the beginning, Bush and his neoconservative foreign policy team were committed to their "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.

These "serious" foreign policy minds have helped set a dangerous table, one which we'll be dining at for many years to come. Perhaps if the U.S. had lived up to its agreements under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is legally binding under our Constitution, and worked to eliminate its nuclear stockpile. Perhaps if the Bush administration had taken a more nuanced approach to Israel's actions in the region and acted as a moderating force instead of a hyperactive boxing promoter pushing its favorite prize-fighter. As much as I think it can be terribly misguided, perhaps a little Kissinger-esque realism could have helped put Iran on a different course. So many forks in the road that could have led to a different set of circumstances today yet, like Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons now, the neoconservative drive to create a destabilized Middle East was probably inevitable after 2000. The road to shaky empire was set, even if many of us didn't know where that road was leading.

While again I believe that we ought to engage with Iran diplomatically as much as possible, I also believe we need to prepare for the reality of a nuclear armed Iran. Like any rational person, the thought that a cabal of religious extremists like the Iranian mullahs will likely have access to the most terrible weapon ever conceived by man is extremely unsettling. Unfortunately, I believe it's inevitable at this point. In the battle to prevent a nuclear Iran, the U.S. and our allies have lost. In the greater war to prevent the devastating "clash of civilizations" for which so many conservatives are desperately praying, the tide away from world war could still turn in our favor. Perhaps November could start that turn...

An Honest Man

2006-08-23T15:32:00.000-05:00

You have to at least give that much credit to Pat Buchanan: he's an honest man. He may be a racist pig, but at least he's up front about it. That's more than most other anti-immigrant nuts have the huevos to admit.

From Echidne:

In his new book, State of Emergency, Pat Buchanan argues for "an immediate moratorium on all immigration." Why? To preserve the dominance of the white race in America. Buchanan explains on pg. 11:

America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived.

Can't we finally get over this "white race" bullshit once and for all? Listen carefully, Pat: there is no such thing as "the white race". It's all a figment of your imagination. I, being a mixture of German, Italian, French and Irish, am a demonstrably dimmer shade of peachy than the German, Scandinavian, Native American (and whatever else) Gifted-1. I doubt anyone would claim that such a noticeable difference in skin tone, from my yardwork tan to her Swedish bikini team white, indicates a difference in race. Yet there's just as much biological difference between she and I as there is between you, Pat, and the Mexican immigrants you so tirelessly detest.

In other words, Pat, we're all human beings, brothers and sisters if you will, separated only by the fevered imaginings of your paranoid brain. You know something, Pat? My lovely daughter (see below) may one day marry the darkest African-descended man to ever walk the cheese-and-brat producing land of Wisconsin. She may have kids with her loving husband. Those beautiful children will be just as American as you are Pat; more so, because unlike you they'll have been taught to appreciate others for their differences. They'll be good citizens, good people, who will live their lives to the fullest (I can be optimistic! These are my future grandkids, after all...). But what they won't be, Pat, is "white"; at least not in any way you'd recognize. And you know what? As a "white" man, I think that's wonderful. They'll understand what an absurd concept "race" is in a way that you never will.

But at least you're honest, Pat. You may be a vile, racist, nativist coward, but at least you can meet the Devil on equal terms come Judgement Day.

"And Those Bloody Psalms! They're So Depressing!"

2006-08-23T09:30:00.000-05:00

[Thanks to Ishkur. Check out the other posters too; they're a riot.

Our Star Turns 3

2006-08-23T00:38:00.000-05:00

Our lovely Olivia Star turned 3 last month. She is becoming more of a little lady, each day. So smart, funny and cute...

I swear I should photo-shop some angel wings on this close-up shot!
{Or maybe the devil horns}

Living up to that "Star" potential! They {whom ever they are} always say: People grow into their names!
This could be a very good {or possibly bad} thing!
The other day I called Olivia a Drama Queen. She replied {in a very whiney voice} "I'm not a drama queen, I'm a PRINCESS!"
Any questions? ;)

Birthday girl request ~ a picture with baby sister! Olivia even picked out Cecelia's dress... and they coordinated very well, I might add, both in pattern and colors.

I can't believe it's been 3 years already! I couldn't imagine life without Olivia... time flies when you're having fun.

I love you, Livi Star!

~ Mommy

A Double Shot Of Hell's Finest

2006-08-22T15:37:00.000-05:00

Come on in and sit down, I've been saving you a seat and a dirty glass. We drink in hate, misery and spite here I've got a double shot of our blackest rotgut waiting. You know the kind of booze I'm talking about, don't you? The cheap, nasty kind that comes in a fat plastic bottle and brings out the son-of-a-bitch in us all. Of course, you don't drink what I'm serving; you drink it in with your eyes and let it pollute your soul awhile.

It's not our regular stuff; not today. Normally I'd have a lowball full of gay hatred on tap or the burning Red of war death decanted. Don't spill it; once you get it on your hands it never washes off and that bouquet sure lingers. While that Red brings sweet, powerful catharsis and that Gay Hatred false piety (it's sacramental wine to some, you know), neither are good enough today. Today I've tapped a keg of the oldest brew: racist xenophobia, that hatred of the unfamiliar "other". Hear the cries of all human history repeated ad nauseum as that cool, black sludge fills your glass. Let's raise it now in toast to a nation that never repents, but only forgets, the transgressions of its past. Drink it down because you must, because you live there too, and feel what blackness you've allowed to pass your stained lips...

By way of a little back story, Gifted-1 and I both grew up on conservative northern Illinois. I'd been kicking around blogging about this first story ever since I caught wind of it from David Neiwert's blog. It's so close to home for me, which makes it more poignant than it might have otherwise been. From the Rockford Register Star:

A Freeport-based Aryan Nations group plans to rally Saturday in front of the Ogle County Courthouse in what the organizationÂs leaders are calling a nonviolent Âvoice of opinion about current immigration laws.Â

[...]

Members of the Aryan Anarchist Skins, a white nationalist group, will demonstrate at 2 p.m. on South Fifth Street between the old courthouse and the Ogle County Judicial Center, said Lisa Shultz, a Âsergeant officerÂ for the group. Shultz said she expects up to 200 people to attend the rally, though the group itself has just 10 members.

Representatives of other Illinois white supremacist groups and possibly some from other states might convene with the Skins on Saturday, Shultz said, but she knew of no specific Aryan Nations groups planning to attend.

This event, of course, has come and gone with little fanfare, leading me to conclude that it didn't make much a splash in little Oregon. I grew up less than 10 miles from there and I can certainly understand why a racist hate group like this might feel they have a sympathetic ear or two in the area. Jobs are rather scarce in Ogle county and many of those jobs are being occupied by Mexican immigrants. Rochelle, which is probably 30 miles or so from Oregon, has long been battling gang and violent crime issues due largely to poverty. A lack of jpersistentstant low standard of living and plentiful Mexican immigrants, all of which can be found in these former farm communities some two hours or more west of Chicago, combine to create a very hostile atmosphere for hate groups to exploit. Add to that the fact that Ogle is one of the most reliably conservative Republican counties in Illinois and you've got a sure recipe for trouble. Fortunately, there wasn't any, this time.

My reason for using a source story for this post that was prior to the actual event is terribly selfish, I'm afraid. My fear is that if I looked to closely at this event, I'd see someone I knew there. I have much family in that area. I also know that many folks are committed to the belief that legal immigration is an anachronism of a naive past and illegal immigration a criminal assault on the American way of life. I'm selfish in that I don't want to even know if any of my family or school-days friends share that belief, though I'm certain some of them do. I don't desire the confirmation.

In the broader sense I see this kind of event as the natural evolution of the immigration debate. The more and more harsh the rightwing rhetoric gets about this issue, the more justified these sorts of hate groups feel in spewing their racist bile. The Aryan Anarchist Skins are just a bunch of ignorant, maladjusted animals incapable of dealing with the modern world. However, the viciousness of the GOP noise machine towards this issue, especially as it relates to the House bill, begins to lend the tiniest bit of resonance to the hatred espoused by a group like this in the ears of those closet racists uncomfortable with a changing America. That's irresponsible, ideologically-blinded governance at its worst, and it's bringing the ugliest elements of our nation too close to my former home. Just knowing that the Aryan Anarchist Skins felt confident enough in the reception they'd get to show up in Oregon dulls the patina on my childhood memories of the area. What a shame that racism and nativism has been granted a foothold by those whose job it's supposed to be to uphold our civil liberties. November can't come soon enough...

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

The other bit of news I have, in this same vein unfortunately, comes from too close to my current home in Wisconsin. It seems the newly-elected mayor of Arcadia, Wisconsin has become frustrated with our government's refusal to codify into law his hatred of Mexicans so he's taken the first step himself. From the Winona Daily News:

Arcadia Mayor John Kimmel has infuriated the Hispanic community with an inflammatory proposal to eliminate undocumented workers in this western Wisconsin town.

[...]

Kimmel laid out a five-ordinance plan in an Aug. 10 column in the Arcadia News-Leader, that would, among other things: make English the official language in Arcadia, a city of 2,402 people, require an American flag to fly alongside any other national flag; alert federal agents to resident complaints of undocumented workers; and ensure signs are only printed in English. Kimmel considered monetary penalties for some but hasnÂt finalized anything.

First of all, the only part of Kimmel's agenda that actually has anything to do with undocumented immigrants is his proposal to alert federal agents about resident complaints involving illegal immigrants. Notice that he's not actually responding to the presence of the undocumented workers, who may very well be present in Arcadia, but to the complaints of residents about such. Of course, since undocumented Mexican immigrants (and, rest assured, Kimmel's talking only about Mexican immigrants) don't generally where signs proclaiming their undocumented status, the residents of Arcadia really have no way of knowing who is and is not undocumented. Not that it appears to matter to Kimmel.

As I drive through Arcadia each day, I've often wondered at the public reaction to the two Mexican grocery stores in the downtown area. I hate to assume the worst about those whose skin color matches mine, but sadly we pasty folks have a piss-poor track record in the racial tolerance arena. Thus, while I'm dismayed by Kimmel's overt attack on the local immigrant population, I'm certainly not surprised. Making English the official language is nothing more than a mean-spirited slap in the face. It's just a petty way of making Mexican immigrant feel a little less welcome in an area where plenty of work is available for all who seek it. It's a way for Kimmel and those supporting him to essentially tell the immigrant population that they are not welcome and are not regarded as neighbors (or people, for that matter). It's an abuse of office that I hope brings Kimmel every bit of the derision he deserves.

As a final bit of hypocrisy, I think his flag and sign restrictions are stupidly racist as well. This part of Wisconsin has a huge Norwegian immigrant population, complete with Norwegian flags and Norwegian signs, neither of which have been an issue for over a hundred years. Of course, those Norwegians, almost all second or higher generation immigrants, all look just a little different than the new wave of immigrants from Mexico. I'm sure you can guess...

It makes me sad to see how our Congress's refusal to enact any kind of compassionate program to deal with the immigrant question has led to such overt racism bubbling up. Perhaps that racism was always there and it's only now that I'm seeing it clearly. Either way, it shows that racism and nativism thrive just as well here as any where else in the world. We should be better than that.

Sunday Shout-Out!

2006-08-20T22:11:00.000-05:00

I just want to give a quick shout-out to Joe Baker, Senior Editor for The Rock River Times.

Turning 74, he has been covering the news for over 50 years and I {and many others, I'm sure} would like to say a BIG THANK YOU for his inspiring career and eye opening point-of-view!

Go Joe! Enjoy your retirement!

Now Can We Mention Impeachment?

2006-08-18T09:00:00.000-05:00

John at Liberal Hyperbole makes a great catch on the court ruling yesterday that held Bush's unwarranted surveillance program Unconstitutional. In her ruling, U.S. District judge Anna Diggs Taylor delivers some stunning information (bolded below):

Liberal Hyperbole: Say what?!?

OK, today's big news, the judge in Michigan ruled that the NSA's warrantless wiretapping is illegal. But one particular line jumped out at me here (emphasis added):

All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exegencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Has this administration been using warrantless wiretaps before 9/11 even happened? If so, then two questions come immediately to mind: What was the justification for it at the time, and how useful do they seem to be if they couldn't stop any hypothetical people "determined to strike U.S." with the warrantless wiretaps?

Sadly, this isn't even really all that surprising. After all, the real power behind the throne during the Bush administration has been Dick Cheney, whose advocacy of the unitary executive theory has been widely discussed. The lesson learned from the Nixon Watergate debacle was simple: justify your lawbreaking to the American people as essential to national security. Of course, as John points out, how effective can it really be given that Al-Qaida succeeded on 9/11?

In my opinion, the warrantless spying program doesn't necessarily have a policy justification. I believe it's being justified purely on ideological grounds. Cheney and Gonzalez, among others in the GOP, simply believe that the President should have the power to act as he sees fit, particularly in an extremely broadly defined "time of war". They believe the 4th Amendment is too restrictive, a notion that other "lawn order" conservatives certainly embrace even if they don't couch it in those terms. The actual targets of the spying program, be they terrorists or just political opponents, are purely academic. Terrorism has merely offered a convenient, public-friendly justification for something that the Bush administration believes is within the President's purview naturally. The fact that the terrorism justification virtually guarantees success in obtaining a warrant from the FISA court, which has only denied four in its existence, simply bears out that belief. It's not a matter of paperwork or inconvenience; it's a matter of (egregious) principle. Being able to spy on Americans, the thinking goes, is something the President ought to be able to do with impunity and, thus, any obstacles to that enacted by the other two branches are to be ignored.

Monarchy, anyone?

According to Judge Diggs Taylor's ruling, the Bush administration has been deliberately and repeatedly violating a criminal statute. They've attempted to subvert the separation of powers in our Constitution and have willfully ignored the 4th Amendment. Given this, plus the ABA's report that Bush's signing statements are a similar violation of the separation of powers, do we dare continue running from the idea of impeachment? What else can the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean in the context of Presidential power than a President who willingly subverts our Constitution? Unlike Al-Qaida or (laughably) Hezbollah, the Bush-Cheney-Gonzalez theory of Presidential authority really is a threat to our way of life. This must not be allowed to stand, by either the Democrats or the GOP. We're all Americans and the Bush administration has become a very great threat to our nation.

If committing perjury about an extra-marital affair is worthy of impeachment, then by any reasonable measure the actions of the Bush administration certainly must be deemed so. A President who ignores our laws, disdains our Bill of Rights and subverts the separation of powers in our government is many magnitudes a greater threat to our way of life than a President who lies about a personal indiscretion.

Freedom Isn't Free

2006-08-17T04:35:00.000-05:00

I have to confess that I've been itching for a reason to link to my pal Graffy but didn't want to make the maiden voyage one into turbulent waters (Graffy and I are on polar opposite ends of the political and religious spectrum). Luckily for me, he posted a nice rhetorical thought and I would like to address it in greater detail than I did in his comments. First, via Graff Paper:

I've seen the "freedom isn't free" line passed around so much that, even though I agree with it, I tend to ignore it for the most part. But in this case, the author [of the British paper The Telegraph article] is expressing it from a European viewpoint, which made me look at our country in a way I typically don't...

The general idea behind the author's op-ed is that Americans are not just being rhetorical when we talk about freedom and that we really are a nation willing to lay down our lives for freedom. His article is somewhat a chastisement against Europeans who doubt American commitment to this lofty ideal. I don't necessarily disagree with the article, but I definitely think that the claim "freedom isn't free" and its corollary, "the cost of freedom", mean very different things to different Americans.

My general impression of the conservative understanding of "freedom isn't free" is that it is primarily a justification for war. In the framework of Iraq, for example, "freedom isn't free" means both that we should donate our blood and treasure to this disaster and that the lives of the Iraqi people are an acceptable "cost of freedom". The Iraq war is seen as justified by conservatives because they accept the framing of Hussein's Iraq as an enemy of freedom in its broadest ideological sense. An authoritarian dictator like Saddam Hussein is incompatible with freedom as conservatives present it. Thus, "freedom isn't free" means that an enemy of the ideal of freedom cannot be allowed to stand uncontested, and any amount of sacrifice is worth the vanquishing of that enemy. Thus war, and all the horror that goes along with it, is justified as "the cost of freedom" because, of course, "freedom isn't free".

Unfortunately, then rears the ugly head of conservative hypocrisy in all its malignant glory. For if "freedom isn't free" and invading Iraq is winning freedom, then surely "the cost of freedom" must be born, correct? But the nature of that sacrifice, that "cost", is what gives the lie to the conservative belief behind this notion. For who's truly making the sacrifice? The American people? That's a cruel joke. The 130,000 soldiers currently stationed in Iraq, and their fallen compatriots, are bearing the "cost of freedom", not the other 299 million Americans safe at home. Tremendous amounts of money have been spent on this war, but Americans have not born that burden. The Bush administration has borrowed the funds to fight in Iraq, while cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy. Not only are Americans not paying for this war, we're actually borrowing money so that we may pay less to our civic responsibilities than we did before the war ever began! "Freedom isn't free" in Iraq, but Americans certainly aren't paying for it. Or, at least, not we today. Our children and grandchildren will pay for it, as will the thousands whose families are being torn apart by this debacle.

Further, we've extracted a very heavy "cost of freedom" from the Iraqi people. Conservatives believe "freedom isn't free" so fervently that not only are they willing to consign an entire nation to death, destruction and chaos but are then offended that the Iraqis aren't grateful for the opportunity to pay that "cost". It's an almost insurmountable ideological blindness that allows these "warhawks" to not see that freedom means many different things to many different people, and nothing at all to the dead.

It's a gross moral travesty that anyone would support a war in which only our military volunteers are fighting and money we borrow from other nations is funding. The Bush administration has done everything in its power to separate the American people from any responsibility for the Iraqi invasion. And yet, thankfully, the American people have still eventually turned against this fiasco, albeit slowly. To conservatives who no longer march in solidarity with the Bush administration, this war is a failure of implementation. I say that's a disgusting, weak-kneed attempt to justify once supporting the worst foreign policy disaster of my life time. This war is a failure of leadership, of policy, of ideology and, most importantly, of humanity. Practical concerns about logistical and tactical implementation have their place, certainly, but are not an impeachment of the war on any philosophical grounds. This war was wrong, egregiously wrong, and had it been more sound tactically and gained the end the Bush administration desired (which it never could have), it would still be wrong. "Freedom isn't free" and neither is wanton violence and imperialist war, the cost of which we and the Iraqis will be paying for many years to come.

From a liberal perspective, I feel that "freedom isn't free" is also true, though for very different reasons. Certainly there have been times in our history where the cause of war has been the cause of freedom. The American Civil War for one and World War II for another. In these examples, there was a very real threat, both to the United States and to our friends and allies abroad. In those cases our military, be it volunteer or conscripted, paid "the cost of freedom" for others and it was a noble sacrifice they made. Unlike the Iraq war of today, the American people stood up and paid the "cost of freedom" together in these past conflicts. The Bush administration's policies have forced the Iraqi people to pay a heavy "cost of freedom" without even giving them the choice of whether or not they felt that cost was bearable. There were other ways to help the Iraqi people and maybe the cost would have been just as high. But that should have been the Iraqis decision to make, not ours.

To me, "freedom isn't free" reminds of 9/11, of all times. On that day, "the cost of freedom" was paid and a tremendous cost it was. Our liberal democracy, our open culture, allowed our enemies to strike at us and exact a terrible price in blood for whatever cause drives their hatred of the United States. Those 3,000 who gave their lives on 9/11 paid the price for the freedoms Americans enjoy. The GOP, through support of legislation like the Patriot Act and programs like the NSA surveillance program, would like to ameliorate that cost much in the way they do so with Iraq. They want to make freedom cheap and easy, by taking away the very freedom for which so many Americans have died. Realizing that our free society leaves us vulnerable sometimes is the true "cost of freedom". "Freedom isn't free" because our embrace of it can be exploited. That's a cost I'm happy to pay, because I believe our freedom is worth it. It's worth it to be necessarily vulnerable so that we don't unfairly profile our Arab-American brothers and sisters. It's worth it in order to protect the freedom of the 7 million Muslims living in the United States, by showing them that they will not be retaliated against because of the acts perpetrated by those claiming the same faith. It's worth it in order to insure that we are safe in our private lives, that our government does not own us or control us as an authoritarian police state would. Most of all, it's worth laying down our lives sometimes in order to demonstrate that our liberal democracy will not be subverted, either by Al-Qaida or well-intentioned bureaucrats.

"Freedom isn't free" because it requires real sacrifice, not just bellicosity. "The cost of freedom" is high, but the fear of that cost should not be mitigated by government debt and voluntary wars. Freedom is not our birthright as Americans; it's a privilege we earn by our commitment to it.

The Rattlesnakes Are Committin' Suicide

2006-08-15T09:47:00.000-05:00

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Defeatism and attacks on the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war

While I think it's plenty scary that these right wing chickenhawks are abandoning Bush because he's just not bloodthirsty enough for them, it's still gratifying to watch all these rats jump ship. Even the wingnuts seem to have finally grasped that George W. Bush really is one of the worst president's we've ever had, both in terms of effectiveness and competence. He clearly has no useful grasp of the Middle East whatsoever and is basically mailing in his second term. He's like a little boy lighting cobwebs in his parents' basement who, now that the fire is burning, has no clue what to do about it. He just watches the fire and hopes no one notices that he set it.

A Pyrrhic Victory

2006-08-14T15:35:00.000-05:00

At least as of lunch time today, the very tenuous ceasefire in Lebanon seems to be holding. However, the agreement between the parties is likely fatally flawed and incomplete, as AJ at AmericaBlog discusses:

The resolution only addresses the Israeli soldiers and Lebanese prisoners issues in what's essentially a preamble section, and fails to outline hugely important factors including timing of troop movements (both in and out), defining acceptable military action, rules of engagement for foreign troops, and Shebaa Farms. It's a tenuous agreement at best. It's also worth noting that this is exactly the kind of agreement that the Bush administration insisted it wouldn't support back when the conflict began. The administration said it would only back a resolution that established an "enduring" cease-fire, one that actually resolved issues rather than postponing them. While I'm happy that 1701 passed, and that the U.S. supported it, it's worth noting that our foreign policy apparatus failed utterly to achieve its aims. American power and prestige continues to suffer due to ideological and strategic deficiencies.

I join AJ in being glad that this agreement passed, but I'm not terribly optimistic towards the future either. I see little reason that Hezbollah will stand an extended Israeli presence south of the Litani, nor do I expect that any nation will be interested in putting enough blue helmets on the ground to secure the situation. After all, the two main brokers in this agreement, the United States and France, have little incentive to staff a peacekeeping force. The French no doubt remember only too well the lessons learned from their colonial adventures in Lebanon and the U.S. is too tied down in Iraq (not that you'd guess it from watching any major U.S. news outlets).
The inevitable question that begins to arise after a ceasefire like this takes hold is who really won the war? Of course, we know who lost it. An estimated 1,500 Lebanese and Israeli civilians paid the ultimate price for this ideological clash, and likely more Lebanese casualties will be discovered as the refugees return home. The infrastructure of Lebanon has been largely destroyed, undermining an already shaky democracy and weak economy. On the other side, Israel has demonstrated in Lebanon, just as the U.S. is busy demonstrating in Iraq, that full military mobilization is not the most effective way to fight the kind of guerilla war Hezbollah likes to fight. One of the largest failures of neoconservatism is to internalize the lessons of Vietnam and Latin America. Israel has failed to evolve its military to meet the changing tactics of the threats it faces. Conventional warfare of the kind in which Israel and the U.S. prefer to engage is rapidly becoming an anachronism.

As much as I hate to say it, the winner of this conflict may very well be Sheik Nasrallah and Hezbollah, if it's truly possible to "win" a war of this kind. Hezbollah demonstrated to the world that it could withstand the firepower of the IDF, long the most powerful military in the region. Hezbollah also demonstrated that it could carry out its heinous attacks against Israeli civilians regardless of the damning being done by the IDF to Lebanon. At no time did it become apparent that Hezbollah's actions were in any way being hampered by Israel's invasion. Hezbollah also scored itself a PR victory, taking clear advantage of Israel's penchant for hitting civilian targets.

This is not to say that Hezbollah is not clearly a bad actor in all of this. Lest we forget, it was an incursion by Hezbollah, the killing and kidnapping of IDF soldiers, that led to this tragedy. While Hezbollah may have been trying to move beyond its terrorism background towards more political legitimacy, it's hostility towards Israel remains unabated. Nor is there any reason to believe that Iran will not help build Hezbollah back to fighting strength. Unfortunately, Israel's gross over-reaction to the initial Hezbollah incursion has given Hezbollah exactly the proof it needed to justify its militant ways and gain wider support on the Arab street.

So what we're left with is the status quo, once again. If Israel withdraws quickly behind the Blue Line, Hezbollah will likely resume its military control over the south of Lebanon, only this time with likely even more public support. If Israel lingers in Lebanon, it likely faces the same guerilla insurgency that drove the IDF out in 2000. Either way, the death toll for both the Lebanese and the Israelis will continue to climb, nothing will have been resolved and the U.S. will become even further marginalized in international opinion because of its inability to play a significant role in the Middle East.

No one wins a war like no one wins a natural disaster. But everyone loses...

Extreme Leftwing Bushido

2006-08-10T23:42:00.000-05:00

We keep hearing repeated ad nauseum the notion that those of us refusing to support Joe Lieberman and his brand of misplaced centrism are attacking the Democratic party from the "extreme left". In the case of Lieberman's supporters, "extreme left" is certainly being used as a moniker to marginalize those who don't support Joementum's Party of One. However, when used by conservatives, such as Fox "News" commentator and current White House spokesman (but I repeat myself...) Tony Snow, it's used to denote disapproval with Bush and the war in Iraq. The last time I checked, Bush's approval ratings were in the low 30's and fully 60% of the American people were against the war in Iraq. That means a majority of the American people are now part of the "extreme left". Huzzah!

Sadly, of course, that's complete nonsense. It's merely a very shallow attempt by conservatives, and, yes, Joe Lieberman is a conservative, to paint the defining issue of our time, terrorism, into a more pleasant light for Republicans. I doubt it's going to work, but then only November will tell. The authoritarian bent of the GOP is very appealing to certain voters, many of whom are not interested in a nuanced democratic process but rather a strong leader to line them up. The Republicans either have to run away from Bush or establish that progressive politics are far outside of the political mainstream, in spite of the fact that progressive positions are routinely supported by a majority of Americans.

To demonstrate this point, I thought that I would lay out my "extreme left" view of national security and what our nation ought to be doing about it. I'm confident that my "extreme leftism" makes a lot more practical sense than the neoconservatism preached by the GOP and its sycophants. National security can be divided into two main fronts: domestic needs and international strategy. Both have been a miserable failure under Bush and the GOP's flawed leadership.

On the domestic front, I believe firmly in a comprehensive strategy that involves border security and import inspections, as well as protecting our vulnerable industry. I believe we ought to have in place a coordinated system which inspects incoming cargo containers, an area of great vulnerability currently. I also believe we need to better monitor traffic across our country's borders and our airport transit. I certainly do not think we ought to start building walls on either border, as no wall is impenetrable and the existence of such would likely lead to further border complacency. Further, stopping or harassing all immigrants in the name of thwarting the minute fraction that actually want to cause harm to the U.S. is both ineffective and cruel. Part of lessening our appeal as a terrorist target is making our country more welcome to others, not less. Part of that strategy includes eliminating racial profiling as well, as it both degrades minorities and creates unnecessary blind spots in our surveillance efforts.

Also domestically, I believe we need to have better security at our sensitive industrial plants. A major terrorist attack against a large chemical company or nuclear plant, for example, could have catastrophic repercussions that last for generations. I grew up 20 miles from a nuclear plant myself, and the thought that it could be turned into another Chernobyl by an enterprising extremist is very sobering. Yet the Bush administration doesn't seem to see this sort of domestic implementation as vital to our national security. Who's weak on security again?

Finally, while I think that airports are rightly receiving a great deal of attention, especially in light of yesterday's terror scare in London, I think we ignore other areas of mass transportation at our great peril. I rode the Metra train in Chicago for four years and can attest that, even after 9/11, security was almost non-existent. No bag checks of any kind were ever performed, nor were there any kind of security check points. At best, there were police officers, both uniformed and, supposedly, plain-clothed, riding along but that strikes me as being almost too late as an effective deterrent. Unless there were highly sophisticated, very secret detection methods in place, I have to conclude that the tens of thousands of train commuters in Chicago alone could make a tempting target. Again, since a military invasion won't help the mass transit issue, like it doesn't help any aspect of terrorism prevention, Bush and the GOP have little interest. Lots of liberals in big cities, you know...

On the international front, I believe that any successful national security strategy must be centered around removing the motivation of groups like Al-Qaida. The U.S. must be more engaged in combating the poverty and social injustice that breeds terrorism, without the overbearing crusader mentality that leads to foreign fears of a culture war. We also have to finally divorce ourselves from the neo-conservative notion that military assaults on other countries can stop terrorism. That strategy has been shown as an utter failure, especially in Iraq. U.S. military intervention must be a very careful last resort, used only to either stop invasions and genocide or to protect multi-lateral humanitarian efforts. Pre-emptive unilateral invasions are too antagonistic and collectively punish the very population we're trying to "liberate". Conservative estimates say that at least 50,000 Iraqis have died, all in the name of removing one despot from power. There is no situation under which that cost in Iraqi lives was worth the imprisonment of one man, nor is it just to force the Iraqis to pay that blood cost against their will. All that's been accomplished is to replace a stable dictatorship with a weak democracy in the throes of a civil war; perhaps a moral victory in the narrowest of terms but a disaster by any qualitative measure.

We also have to take considerably more responsibility for aiding and reigning in our allies, especially in the Middle East. The cognitive dissonance of a Bush administration that shouts "freedom" at every opportunity but then supports oppressive, non-democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan is certainly not lost on the Arab people. That kind of inconsistency creates a gaping wound in our credibility which bad actors in the region can exploit. Labeling U.S. anti-terrorism efforts as a "war against Islamic Fascism", as Bush did yesterday, is also hugely counterproductive. Alliances are the key to marginalizing terrorist groups, not inflammatory rhetoric that justifies their existence.

Along those same lines, we also need to exercise more involvement with our Israeli allies. So long as the United States unequivocally supports the Israeli government and supplies its military, the U.S. forfeits its ability to be an independent third party. If that's a sacrifice we need to make, and I believe it is for Israel's sake, then Israel must accept a greater administrative role by the United States. The U.S. must acknowledge that the actions of Israel often have security implications for the United States and, as such, Israel must accept that the United States have some ability to greenlight or veto those actions. That's the cost Israel must bear in exchange for its U.S. sponsored military and economic dominance in the region.

In six years of GOP control in Washington, none of these steps have been taken. Quite the opposite, in fact. Our domestic security remains very porous, and the funding for such has become a political patronage system designed to reward GOP leaning states. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has destabilized a major Middle Eastern nation, fomenting a civil war that could possibly ignite a greater regional conflict. And the Bush administration's refusal to engage in any aspect of Israel's government policy, except to provide unconditional financial and military support, has helped allow yet another war between Lebanon and Israel to rage for over a month. All of these actions demonstrate a lack of fundamental leadership and seriousness on national security.

The GOP isn't strong on national security; it's strong on warmongering and peddling fear. Time for a change, before another major terrorist plot, obscured behind the smoking haze of Iraq and Lebanon, demonstrates our lack of preparedness in stark, bloody detail.

Breastmilk is Best Milk!

2006-08-10T11:20:00.000-05:00

What are the benefits of breastfeeding?

Breastfeeding has many benefits for your baby. Breast milk is rich in nutrients. It helps protect your baby against infections. It also helps prevent your baby from having allergies.

Breastfeeding also has benefits for mom. It's clean and simple--you don't have to wash bottles or mix formula. It's cheaper than using formula. It helps your uterus contract back to normal size after having been stretched during pregnancy. And, most importantly, it helps make time for you to be close to your baby.

I have breastfed my children and have always known it was the best way to go. But, in light of the recent uproar about "boobs in public" ~ I've done a little more checkin' into things... and I might add, I beat the Colbert Report on covering {or uncovering} this issue! Ha!

People in the great ole USA have this sick over-sexed view of women's bodies and breasts in general. It's really a shame that we can't move away from that, long enough, to let babies get the best nutrition possible! Most other countries have completely different {IMO, better} views on the breast. Here are a couple examples where boobs are a part of every day life:

A Venezuelan phone card from CANTV company is showing a breastfeeding mother. The backside explains how Venezuelan law grants all working mothers the right to breastfeed, and encourages working mothers to pump their milk for their baby.

This ad photo was seen on the side of a newspaper vending machine in Switzerland. It says: "Point de ravitaillement" - place of resupply.

Unfortunately, most Americans can't be so mature. LiveJournal has even gone as far as barring images of breastfeeding mothers! Check out the avatars here:

So, I was so happy {insert many cheers here} when seeing Vogue Model, Angela Lindvall (top) breastfeeding her 14 month old baby.
At least some of us are evolving...

Who's Weak On Security?

2006-08-09T14:37:00.000-05:00

The usual rhetoric concerning Democrats and national security has been rolling in following Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut yesterday. An anti-war stance has long been equated with weakness on national security by conservatives, as though those of us opposed to the government's love of war as its favorite foreign policy tool are any less affected by dangers to the country. It's a common conservative smear and one with no basis in reality.

Generally, it seems conservatives have twisted the idea of supporting national security, which every single American regardless of politics does, and the idea that war is the only effective way to maintain that security. This has essentially translated into the belief, propagated by conservatives and DLC centrists, that the only way for a political candidate to establish strong credentials on national security is to support every war in which the U.S. ever gets involved. That's an incredibly reckless abdication of civic responsibility in a democratic society.

Not only is carte blanche support of war morally wrong and irresponsible, it's also not a good security strategy. In fact, supporting the war in Iraq is to actually support a course of action which has left our nation less secure. General Wesley Clark puts it this way, in the context of Lamont's win over Lieberman:

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Destabilizing the Middle East and creating the conditions for a sectarian civil war in Iraq is not increasing our national security. Nor is giving unqualified support to every military endeavor Israel undertakes. True national security cannot always, if even ever in our time, be gained through military invasions and occupations. Those sorts of activities only inflame the extremists who are trying to breach our security in the first place and give them a cause around which to rally and recruit.

The fundamental narrative that the Democrats have to stamp out on this issue is the "only war brings security" narrative. The entire national security debate has been framed around this issue, thanks in large part to 30 years of conservative spin. Already today, on Fox "News", pictures of Ned Lamont were being displayed proudly next to pictures of George McGovern in a blatant attempt to revive that old conservative stereotype that anti-war liberals cannot be trusted on national security. The Democrats need to nip that sort of mendacity in the bud right out of the gate by following General Clark's rhetorical lead. Strong national security starts with bold, innovative foreign policy, not the same old warmongering that brought us Vietnam and Iraq. There is no security for anyone, the U.S. included, in war.

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

On a somewhat tangential note, I have to remark quickly on how sick I find our media's coverage of the war in Lebanon, particularly that of Fox "News". I watched a few snippets of Bill Hemmer this morning, reporting from an IDF mustering point on the Lebanese border, and was struck by just how detached from the reality of war these conservatives are. Bill was all a-twitter about the massive tanks and heavy artillery being deployed, as though he were giving a press conference for the Department of Defense. Is there no realization left on the Right as to just what tanks and artillery are being sent in to do? Those aren't cool toys being rolled off on an exciting Michael Bay-esque adventure. They're weapons of war being deployed to crush, maim and destroy human lives and civilization. Just because they're less sophisticated than the Katyusha rocket doesn't make them anymore righteous or benign. Real peoples lives and livelihoods will be snuffed out by that "75 tons of heavy firepower" rolling by you, Mr. Hemmer. Of course, we know that, for neo-conservatives, while all men are created equal, some are created more equal than others. And some, like Arab Muslims, far less.

And The Winner Is...

2006-08-08T22:27:00.000-05:00

NED LAMONT!!!

Feel the Nedrenaline!

Sadly, Joe Lieberman has announced that he will run as an Independent to hold his Senate seat. Proof positive, if it was ever needed, that Lieberman has no loyalty to his party and no respect for the voters of Connecticut.

Time to go, Joe.

Bottom Of The Ninth In Connecticut

2006-08-08T10:55:00.000-05:00

I've spent probably ten years or so now closely following politics and I cannot remember a Senatorial primary that has gotten anything like the attention this race in Connecticut has received. It's amazing to think that, not all that long ago, Ned Lamont was a virtual unknown facing arguably the most well-known Democrat in the Senate and now has reached national prominence as a progressive leader. Regardless of what happens today, I think Ned Lamont is destined to play a roll in the Democratic party for many years to come.

To that end, I want to thank Ned Lamont for making it exciting to be a progressive Democrat again. I remember the 2004 election all too well, and the feeling that, while I'd have sooner voted for my trusty adding machine as president than George W. Bush, voting for Kerry as an "anybody but Bush" candidate was very unfulfilling. I respect John Kerry and I agree with most of his policy positions. I think he's a very intelligent, well-experienced politician and would have made a fine president. But for me he lacked that inspirational quality that separates an expert policymaker from a bold leader. He also ran almost as poor a campaign as Al Gore, proving for the second time that allowing the GOP (and Karl Rove) to set the election playing field is a huge handicap once the game is afoot.

That's why I want to say "Thanks" to Ned Lamont: he is an inspiring leader in the mold of Russ Feingold or Al Gore (2000 was an aberration). He is proudly progressive, not cautiously centrist. The Democrats in recent years have often seemed to forget that while a candidate's particular political philosophy is a factor in elections, it's not necessarily the largest factor. A strong stand for that philosophy is campaign gold, as Lamont has so skillfully demonstrated. If the political career of George W. Bush has taught us anything (other than the usefulness of being rich, white and politically connected) is that a strong stance, no matter how egregiously wrong or damaging to the country, is more appealing to voters than a calculated attempt at appealing to as wide a voter demographic as possible. It's a little horrifying to consider what this reality says about the American electorate, but then you use the democracy you have not the democracy you'd like to have.

My support of Lamont is not to say that I necessarily think Joe Lieberman is a bad fellow. He was always far too conservative for my tastes and his tendency towards religious moralizing is a tremendous strike against him. Beyond that, though, what really has turned me off about Lieberman is his oft demonstrated failure to support his fellow party members. While I certainly don't think marching in lockstep is healthy for the Democrats or our democracy in general, as the GOP has demonstrated over the past 20 years, nonetheless I think it is important to recognize and support those fighting the same fight as you. Lieberman has been only too willing to distance himself time and again from his Democratic colleagues in a vain attempt to create a center where one often does not exist. Just as most issues have more than just a conservative and a liberal angle, most issues do not have a convenient middle ground for bi-partisanship between those two poles. There's no such thing as "conscience clause" contraception ban that only kind of strips women of their rights or illegal wars that could be morally justifiable if only they were managed more effectively. There's often no clear middle ground on fundamental policy issues, which is why we have two very different political parties (or should have, anyway). Lieberman's attempts to create an imaginary middle ground where none exists has helped fuel the perception that Democrats don't have any firm policy principles, while giving the GOP a "useful idiot" to lend the specter of bi-partisanship to whatever theocratic or plutocratic legislation the movement conservatives can dream up. To paraphrase what a commenter at firedoglake said recently: Compromise without an honest dealer on the other side is nothing but capitulation.

I predicted earlier today, at Ezra's place, that Lieberman would win today. Our electoral system is tremendously tilted in favor of the incumbent, and Joe Lieberman, for all his faults, is no lightweight in the political ring. However, after doing some reading at MyDD and DailyKos, I've changed my mind. I hadn't really stopped to consider the motivation factor. Lamont's supporters are energized, excited and taking their cause to the streets all across Connecticut. Lieberman's campaign, on the other hand, reeks of apathy and entitlement. The statements coming from Lieberman's camp remind me of nothing so much as the pre-fight posturing engaged in by a boxing trainer who knows he's putting up a fighter too far past that fighter's glory days to compete (such as Arturo Gatti's recent fight against Carlos Baldomir). Lieberman's campaign seems to have lost all its "joementum", while Lamont's people remain focused and engaged. Thus, my revised prediction is:

Ned Lamont 51%
Lieberman 49%

It's going to be a nail-biter, but in the end I think Lamont will carry the day. I also don't believe Lieberman will challenge the results if he loses. I fully expect Lieberman to make good on his insinuation that he might run as an Independent; actually, I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if he ran as a Republican. In either case, Lieberman knows from personal experience how damaging a failed recount bid can be and will avoid one at all costs.

I see Ned Lamont well on his way to being Connecticut's newest junior Senator by this time tomorrow.

The tide is turning 'round...

Sunday Poetry Corner - Samurai Poetry

2006-08-06T20:50:00.000-05:00

Mountain and river, grass and tree, grow more barren;
for ten miles winds smell of blood in the fresh battlefield.
Conquering horses do not advance nor do men talk;
outside Jinzhou Castle, I stand in the setting sun.

Emperor's army, a million, conquered the powerful foe;
field battles and fort assaults made mountains of corpses.
Ashamed - how can I face their fathers, grandfathers?
We triumph today?

Nogi Maresuke

Strangers To Our Own Ways

2006-08-03T14:08:00.000-05:00

As I was listening Tuesday night to a discussion on NPR's On Point about the Israel/Lebanon conflict, the talk turned to the historic precedents underlying the current troubles. Much was made of the origins of Hezbollah as a response to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The rage against occupation by a foreign power was raised as a likely cause of terrorism in much of the Middle East, including a large part of the insurgency in Iraq.

As the discussion progressed towards the issue of a multi-national peacekeeping force being introduced into the region, and the reluctance of the French to agree to such until a ceasefire was in place, one of the panelists, Christopher Dickey of Newsweek, made an excellent point that I think does not get discussed nearly enough in our foreign policy debates of late. Dickey's assertion was that the neoconservative push for invasion/occupation as a foreign policy tool and the French reluctance to engage in a peacekeeping incursion into Lebanon without the guarantee of a cease fire each stem from a sharp gap in understanding between Americans and most of the rest of the world, about the realities of occupation. Cheney's assertion about the expected positive reaction of Iraqis following our invasion (the very well-worn "flowers and candy" canard) is a prime example of this ignorance.

The fact of the matter is, as Dickey points out, that the French remember something we Americans do not: the indignity of occupation. The United States has never been invaded or occupied in modern times. France has, as has most of Europe. And so has Lebanon, which led to the formation of Hezbollah. In fact, most of the Middle East has been under foreign occupation at some point in the last 50-100 years, leading to a strong impression of just how humiliating such is to the occupied peoples. France understands the rage and hatred born of occupation, as it has been both occupier and occupied during the last century. That's why the French government is so hesitant to commit resources to a multi-national force without some agreement on the ground regarding a cessation of hostilities. France has been where the U.S. has not and understands the potential costs.

The lack of understanding by the United States of just how awful being occupied is leads to decisions like Iraq and the delusional belief that any people on Earth would welcome foreign occupation, no matter how good its intentions. There is no justification which would allow Americans to accept, say, the occupation of Oregon by Canada, no matter how noble Canada's intentions might be. Israel understands this as the French do, which is why Israel has no interest in stepping back into Lebanon on a long-term basis.

For all the heinous acts groups like Hezbollah commit, their creation and influence are not generated by a random bubbling up of anti-Western hatreds. Hezbollah, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, arose as a reaction to the depredations of life under hostile foreign occupation, whether that occupation was justifiable or not. Israel's continued assault, raising the specter of occupation again for the Lebanese, can only strengthen Hezbollah's influence. A push for a militarized Israeli or NATO presence in Lebanon exacerbates the situation and leaves the Lebanese government with little political authority to oppose Hezbollah. After all, if the only success Lebanon has had in staving off Israeli occupation has been due to Hezbollah military action, then how can the Lebanese government even begin to delegitimize Hezbollah in the face of more fighting with Israel? It cannot because the Lebanese people remember occupation.

Worse still are the calls for a widening conflict in the region. Using Lebanon as a staging area for a strong U.S. and Israeli joint force to put pressure on Damascus runs the risk of freezing out the remaining moderates in the region. After all, the voice of moderation sounds awfully weak in the face of an aggressive, implacable foe. American conservatives continue to push for wider U.S. and Israeli aggression in the region without one whit of understanding about the cost. Inexcusable, especially in light of the Iraq debacle.

Again and again the point must be made that the only proven way to stop terrorist groups like Hezbollah is to delegitimize their role in the region and erode their support. Bombing Lebanon to pieces or, in the case of the United States, invading Iraq in some misguided sort of anti-terrorism nation building exercise, only gives militant groups like Hezbollah and Al-Qaida further justification for their existence.

People in America have been extraordinarily fortunate in that we've rarely fought wars on our shore and have not, since early in our history, suffered the reality of foreign occupation. However, that lack of experience has led to a serious misunderstanding, especially among conservatives, about the illusion of benevolence under which they believe the U.S. is operating. The Iraqi reaction towards the U.S., along with the Lebanese reaction that created Hezbollah, demonstrates the motivational onus for violence brought about by occupation. No matter how good the intentions, invasion and occupation are never the best option until they are the only option.

Hopefully we in the U.S. never have to learn about being occupied first hand. But we'd certainly better learn how to deal with other peoples who have. The future of our world likely depends upon it.

What A Change A Year Can Bring

2006-08-03T10:04:00.000-05:00

I wish I could point to more change for the better. We're still in Iraq, only now the civil war is getting fully underway and U.S. efforts seem to be stalling badly. We're still in Afghanistan as well, only now the Taliban has been making a comeback in the southern part of the country. In fact, none of Bush's foreign policy goals of a year ago have been realized and now even his shining example of Middle Eastern democracy, Lebanon, is being pounded into rubble by our putative allies in Israel. North Korea and Iran remain every bit the threat they were a year ago, possibly more so in the case of Iran.

On the home front, while Social Security privatization died, bankruptcy reform did not. The Republicans continue to push more tax cuts for the wealthy, while economic growth for the poorer 99% of the country is nearly flat. While both the Gay Marriage ban and Flag Burning amendments failed (barely), they still represent a tremendous waste of time by the Republican Congress. New Orleans remains an unmitigated disaster; a mute testimony to the gross incompetence of our current leadership in Washington. Intelligent Design failed in Pensylvania and will do so soon in Kansas, though the state of science education in our public schools remains sorely inadequate. We keep sliding ever closer to an elimination of a woman's right to an abortion, followed closely by an unrelenting assault against contraception. The theocratic agenda is very much alive and rolling on towards the November elections.

There is some good news, though. Numerous Republican crooks, such as Tom Delay and Scooter Libby, have been indicted for their malfeasance, though whether they'll serve any time or not seems unlikely. A jury of his peers convicted Enron Chairman Ken Lay and fate carried out the sentence. A current Quinnipiac poll shows progressive Ned Lemont with a solid lead over stealth Republican Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Sorry, Joe, but most of us only tolerated you as the VP nominee because we believed in Gore and understood what a trainwreck a Bush presidency would be. Too bad your fellow DLCers didn't see the danger. November is looking awfully good all around, with a recent Cook report showing the Republicans under seige in the House. I'm not willing to call it a Democratic takeover just yet, but something sure feels different this time around. I'm cautiously optimistic...

All of this is a round-a-bout way of saying "Happy Birthday" to A Beginner's Mind. As of Tuesday, I've officially been spouting off publicly for one whole year. It hasn't yet brought me the money, fame and appearance on "Meet the Press" I so desperately crave, but that's alright. I've learned more than I could have possibly dreamed just from the conversations here, and I look forward to another year of pedantic ranting.

For the comments: Let me know what you think the world will look like a year from now? Assuming Armageddon isn't really happening...

No People Are People In The Middle East

2006-08-02T11:15:00.000-05:00

Generally I don't bother with tearing up rightwing blog entries. Partly because my blog reading time is limited and I don't want to waste it reading RNC talking points. In part also because many other bloggers, such as TBogg and The Editors, do a much more entertaining job of eviscerating the numbskullery than I do.

However, every once in awhile its interesting to see how the other side gets down so I took a cruise around the shallow end of the bloggy ocean earlier today. I happened across Randian objectivist blog Atlas Shrugs, whose blogger, Pamela, is doing some kind of propaganda photo journalism piece for the Olmert government. Actually, it appears she's wandering Israel in an attempt to show the people under the duress of war, which is laudable, and also to get her wargasm on over Israel's military might, which is scary and pathetic. In any case, while most of her observations, incredibly biased as they are, seemed pretty banal, there was one passage that really caught my eye:

Next stop was the Patriot Missile Base in Haifa, again no photos. Again, extraordinary people. Another young, fabulous Captain explaining that they will not use Patriots to shoot down Katushyas. Why use to a million dollar missile to shoot down a thousand dollar rocket that they have thousands of? The Patriots are for the Iranian missiles.

Let me see if I've got this straight: launching a military assault on Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and leaving a fourth of the Lebanese population displaced is an acceptable cost for keeping the Israeli people safe but launching some million dollar missiles is just too costly? Personally, I don't really think "fabulous" is how I'd describe this particular IDF officer. I think "dangerously disturbed" sounds a little better. I mean, my God, he's quibbling about the hardware cost of protecting the Israeli people while participating in a war that is supposed to be accomplishing that very goal? I guess this just demonstrates yet again that, to the Pro-War crowd here and abroad, the Lebanese people have no value. Their lives are not even as valuable as some Patriot missiles. That actually explains nicely the difference between humanitarian aid for Lebanon and military aid for Israel from the U.S.: it's just a matter of risk management on the value of assets.

I have to assume that this IDF officer doesn't really intend to convey the notion that the Israeli people are not worth protecting to the tune of $1 million per missile. Instead, I think it's a tacit admission that Hezbollah's rocket attacks, while certainly serious, are not the existential danger to Israel that American conservatives would like us to believe. Captain Fabulous' assertion about the Patriot missiles definitely gives the impression that the IDF, if not the Israeli people at large, are not seeing the same war American conservatives are seeing. I also think it's pretty clear that Israel's motives are not as self-defense oriented as is being claimed. I think perhaps the good captain, and his unwitting spokeswoman, may have given us a glimpse behind the curtain on this conflict.

Qana

2006-08-01T14:56:00.000-05:00

Few things illuminate the ugly side of human endeavors quite like the corpses of children killed in wartime. A massacre like the one that occurred in Qana, Lebanon on Sunday was inevitable, as all such atrocities in wartime are inevitable. Cries of outrage vie with official-sounding apologies and the non-denial denial of a promised "official investigation" into the matter. Certainly we in the West would like to believe that only terrorists murder children; we'd like to cover our faces with our hands and pretend that modern societies have evolved beyond this kind of brutality, while seeing the blood run red on those hands. This is why we who believe so strongly in peace condemn the actions of Hezbollah and Israel, the United States and Al-Qaida. We know the violent aggression of war has no winners but losers innumerable.

The tragedy in Qana is no more or less horrifying than the deaths of two Israeli-Arab children in Nazareth several weeks ago. It's always children, the "innocent", who pay the highest price for war. For all the grand talk of a "right to defend" and a need to "oppose the occupiers", for all the geopolitical doubletalk about "cease fires" and "sustainability"; after all the talk is done Qana and Haifa are the irreducible reality of war, the bloody bootprint of human tribalism run amok. After thousands of years of human blood flowing all we've learned is how to bleed each other more efficiently and moralize more convincingly.

For me, the atrocity that adds grave insult to the deaths of these Arab children is the soulless moralizing coming from each side, particularly American conservatives in support of Israel. The suggestions from many of the Israeli government's supporters, here and in Israel, that the lives of these children in Qana are currency paying the price of safety in Israel is an affront to our shared humanity. For supporters of Israel's attacks on Lebanon to claim that the defense of the Israeli people is worth the lives of the Lebanese is to strip the humanity from these Lebanese children, rendering them less precious than their Israeli neighbors. It's to signify that invisible lines on a map separate those deserving of life and safety from those less deserving. It's racist, nativist and a clear signal to the terrorists in the Middle East that our "western values" are as easily toppled as a Lebanese apartment building. Or an American World Trade Center.

Who are these boobs... and why don't they think breastfeeding is okay?

2006-08-01T10:30:00.000-05:00

Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage, according to MSNBC, Baby Talk's recent magazine cover has been blasted by the public, who are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast... no nipple or areola, I might mention.

Here are a few quotes from the article:
"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.

I am amazed, daily, by the stupidity of people in this country! I certainly would rather my son (and my daughters) view the breast as a wonderful, beautiful part of a woman's body... that is used to nurture and care for her children. Not a sexual object to be augmented an oggled, as seen below:

Now, in my younger years, a cover like this would have sent me off in a tirade, but as I've gotten older... I don't blink an eye when seeing crap like this. I do, however, wish my children to see positive images of women's bodies. I think we are doing our children a great disservice by depicting women's bodies as something that should ONLY be lusted after and not accepted if they aren't {someone else's idea of} perfection.

We should be teaching our children to respect their mothers, sisters, themselves and humanity as a whole.

Ignoring The Hearts And Minds

2006-07-25T09:36:00.000-05:00

As the debate over the Israel/Hezbollah conflict rages on, a clear difference has emerged between the way liberals and conservatives address the issue. Primarily, it seems conservatives are addressing this as a moral issue. Countless times in countless places the mantra of "Israel has the right to defend itself" gets repeated ad nauseum, including within the Bush administration. Another conservative favorite, "One doesn't negotiate with terrorists", has seen a huge resurgence as well. Both of these are very broad policy stances, predicated on a moral belief about the evil of terrorism. Both have room for debate on their merits and interpretations. I, for example, hold that it's obvious that the first is true, but disagree that the second is always a certainty. Both Israel and the United States have negotiated with terrorist organizations in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

However, the biggest difference between liberal and conservative thought on this issue is that, generally, liberals have been talking about the practical implications of Israeli policy while conservatives are defending Israel's moral imperative. I don't fault conservatives for this, but I do see a huge danger in the potential blind spots it causes. While I, as a liberal, see Israel's right to defend itself as a starting point for debate on the conflict, conservatives really seem to see it as the end. It's become the blanket justification for every action Israel takes and every action the Bush administration doesn't. Both liberals and conservatives in America want the Israeli people to be safe. Liberals have been standing alone, however, when the issue of safety is extended to Lebanon and couched in a strategy of ending the open warfare. As I said yesterday, I believe conservatives see a moral purity and expediency in war that makes them support it as the first and best option for dealing with intractable foreign policy problems. No amount of history seems to shake this certainty.

I don't believe for one minute that Israel is going to accomplish its goals by bombing Lebanon to pieces. Israeli leaders have repeatedly said they have no desire to occupy Lebanon again and Hezbollah really has no reason to lay down its arms. Israel's attacks on Lebanon are further destabilizing an already weak democracy and, as history has shown time and again, government instability is the best breeding ground for terrorism and authoritarian rule. Hezbollah has no incentive to disarm and neither Syria nor Iran have any incentive to isolate Hezbollah. Israel has effectively backed itself into a corner from which no escape route is a good option.

The only way forward for Israel that either marginalizes or stops Hezbollah altogether must involve multi-lateral talks with the other states in the region and international support for a strong, democratic Lebanon. Currently, Israel's punishment of Lebanon is weakening the government and alienating the people. For a few anecdotal examples, here are some quotes from the people of Lebanon, courtesy of Dahr Jamail of IPS News, via Alternet:

"Does our country not have the right to move forward like other democracies," says Nidal Mothman, a 35-year-old taxi driver in downtown Beirut. "We hate the American government for giving the green light for the Israelis to bomb us back to the stone age."

[...]

"How many Hezbollah have they killed," Mothman said. "Maybe just a few, while they've killed over 350 Lebanese civilians. What kind of war are they waging against my country?"

[...]

Foreign war ships are crowding ports as evacuation of foreign nationals continues. "Yes, we see the priorities of the western countries as they evacuate their people," 55-year-old clothing merchant in the Hamra district of Beirut, Ayad Harrar said. "So you see, screw the Lebanese, they do not matter to us. This is what their governments are saying to us by these actions."

Harrar said people are shocked that his country was once again plunged into war, just when they thought they had found peace.

"This afternoon it is calm, but we all know that when they finish evacuating their people, we will be bombed once more," Harrar said. "It is not possible to live a life while we live under these conditions; not knowing when our day to die is coming from more Israeli bombs."

The only hope of ending Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon is to convince the Lebanese to reject that influence, while giving the Lebanese the economic and military support they need to supplant Hezbollah's role. Hezbollah's style of entrenchment in southern Lebanon is not unlike a mafia protection racket. Hezbollah provides humanitarian services, political representation and, to a certain degree, at least the promise of armed protection, in exchange for political (and financial) clout and a civilian population to shield its activities. The only way to break this racket is to shift the hearts and minds of the Lebanese and provide them an alternative to Hezbollah's "protection". Thus far, Israel has managed to confirm exactly what Hezbollah is selling to the Lebanese Shia, while the United States has failed to step in and provide an alternative to the protection racket. Both nations have managed to further isolate the Lebanese and lend political justification to Hezbollah's anti-Western rhetoric. As an alternate path, perhaps negotiations with Syria and Iran could help de-fang Hezbollah, but the Bush administration has refused that as well. So nothing gets done while Lebanese and Israeli civilians die by the scores.

[I may have to change this blog's name to "Samurai Sam Yacking About The Middle East" pretty soon. I promise I'll find something else to pontificate upon soon. This issue has just really struck a chord with me... S. Sam]

The Abyss Gazing Back

2006-07-24T14:20:00.000-05:00

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

Possibly because I was in an ornery mood, I chose, on Friday afternoon, to visit a rightwing political site with the goal of getting a true measure of conservative thought on the Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I am chock full of opinions on what motivates American conservatives, and I wanted to see if my biases were simply too great or if conservatism really has warped into something awful. The blog was Ace of Spades (Google it if you're interested) and it's somewhat of a poor man's Free Republic. There was much name-calling and ad hominem attacks on my political affiliations (Yes, I am a "Draft Gore 'moonbat'") but some of the commenters actually rose up and attempted to have a somewhat reasonable discussion. It's that discussion that left me feeling particularly bleak about the prospects of living in conservative America.

See, I can deal with the name calling and the "I hate you 'cause yer not on my team" crowd-following that occurs at any large blog. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the realization that, in the debate between liberals and conservatives over the Middle East, we're not even close to arguing the same thing. A common myth about political discourse in the U.S. is that both liberals and conservatives are working towards the common goal of a better America and only differ on the particulars of how to create that America. While being complete garbage, this myth persists largely because it's comforting to us liberals. We generally like to believe the best of everyone and it confirms our worldview to believe that our opponents on the Right are acting with good intentions. Sadly, that's not the case.

Every debate I've had about the Israel/Hezbollah conflict and every discussion I've read about it on progressive blogs has been premised on one goal: end the violence. Progressives are busy discussing how to bring the conflict back under control and have been outraged at our government's lack of a response. We see the lives being lost on each side and we wonder how to stem the tide of bloodshed that threatens to flood the whole region. We want the Israeli and Lebanese people out of danger and in a position to put their lives back together, just as we'd want if we were caught up in a similar conflict. We want all the relevant parties to sit down together and work out solutions that bring at least a modicum of stability to the two countries' borders and that establish a way forward for greater security. And many of us, myself included, actually believed that conservatives wanted at least some of that. I no longer believe that.

After reading and/or debating at many conservative blogs, reading conservative pundits and conservative think-tank treatises, I finally think I understand the conservative point of view on the conflict. And it ain't pretty...

First, conservatives view the world in very stark black and white, "good guys vs. bad guys" terms. This view frames every debate they have about foreign policy. In the sphere of conservative thought the U.S. and Israel are always, ALWAYS the "good guys". Criticism of either is not welcome, unless it is set in this black and white framework. Thus, a discussion of the current Middle East conflict is almost a non-starter for conservatives. Since Israel must be the "good guy", anyone Israel opposes is, by default, the "bad guy" and thus is deserving of whatever actions Israel takes.

Second, conservatives have no moral problem with the concept of collective punishment. There have been precious few cries for moderation in the Israeli response to Hezbollah's kidnapping raid and most of those have been transparent attempts by the Bush administration to curry favor with our few Arab allies. Conservative ideology holds that there is simply no such thing as an "innocent civilian" in Lebanon these days; since Hezbollah is entrenched in the country, the people must somehow be tacitly approving Hezbollah's presence. There is no talk about mitigating circumstances, about Hezbollah terrorists forcing their presence and their goals on people too economically poor and politcally powerless to resist. For a great example illustrating this line of thought, just read this gut-wrencher from Alan Dershowitz (via Digby):

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some Â those who cannot leave on their own Â should be counted among the innocent victims.

If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.

Which brings me to a third facet of conservative thought on this war: dehumanization. Conservatives seem to have little care for the human costs of what Israel is doing in Lebanon. I have no desire to follow the ideological spiral downward that lets conservatives justify the bombing of civilian targets or, worse, leads them to make the "Middle East as a huge plate of radioactive glass" argument. That argument certainly exists and it shows an anti-social lack of empathy that is almost psychopathic in its nature. Under the "good guys vs. bad guys" framing, no amount of death and destruction is too little to vanquish the "bad guy".

All three of these lead me to my final point about the conservative response to this conflict, and it is the most telling reason why no debate between liberals and conservatives is fruitful on this issue. At the bottom line, conservatives do not consider peace a good outcome. They actually embrace war as the better option. Conservatives believe that war, and the flexing of military might, is the greatest show of strength in which a given state can engage. To them, diplomacy and statecraft are essentially the tools of those too weak (in reality, too principled) to use force indiscriminately. They see war as the ultimate shaping event in human history, equating all wars as having the possibility of vanquishing evil from the world in the way conservatives believe WWII did. Aside from being a gross misunderstanding of history, this view also fails to recognize that the problems being experienced today in much of the world are descended directly from that post-war era. War has never been a good fix for human problems, only an expedient one and even then only for the victorious.

We progressives have no "flip side of the coin" to work with towards common goals today; if, indeed, we ever did. Conservatives don't want peace and prosperity in the Middle East. They want a war that leaves our "enemies" crippled for all time, destitute and powerless. Where progressives see the potential for a global community, conservatives retreat behind nativist isolationism, cheering wars they don't see fit to fight and which will never yield the outcomes conservatives desire anyway. It's a terrible combination of fear and loathing, wrapped up in a violent belligerence against those deemed "foreign". A useless waste of philosophy and easily manipulated, as the Bush administration has shown time and time again.

Boldly Addressing The Pressing Issues Of Our Day

2006-07-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

The Rubber Stamp Republican Congress has really been swimming around the shallow end of the legislative pool lately. In what I can only call tacit agreement with the charge that they are unable to govern, the Republicans in Congress have been busy debating a veritable treasure trove of pet wingnut projects. The Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was a spectacular flop. The Constitutional amendment banning flag burning was a very near miss (thanks, Diane Feinstein). Those two will, of course, be back sometime in the future.

Unfortunately, no matter how bumbling the Republican theocrats in the House may be, they eventually manage to pass one of their odious legislative initiatives. Their latest target: the Pledge of Allegiance. And, by God, they finally got one (from Reuters, via The Truth About Political Stuff):

In a move intended to preserve a reference to God in an oath recited by millions of Americans each day, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to prevent U.S. courts from hearing challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance.

[...]

"We're creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal judiciary. We're doing that because we don't trust them," said Missouri Rep. Todd Akin.

Yes, this is the most pressing issue the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives could find to debate. Or, rather, it was the only part of the wingnut cultural agenda they could actually get passed. I'm not an expert on legal matters, but I have to imagine that Akin's posturing above is not going to win him any friends within the federal judiciary. I also think it odd that Congress has the ability to set certain things beyond judicial review. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has it right by any reading of the constitution: the Pledge containing "under God" violates the First Amendment. It's explicitly co-mingling a pledge of loyalty to the country with a pledge of belief in the Christian God. It couldn't be much clearer and the Republicans obviously know this.

Christianity has long enjoyed the benefit of sneaking around the First Amendment. Our government engages in prayers led by Christian ministers, places mention of God in various parts of our national symbology and even requires government officials to swear on the Christian Bible their oath of office. Conservatives like to pretend that these represent our "Christian heritage" and are as much cultural as religious. While that may be true, that makes them no less a violation of our constitution. Furthermore, that "Christian culture" certainly applies very selectively to certain groups within the country, and doesn't apply much at all to others. I doubt the millions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc., care much for having a Christian heritage pushed upon them as a condition of residency here. I know I certainly don't...

Now that challenges continue to mount questioning Christianity's special status, the Religious Right has come out locked-and-loaded with every weapon in its political arsenal. Their moral and spiritual arsenal has failed to institute the changes they desire, so the political is really all they have left. Even the very notion of using the levers of government power to institute Christian teachings is very questionable under Christian dogma. It's really a usurpation of free will, not unlike what other theocracies around the world do. Plus it's predicated on an historically inaccurate view of U.S. culture and the personal philosophies of our Founding Fathers.

Speaking of which, this has to be my favorite passage from the article:

Akin and other Republicans said the reference to God, added to the pledge in 1954, did not endorse any specific religion but referred to the philosophy of the country's founders that rights such as freedom of speech were granted by a divine being, not a government.

Bullshit. Apparently several of our Republican Representatives in Congress believe we, the people, are actually as stupid as they. No sir! There is no way the Knights of Columbus were referring to the deist sense of the divine when they petitioned the Eisenhower administration to add "under God" to the pledge. Nice try but the Pledge still doesn't pass Constitutional muster.

My biggest complaint in all this, aside from being reminded, yet again, that I'm an atheist in an extremely religious nation, is that it wastes time that could be spent on more substantive issues. I know it's been asked a thousand times by a thousand other progressives but, really, aren't there at least a few more important things the Congress could be doing other than protecting the cultural privilege of Christians? Last time I checked we had two wars we were fighting, a third we should be helping stop, millions without proper healthcare or medical insurance, a huge budget deficit and national debt, a growing economic crisis in the middle class, underfunded public education...the list goes on and on. But instead, the Republicans have to pretend they all flunked Civics 101 and throw a little red meat to their base. They should have to refund their salaries for however much time they spent on this worthless legislation.

Protecting Blastocyst Americans

2006-07-20T13:35:00.000-05:00

Well...

Five and one-half years into his presidency and George W. Bush finally found a reason to open his desk, blow the dust away and firmly grasp his never-been-used veto pen. With a quick flourish, quietly, almost in secret, President Bush placed his signature on his first-ever rejection of legislation from his Rubber Stamp Republican Congress. Was the legislation one of those evil liberal kobolds like socialized medical care, equal rights for homosexuals or campaign finance reform? Nay. It was to block a relaxation of Bush's ban on expanding embryonic stem cell research and the federal funding needed for such.

Now, I could go into the science of this issue; I've read quite a bit about at this point. I could discuss at length, for example, the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells and why the latter isn't always an acceptable substitute for the former. Or, I could talk about the moral implications, of the hope that expanded stem cell research may hold the key to unlocking cures for some of our deadliest illnesses. I could even give a nod to the anecdotes; the stories of notable stem cell research supporters like Nancy Reagan and the late Dana Reeve, who both watched their husbands suffer and die from diseases that embryonic stem cell research may one day conquer. I could discuss any or all of these things.

But I won't.

Why?

Because those are rational reasons to discuss embryonic stem cell research and Bush's decision clearly has nothing to do with rationality.

Instead, here is what I think is really the salient point that fully illustrates just what Bush considers important about embryonic stem cells (via Ezra Klein):

In case you feel I'm not giving enough credence to the moral argument against such research, allow me to quote Darksyde's excellent primer on the science, logistics, and future of stem cells:
Embryonic Stem Cell lines come from material stored at fertility clinics which is already slated for destruction. Preventing these blastocysts from being used for research won't 'save' them. It simply means they'll be disposed of in a medical waste facility instead of being used to find cures for disease. The only reason to restrict federal approval of new lines is to appeal to a minority of extremist social conservatives and it comes at the cost of possibly delaying or denying treatment--and in some cases life itself--to millions of people.

Understand that graf, as no single point is more important in the moral argument: these blastocysts would be destroyed anyway. Not a single life is spared, or saved, in the barring of stem cell research. But in delaying possible cures and treatments, an untold number will be lost.

It sounds crazy, I know, but here's the Decider-in-Chief in his own words, via MSNBC:

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,".

I'm left to draw one of two conclusions. The first is that perhaps Bush really is just this ignorant. Maybe he really doesn't have even a passing familiarity with the medical science and doesn't actually realize from where researchers get embryonic stem cells. Perhaps this is just another example of how Bush is nothing more than an empty suit, a conservative name-brand pushed through by the Republicans back in 2000 so that they wouldn't have to worry about an actual leader muddying up their plans to forward the conservative movement.

I like that conclusion. It fits my biases, for one. I've long believed Bush was an ignorant lout and never intended by his Republican handlers to lead in any meaningful capacity. I believe he was always intended to be the head cheerleader for the conservative movement and head fundraiser for the Republican party. He was expected to make lots of empty-headed speeches and symbolic gestures but not really deal with anything important. He clearly has little grasp of the nuances of government and, especially in recent speeches, seems rather bored with being President. I wish this impression of the President explained his opposition to stem cell research. I don't believe it does, however.

What I do believe the truth is, and this is my other conclusion for his actions, is that Bush saw an opportunity to pad his legacy and shore up his religious fundamentalist base and took it. I still believe George W. Bush is hopelessly dense and uninformed, willfully so, but I recognize that he does possess a certain level of political cunning. Stem cell research, like any area of scientific research, is complex and requires diligent study to understand its complexities. In other words, it's not the sort of topic that graces the cover of People on a regular basis and, thus, is not terribly well understood by most Americans. It's just the kind of issue Bush and his handlers love to exploit on behalf of their theo-conservative base (see also "late-term abortions").

Bush knows the average Cult of Lifer has no workable knowledge about stem cell research, just as the average Creationist has little or no understanding of evolution. But the fact that an unborn human embryo, the form of life the Cult worships most devoutly, is involved allows Bush to give the appearance of a principled stand on behalf of "innocent human life". "Innocent", of course, is the key word. The Cult of Life believes "innocent" human lives, limited to those who've never been born, are sacred and thus deserve the full protection of the law. The Cult's thoughts on the sacredness of human life that has committed a crime, is the U.S.'s military enemy, believes in a religion other than evangelical Protestant Christianity (especially Islam), provides abortions and, now, that suffers from diseases that might one day see cures discovered via embryonic stem cell research, can really be summed up in two words: Fuck 'em!

Bush saw a golden opportunity to throw some red meat to his base, rejecting a bill that had actual bi-partisan support and was supported by a majority of Americans. The votes aren't there to overturn the veto, thanks to Cult of Life cardinals like Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, so stem cell research will have to wait still longer. Obviously Bush is no longer concerned about his electability, but he does seem concerned about his legacy. This will help bolster his reputation as a godly President, at least in the eyes of those for whom rolling back the Age of Enlightenment is considered godly.

So I guess this means congratulations are in order. Bravo, Cult of Life members! Your President has heard your pious pleas for a strong stance against science and reason. That whole Intelligent Design thing didn't work out so well, but you persevered. Sure, millions of people suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's will wait that much longer for a cure (if they live that long), but at least a bunch of embryos that were destined for medical waste facilities will still get there. Your hard work, and your President's political machinations, have helped give that old demon, science, a good poke and have helped take away a little bit of hope from some non-sacred, non-innocent human life. After all, what nut could possibly believe that helping heal the sick has anything to do with Christianity?

Oh.

A Question Of Accountability

2006-07-19T16:46:00.000-05:00

I found this question from John Aravosis fascinating:

People like to talk, especially, I've found, in Europe and the Middle East, about how they hate the US government but like the American people. They say you can't hold a people responsible for what its government does. That's always struck me as odd, since we live in a democracy where the people are the government, and in the case of Bush, 50% or more of the American people, up until recently, supported the man's folly.

When the people support the government, as in this case the Shia in Lebanon likely don't want the government clamping down on Hezbollah and its missile attacks on Israel, at what point are the people responsible for the actions of their own government, and at what point should they be held responsible for those actions?

Meaning, if Hezbollah missiles are killing Israelis, and Hezbollah's actions are supported by Lebanon's Shia population, doesn't Israel have the right to retaliate against the Shia in Lebanon? At the very least against their utilities and their roads? Putting aside the wisdom geo-politically of such action, morally isn't it any country's right to strike back?

Or, if you think that the Shia in Lebanon don't share responsibility, then do you also believe that Americans who supported Bush, and who voted for him twice, and who supported the war in Iraq don't share any of the blame for the mayhem Bush has unleashed over the past six years?

Let's boil this down to one question that's a little more universal: Should the citizens of a democracy be held responsible for the actions of the government they elected and what does that accountability mean?

As a quick first answer, I give a qualified "Yes". The citizens of a democracy bear the responsibility for the actions of their government. I believe that's true in any democracy where the elections are at least some semblance of fair. Certainly a case can be made in many putative democracies that the people have a limited role in choosing the government, and the U.S. is no exception to this. If you doubt, just ask yourself how many members of the Green, Libertarian, Justice, Socialist or Communist parties, or Independents, are currently serving in any of the three branches of the Federal Government? If you get beyond Rep. Bernie Sanders (I - VT) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I - VT), let me know. Or ask yourself how many openly gay or openly non-religious folks are currently serving in the same capacity. I've got Rep. Barney Frank (D - MA) for the first and a whopping none for the second. The point is that while the political views of the people in the U.S. run the full gamut from far left to far right, our political leadership does not reflect that diversity. The same is true for nearly all democracies, though parliamentary democracies like Canada or Israel tend to have a much wider spectrum than our two party system.

Given that the elected representatives in a government are rarely, at least in the U.S., a good reflection of the populace, I believe that accountability for the government has practical, if not moral, limits. These two different aspects of accountability, practical and moral, reflect the mismatch between representation in government in a democracy and the actual views of the individual citizens.

On a moral level, I think the people of a democracy bear full responsibility for the acts committed on our behalf. This is one of my largest complaints about the Iraq war. All the senseless violence and destruction is being done in my name, even if I opposed the war and the administration conducting it. As an American, I have a moral responsibility to the rest of the world for what my country does. I believe, to a certain degree, that Lebanon has a similar responsibility. Those Shia who support Hezbollah bear a moral responsibility for the violent acts committed by Hezbollah. The issue gets a little more complex when you talk of Lebanon, however, because Hezbollah is more than a terrorist militia. It's also a political party and a social welfare provider. I think the fact that many Shia in Lebanon who depend on Hezbollah for welfare, as well as the Palestinians who depend on Hamas for the same reason, have their responsibility for the actions of these groups somewhat mitigated.

Which brings me to the practical aspect of accountability. While it's true that the supporters of Hezbollah or Hamas bear the moral responsibility for the violent acts of those groups, their practical accountability is mitigated by need. Some turning of a blind eye is expected when practical resistance equates to biting the hand that feeds. If I'm a Shiite man in Lebanon, who looks to Hezbollah to help me provide for my family, am I an enemy of Israel? No, I'm an ally of my family and my own well-being. Furthermore, for a nation like Israel or the U.S. to hold me accountable for "supporting terrorism" when in reality I'm only doing what's necessary for mine and my family's survival, is grossly unjust. That kind of call to accountability over-simplifies the roles that organizations like Hezbollah play in the Middle East, as well as assuming that the Shia in southern Lebanon have any viable alternative, which is certainly not clear. That kind of accountability by way of collective punishment is, at its heart, what stirs liberal outrage over the Israeli incursion into Lebanon: not that Israel should not oppose Hezbollah, with force when necessary, but that punishing those who support, willingly or out of necessity, Hezbollah should face retribution for that support.

So, to John's question of whether the Shia bear responsibility for Hezbollah's actions, I say "Yes" in a moral sense. I think that culpability should manifest itself in words and deeds that try and change the nature of Hezbollah or reduce its influence in Shia life. I say "No", however, to the practical side of that responsibility. The Shia in Lebanon do not deserve to be pounded by Israeli airstrikes because of the actions of Hezbollah, anymore than the conservatives who supported Bush and his invasion of Iraq deserve to be killed by Iraqis. I believe we in America have a responsibility to end our military occupation of Iraq and provide, as much as we can, the Iraqis with the resources to rebuild their lives. But I don't think we deserve to have the same violence visited upon us that we have visited upon the Iraqis. That sort of equivalence in accountability leads to the kind of tit-for-tat war in which the Israelis and Palestinians remain endlessly engaged.

Finally, in answer to John's question about conservative and hawkish voters bearing the blame for Iraq, I give a hearty "Yes", especially after 2004. In fact, I believe they bear much more blame for supporting the neo-conservatives than the Shia do for supporting Hezbollah. The reason is that no very few conservative voters rely on the Republican party for their well-being, nor is the GOP known for torturing or killing those who refuse to endorse its politics. Those who voted for Bush in support of Iraq did so with the full knowledge that they had other alternatives besides supporting violence and they chose war anyway. The Shia in southern Lebanon had no such guarantee of a safe alternative.

In the end, the question of accountability for a democracy is more complicated certainly than either Israel's or Hezbollah's justifications for war indicate. Accountability is certain in terms of a moral responsibility; a responsibility to make amends, to right the wrongs committed by a democratically-elected government and a commitment to change that government in a positive way. Each side owes peace and cooperation to the other, just as America owes that to the Iraqis. But accountability ends long before collective punishment and justifications for violence begin. The people of neither Lebanon nor Israel deserve to suffer bombings and missile strikes in response to the actions of their government or subjugating terrorist organization, anymore than the average war-loving American conservative deserves to be blown up by Iraqi insurgents for supporting the U.S. invasion. Otherwise, accountability becomes nothing more than endless retribution.

The Cure For War? A Conscription Prescription

2006-07-18T11:30:00.000-05:00

Rolling Stone has an article up on its site discussing the possibility of the draft being reinstituted in the United States (Link's giving me problems; will update later. S.Sam). The draft was formally ended after the Vietnam war, largely due to the political consequences of conscription. I believe that is one of several reasons I believe it won't be reinstituted anytime soon.

The first reason I believe a military draft is politically unlikely is its lack of popularity with the American people. According to Angus-Reid Consultants, fully 85% of folks polled are against the draft being reinstated. This essentially makes calls for a draft impossible to pass through Congress, as they would rightly be seen as political suicide. Whether this says anything about the nature or necessity of conscription, instead of the spinelessness of the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress, is certainly up for debate. Given the Republican Party's heart-on-sleeve support of all things symbolically military, it seems more likely the politics, and not the mechanism, of the draft is its biggest political stumbling block.

The other reason a draft is politically unfeasible is it would finally get the American people involved in Bush's Iraqi folly. While a majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq, the anti-war effort has failed to make many waves. This is due to the relatively limited involvement of the average American. Our all-volunteer military insures that only a select few, who overwhelmingly tend to be poor and minority, plus their families, are really paying the price for the neo-conservative cause. We other Americans haven't even been asked to support the war with our tax dollars, especially those few who are in the wealthiest 1%. Bush and his Republican Congress have been all too willing to borrow the costs of this war, pushing the financial burden onto succeeding generations, rather than face any political consequences for their actions today. It's a cowards war; supported by cowards and enabled in a cowardly fashion.

So does a draft make sense from an operational perspective? Maybe. On the one hand, it is almost certainly the case that our all-volunteer military is better equipped, better trained and likely better capable of waging our wars. While the National Guard or Reservists may have a case to make for being the surprised recipients of a war assignment, those in the active military have no such lack of expectation. The United States has been running military missions around the globe almost non-stop since WWII. Further, the casualty count is likely much lower in Iraq because the all-volunteer force has a higher degree of professionalism.

On the other hand, a distinct lack of boots on the ground has been one of the chief reasons the Iraq nation-building mission has gone so completely off the rails. Multiple tours of duty in a hostile area are taking a tremendous toll on our troops, and some of that could be mitigated by a steady stream of fresh soldiers. While it seems ever more unlikely that there is a military solution to the Iraqi civil war, it is certainly the case that a fresh fighting force could do much to at least bolster the morale of our military there. Bush has been clear that he is intent on passing off responsibility for Iraq onto the next President, which gives our military at least several more years of occupation to handle.

As much as I hate to see other people's children (or myself) thrown into the chaos of Iraq, I have to say that I tentatively support a military draft being enacted. The main reason is because I think it may be the only way we'll ever get a substantive debate on our foreign policy. Most of the Republicans and too many of the Democrats are unwilling to make the tough political decisions required to bring an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. And with the American people too disengaged to get motivated behind an anti-war effort, there simply isn't enough political pressure in Washington to change that "protect the incumbency at all costs" mentality.

A draft could change all of that. No longer would Iraq or Afghanistan (Syria? Iran?) be wars that only the poor and powerless are consigned to fight. No longer would the wealthy, the politically connected, be exempt from partaking in Bush's glorious crusade. A draft could galvanize opposition to the neo-conservative agenda and force the difficult decisions to be made. It could rewrite the political calculus that makes a stance against the war dangerous for continued government employment.

At the end of the day, there is also a fundamental question of fairness. The cost of the draft would be high to America, but then it already has been to those wearing our uniform. It's only right that all Americans help bear the burden of this war. And if, as I do, we find the burden of war too heavy to bear, then we can work so that we all may set that burden down together.

On The Road To Nowhere

2006-07-17T13:10:00.000-05:00

I have so many disparate thoughts on the conflict raging in Lebanon right now that I'm having a hard time mustering a coherent theme out of them. Purely from an American-centric point of view, this whole situation paints a vivid portrait of how ineffectual Bush administration foreign policy is, as well as drumming up some tough questions on how to proceed. As for Israel, what in the world does Israel hope to gain by pounding on Lebanon in this way? The most certain way to energize the populace in favor of Hezbollah is an invasion that harms Lebanese civilians. While it's clear that the Bush administration won't learn a damn thing from Iraq, couldn't the Israeli government? At best, all Bush and Rice can muster is luke-warm support of Israel's actions coupled with a call for "restraint".

I think it's incredibly disheartening how little real influence the United States has in the world anymore. The Bush administration's "cowboy diplomacy" has resulted in marginalizing the U.S. into a bit player's role. I think NPR's Juan Williams put it succinctly in a conversation with Bill Kristol on Fox "News" (with commentary from The Rude Pundit):

Williams also said, "Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been, we donÂt talk to anybody. We donÂt talk to Hamas. We donÂt talk to Hezbollah. WeÂre not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?" These are sentiments also expressed by Joe Biden on Meet the Press, that it's not weakness for the most powerful nation to talk, to offer support to, say, the newly elected government of Lebanon back in 2005, when it might have mattered.

The same could be said of Bush's failure to be engaged much in the peace process between Israel and Palestine. Or the Bush administration's failure to recognize that the reality of Iraq was not going to conform to their neo-conservative pipe dream of heroic intervention. The U.S. helped set the table for war and now there's no leaving until every course is served...

Another aspect of this blossoming conflict that I touched on last Thursday is the conservative enthusiasm for the war. It seems all too apparent that, for many conservatives, the only good Arab is a dead Arab and if Israel's willing to do that dirty work, so be it. Israel will have the full moral support of American conservatives, especially if the bombs keep dropping. Israel's willingness to answer violence with violence is the epitome of conservative militaristic foreign policy: an eye for an eye. It's a policy that leaves all sides blinded.

I've tried to remain neutral as far as where the blame lies for this conflict, but clearly the way the war is being waged favors Lebanon, and by extension Hezbollah, in the court of public opinion. Israel answering an assault on its troops with a full-scale bombing campaign and naval blockade, leaving, at last count, over 100 Lebanese civilians dead, really calls into question the larger motives behind the invasion. At best, these deaths make Israel's military policy look sloppy and indiscriminate; at worst, it confirms exactly the kind of Israeli thuggery that the kind of ideologues who populate Hezbollah and Hamas preach to their followers everyday. The civilized world already know that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization bent on destabilizing the Middle East and eliminating Israel. Whether they can do either is certainly up for debate but there is little doubt that Hezbollah's being able to goad such a severe response from Israel helps the Hezbollah cause. As Evan Derkacz from AlterNet puts it:

Israel continues to hit the airport and numerous targets that have NOTHING to do with Hezbollah (like Tripoli which is Sunni), and word is they've got ground troops crossing the Lebanese border. The situation is getting worse by the minute.

As I've written before, the best way to unite the Lebanese people -- pro- and anti-Hezbollah -- is for Israel to act like a lumbering and cruel-hearted invader. To wit: "President Lahoud has officially claimed that he supports the 'Resistance' and will not give up Sayyid Nasrallah." It's a political no-brainer.

As for those conservatives eagerly pining for a broader war with Syria and Iran, perhaps these folks need some serious moral reflection. They've taken their worship of war's iconography, such as the ever-present comparisons of every modern U.S. conflict to WWII, and completely divorced themselves from war's horrid reality. More armchair quarterbacking from the conservative warhawks. Once they have the taste for war on their tongues, no amount of blood washes it away.

What is needed in the Middle East is diplomacy, humanitarian effort and a concerted will by "the West" to see these conflicts laid to rest permanently. Unfortunately, there is little hope of any such intervention with Bush and Blair calling the shots in the region. Once upon a time the U.S. could have been the cooler head that prevailed. Instead, thanks to our mendacious and ideologically-blinded leadership, we're nothing more than a wall-flower, left to practically beg our ally to use restraint while being unable to help broker the peace Israel needs. So many lost lives and opportunities...

Something's On The March In The Middle East

2006-07-13T14:29:00.000-05:00

But it's certainly not "freedom".

News continues to break today of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, following the killing of 8 Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others by Hezbollah militants. Thus far today, according to Fox "News" (it's all I get to watch at lunch) Israel has bombed numerous bridges cutting off routes into the interior of Lebanon, as well as enacting a naval blockade in the Mediterranean. Reports are also coming in that the Beirut airport has twice today been the target of Israeli air strikes. All in all, not a good day in Lebanon.

Normally I make a concerted effort not to discuss Israeli politics very often. First and foremost, this is because I'm not terribly knowledgeable about Israeli history and politics. I have a fairly loose understanding of the dynamic of what goes on in that region but I try very hard not to take sides. That's the other main reason I don't write much about the area: the polarization of the issue. Trying to get any two people, one who believes the Palestinians are terrorists attacking a peaceful nation and one who believes Israel is an aggressive occupier, to calmly discuss the situation can be next to impossible. Personally, I believe there is plenty of blame to assign between both parties in the conflict, but I'm not going to attempt to assign it now.

What I am concerned about is what Israel's actions mean for the wider Middle East. With the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan, the civil war in Iraq continuing to grow bloodier by the day, further belligerence by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza and now the invasion of Lebanon, the hope for peace in the Middle East has almost been snuffed out. Perhaps it's gone altogether, though I prefer to believe that there is always hope for peace even in the darkest of hours. In any case, the fighting across the region is heating up and, in violation of my normal policy, I have to say that I believe Israel has made a mistake here.

Certainly any country has the right to secure its own borders. But attacking Lebanon in retaliation for actions by Hezbollah is sure to spread greater enmity among the Lebanese people. Israel has long made the same demand of Lebanon concerning Hezbollah as it has of the Palestinian Authority over Hamas or Islamic Jihad: Get control of these groups or else! As near as I can tell, however, that's a demand that either of those nations is simply unable to meet, and I have to suspect that the Israeli government realizes this and chooses to ignore it publicly. Perhaps in Israel, as it is with the Bush Administration's neo-conservative foreign policy, those wishing for war are drowning out all other voices of moderation.

The danger in the Lebanon invasion is two-fold. One, it creates the possibility of another tit-for-tat exchange of military aggression between Lebanon and Israel, in the same vein as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two, it certainly raises tensions all across the Middle East, a region that has been no stranger to war lately. The U.S. is already bogged down in Iraq and, particularly with renewed aggression from Israel against Hezbollah, runs a serious risk of being caught in a wider conflict, especially if Iran gets involved. And I for one will not sleep any easier at the thought of yet another foreign policy crisis for Bush to mangle.

As I said before, I certainly respect Israel's right to defend itself, with military force if necessary. I just can't help but wonder if there wasn't a better way than an assault on its neighbor to the north...

UPDATE: I've done some poking around the "conservative" end of the blog pool (I'll resist the urge to say "you know, the shallow end"...or not) and the belief that Israel is completely justified in its actions appears to be unanimous. There also seems to be an almost palpable hope that this leads to a wider conflict, with Iran being Preferred Target #1 (though they'd settle for Syria). These folks never, ever tire of war, especially when they don't have to fight it...

The Same Sun Shines On Us All

2006-07-12T13:21:00.000-05:00

In recent years, the virulent and unceasing attacks by the Religious Right on our civil liberties has helped create a culture of severe distrust between atheists like myself and the religious. Fundamentalist Christians have been preaching for years about the evils of atheism, Freethinkers and secular humanists; so much so that it's often difficult for the godless to build much of a trusting relationship with any Christian anymore. We've become so accustomed to the never-ending rabid dog assaults from the Dobsons, Robertsons, Falwells and Perkins of the country that we often fail to empathize when a member of the Christian majority finds itself on the receiving end of a First Amendment violation.

Such as in this case (from JewsOnFirst.org, via Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.org):

A top high school graduate in Colorado who shared her faith in her valedictory was escorted from the ceremony by school staff and told she couldn't take her diploma home until she explained her actions to the principal and the parents of other graduates.

Erica Corder was among 14 Colorado Springs students who addressed their graduating class last month.

[...]

Here is the entire speech that caused all the trouble:

"Throughout these lessons our teachers, parents, and let's not forget our peers have supported and encouraged us along the way. Thank you all for the past four amazing years. Because of your love and devotion to our success, we have all learned how to endure change and remain strong individuals. We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in Heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't already know Him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you, so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him. And we also encourage you, now that we are all ready to encounter the biggest change in our lives thus far, the transition from childhood to adulthood, to leave (our school) with confidence and integrity. Congratulations class of 2006."

As much as it causes me deep metaphysical pain to be in the position of agreeing with Focus on the Family, Agape Press and so on, I'm afraid that's exactly what's being required of me. I absolutely believe the school is in the wrong on this issue and I imagine they will face some legal or civil repercussions for it.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the legal framework around expressions of religion in public schools. ReligiousTolerance.org is a great resource for explaining the issue in detail and giving the relevant case law. The consensus seems to be, in my inexpert opinion, that the question of students evangelizing to other students in speaker-to-audience situations is rather gray. The question would need to be answered as to whether the students in the audience had their rights violated by the speaker, in light of the fact that Corder is not a school official. The students in the audience also had the option and ability to leave the room if they found her words offensive; none chose to do so. As I see the facts of the event, I cannot see what principle the school has to stand upon. Corder has the Constitutionally-protected right to speak about her beliefs anywhere she likes and to anyone who cares to listen. That she was giving a commencement speech at a public school graduation does not seem to me to be cause to abrogate that right. I think the school erred.

That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the school district. Much debate has occurred in our country over the past 30 years as to just what is acceptable speech in a public school setting when religion is concerned. Schools often have to be very careful to not cross the line between allowing religious freedom and promoting religious dogma. It can be a very thin line. However, that line is much clearer where students, and not school officials, are concerned. Essentially, a public school student can pray, evangelize, pass out literature, give speeches, display symbols and generally promote their faith in any way they choose, so long as they don't cross the line into harassment. In this sense, I think what Corder did was protected free speech. However, I am sympathetic to the school's side, and I would hope that perhaps Corder and her family might be willing to accept an apology in lieu of a civil settlement. It would really be the Christian thing to do, though I won't hold my breath...

I do have to say that, as a secular humanist, I find Corder's speech somewhat crass as a graduation commencement. Had she talked about her faith in God and love of Christ as something personal to her, then I think it could have been a very moving speech. That she chose instead to evangelize how her beliefs ought to be the beliefs of everyone listening was crudely disrespectful of the other students. Perhaps their were Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Freethinkers in the graduating class that don't share Corder's particular faith, or any faith, and felt marginalized by her preaching. Perhaps not. Either way, though, I still believe Corder's right to give her speech in the way she gave it is protected by the First Amendment, even if I find the speech itself very lacking in taste.

I have to express a great deal of disappointment with the school officials, even as I sympathize with the difficulty of their responsibilities. There's a reason this story is plastered all over Focus on the Family, Agape Press and Fox "News"; these stories are the bread-and-butter of the neurotic Christian victimhood cult. Fox alone spent 15 minutes on an interview with Corder, complete with a sympathetic, cheering audience to gasp in the horror of their worst fears confirmed: "My God, the liberals really are trying to take our religion away!" These kinds of misteps allow unscrupulous religious and political leaders (pretty much the entire Religious Right and Republican Party, actually) to amp up their favorite motivational weapon: fear. This Colorado Springs high school made itself a convenient bogeyman, to the detriment of both Corder and secularists nationwide.

As a final note, I have to take issue with Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver, for making two truly boneheaded arguments in Corder's favor:

One:

In fact, he [Staver] said, she [Corder] was completely within her constitutional rights to say whatever she wanted.

And two:

"She has a greater right to be able to speak because she's a valedictorian than even being elected by fellow students," he said. "Because she's there by virtue of her academic standing."

This guy's both general counsel and president of Liberty Counsel, and, in a just world, his ignorance would scare off any potential clients for about the next ten years. First of all, Corder certainly was not "within her constitutional rights to say whatever she wanted". I wonder if Mr. Staver would be making that claim if Corder had unleashed a Neo-Nazi diatribe against Jews or a Biblical call to stone all homosexuals. Somehow I don't think quite as many of her Christian peers would openly jump to her defense, Westboro Baptist Church notwithstanding.

Second, since when does the Bill of Rights grant greater freedom to those with good grades? I'm pretty sure Corder's right to speak as valedictorian is exactly equal to the hardest-struggling D-student's right to do the same. It's an interesting view into the conservative mind, is this comment by Staver. His notion seems to be that merit, however determined, grants greater rights in our country than democracy. Not too far of a stretch from voting rights being for white landowners only, or from a President appointed by the Supreme Court being considered legitimate.

Metablogging

2006-07-12T11:33:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note, as I've gotten some questions on this:

My policy on other blogs is to put a link in my blogroll to any other blog which I either read regularly and/or that includes me in its blogroll. I do not necessarily endorse or support every position that every other blogger in my blogroll holds. Looking over there in the left margin, you'll find a blog by a Christian fundamentalist who happens to be a good friend of mine. He and I rarely agree on anything political or spiritual, yet he remains one of my oldest and closest friends. Life's cool that way. I also have a blog there that is anti-choice, which is a position to which I and Gifted-1 are fiercely opposed. Still a great blog by an intelligent atheist writer, even if I don't always agree with his/her politics.

Now, if I write something here with which you disagree, feel free to pound on me mercilessly. I can take it, and you won't hear me crying in the night through your computer anyway, you heartless bastards!!!

Love and Peace,

Samurai Sam and Gifted-1

Rightwing Nuttery...Head Exploding...

2006-07-11T16:31:00.000-05:00

Here is everything anyone needs to know about the conservative view of Iraq, neatly summarized by a noted wingnut troll chieftan.

John Hinderaker on Iraq (via Tbogg):

We chose this war; we chose this battlefield; we chose to send men like Menchaca and Tucker to Iraq because we believed it was important to our security. Their brutal murders have exposed, once again, the face of pure evil that we are fighting in this war. They must be avenged, and the American public must know that they have been avenged, not forgotten.

Maybe you folks playing at home can explain this to me: Did Assrocket just claim that we, America, the country that, after pre-emptively invading Iraq under false pretenses, violates the Iraqis' homes, supports a puppet government that exacerbates sectarian conflicts, rapes their daughters, kills thousands of their friends, family and neighbors, tortures them at Abu Ghraib and lays the groundwork for their continued exploitation by U.S. corporate interests, needs to REVENGE ITSELF upon the Iraqi people? All because conservatives believed committing this litany of atrocities was in America's best interest?

Certainly what happened to Menchaca and Tucker is tragic, and the perpetrators should be dealt with severely. But you know what would have helped Menchaca, Tucker, their family and friends, even more than escalating violence and rightwing revenge fantasies?

NOT FUCKING BEING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

Damn those evil brutes for tricking us into destroying their country and killing them! Their insidious trap only proves they're "pure evil"...

Attention-To-Deficit Disorder

2006-07-11T14:27:00.000-05:00

In addition to being a little lax in my overall blogging lately, I notice I've also been remiss in spying out the happenings in my own little corner of the fly-over states. I blame it on WPR's recent spate of cultural discussion topics (and a fascination with all things DNR) in lieu of contentious political issues. Must be the talk radio equivalent of summer beach reading.

In any case, I thought it would be instructive to check in on the never-ending conservative war against all things progressive and I find Republican Congressman and enthusiastic Bush cheerleader Paul Ryan all a-twitter over the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) economic news (via WisPolitics):

"Lowering taxes has fueled sustained economic growth and job growth that ultimately bring more tax dollars into the Treasury, which helps us reduce the deficit. At the same time, we need to restrain spending, and we're working hard to do this through budget reforms such as my legislative line-item veto and overall efforts to control spending," said Ryan. "Today's announcement of lower deficit projections shows that tax relief paired with spending controls can put our fiscal house in order and eliminate the deficit."

Bear in mind here that the OMB is a branch of the White House and is not in the business of offering objective research. It's goal is to support the President's policies and present revisions in such a way as to make the President's economic policies appear sound and successful.

Here is the blurb, from a recent update to the 2007 Federal Budget, to which Ryan is referring:

Due to the strong performance of the NationÂs economy, revenues for the current fiscal year are now forecast to grow at a double-digit rateÂ11 percent. Largely as a result of these increased revenues, the projected budget deficit for 2006 has fallen from $423 billion, or 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to $296 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. This projected deficit is equal to the 40-year average of 2.3 percent of GDP and is lower than the deficits in 17 of the past 25 years. The improved deficit outlook continues over the next five years, indicating that the President is on track to meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2008[...]

There is really nothing in here that has anything whatsoever to do with President Bush's "leadership", or lack thereof, on economic issues. Any one able to add and subtract could figure out that if revenues rise, the deficit will fall, just as cutting taxes without cutting spending made the deficit rise in the first place. Of course Ryan, as a member of the Bush cult, simply must spin this into a hymn to Bush's glory, though he must be getting lonely in that ever-shrinking choir.

Ryan's claim that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans is resulting in increased tax revenues is pure fairy tale, completely unsupported by any evidence. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The high cost of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts continues to add to the deficit, and the resulting increase in deficits has negative long-term economic consequences. Economists at the Congressional Research Service and the Brookings Institution, for example, have concluded that the adverse effects of the increased deficits cancels out, and may even outweigh, any positive effects from these tax cuts themselves.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending does not benefit our economy in any way, nor is there any evidence that it increases tax revenue. That's nothing more than wishful thinking by so-called "fiscal conservatives". Certainly, a smaller tax liability puts a little more cash into people's hands. However, the Bush tax cuts are so grossly skewed to the top 1% as to be practically useless to any but the wealthy and, worse, have not been accompanied by any kind of spending discipline. Furthermore, the federal government doesn't stockpile tax dollars; it spends them, which equals economic activity. They key, as every liberal knows, is in how the government targets the spending of those dollars. Dumping them in Iraq or into tax subsidies for the oil industry is not an effective use of our money. Conservatives so desperately want to see their particular economipolicieses vindicated that they're willing to ascribe any positive economic news to them, regardless of an utter lack of evidence. I suspect they'll continue to be disappointed on that front for many years to come.

I also think it's incredibly hypocritical of Ryan to give Bush credit for reducing a deficit that Bush himself created! If that's not lapdog devotion to the cause, then nothing is. Bush was given the largest budget surplus in the federal government's history and squandered it on kick-backs for his wealthy supporters (we call them "elites", he calls them his "base"). Further, Bush has resolutely refused to rein in spending of any kind, unless it involves social benefits for the poor. Bush, like most conservatives, sees nothing wrong with chipping away at the tiny amount of public welfare available to Americans, while supporting trillions in military spending on a discretionary war.

It's disgraceful that Bush and his supporters seek an approving pat on the head for standing idly by while the American taxpayer partially cleans up half of the White House's fiscal mess. The gross fiscal irresponsibility of these "borrow and spend" Republicans insures that what economic gain the U.S. does see flows only to the most affluent, while the disappearing middle class (and its children and grand-children) pick up the tab. Shame on Congressman Ryan for supporting such misplaced priorities, and for expecting his constituents to do the same.

Perhaps this wasn't as good a look at Wisconsin politics as I'd hoped. But then, the conservative monolith really only comes in a mixture of two colors: blood red and money green and the only difference, state to state, is which of the two are more vivid.

Torching The Constitution

2006-07-09T19:32:00.000-05:00

Although it's once again old news on the political scene, at least until the Republicans dredge it back up again, I cannot help but spend some space here talking about the near-miss in the Senate over the "Flag Burning" Amendment. This little bit of zombie legislation rises from the grave every couple of election years (the last was in 2000) as an attempt to rally conservative voters to the polls. Perhaps it works in that respect; I don't pretend to understand or much care exactly what motivates conservatives to vote for the idiots they elect. I do know, however, that with it's passage saved by only one vote in the Senate, this Amendment will inevitably shuffle back out of the Republican necropolis once again, probably in 2008. Maybe some noise from the liberal side of the country could help put the stake through the Flag Burning Amendment's heart once and for all.

First, let's see what the Grand Wizard of Wingnuts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R - Catkiller) has to say about this Amendment, another of Frist's pet projects (from the LA Times, via KTLA):

"Old Glory lost today," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), one of the amendment's prime backers. "At a time when our armed services are defending America's freedom in the war on terror, it's unfortunate that a minority of my colleagues blocked" the proposal.

It's just a bit unsettling that the Senate Majority Leader finds the process of democracy "unfortunate". I find it unfortunate that our Senate wastes its time and my tax dollars endlessly debating these pointless bits of conservative fluff.

I have two thoughts on flag burning. First, an Amendment like this is a clear limiting of the First Amendment, which should automatically take it off the table for any U.S. Senator that supports the Constitution. Unfortunately, it seems that most Republican Senators see the Constitution as a sort of work in process; it lays a nice groundwork but really isn't terribly relevant in its details today. That's more than a little frightening, given the Republican's control of Washington.

No Constitutional Amendment should ever be proposed or, worse, ratified, that limits the rights of Americans; rights which are already clearly established. Burning the flag is a symbolic protest of the policies of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court has found that flag burning is protected speech, and thus it should remain.

My second thought on the flag burning amendment is that it elevates the flag itself above the very ideas which the flag symbolizes. Curtailing our free speech as a way of protecting the nation's symbols strikes me as eerily reminiscent of the sort of nationalism which gripped Germany in the 1930's. Giving the flag a special protected status effectively makes it more important under the law than the people to whom this nation is supposed to belong. It gives a symbol of nationalism and government power (maybe even military power) a status above the principles which make our nation a free democracy. We as a nation are better off deciding for ourselves whether and how much to respect the symbols of our nation. Our democracy loses some of its meaning when the government decides that for us.

As a personal note, this is actually the first political position I hold that's been challenged openly in quite some time. I take that as an indication of just how powerful a symbol of our nation the flag has become. I also see it as a sign of how much the Republicans have exploited the natural patriotism of Americans to sow dissension among us. Hard to believe true conservatives could fall for such a cheap political ploy, but then the Cult of Bush is strong...

I also stand by my pledge, made to many in person now, that if this Amendment ever passes, I will buy a flag and burn it in the middle of Main Street Viroqua. Maybe even LaCrosse...

[Editor's note: Sorry for the extended absence. Work, life and a horrendous case of writer's block took me out of commission for a week. This post alone sat incomplete for over a week! I think I'm better now (I hope)...]

Isn't she lovely?

2006-07-06T15:45:00.000-05:00

~Our Beautiful Cecelia Rose at 9 months~

May you all have fireworks, this 4th!

2006-07-04T17:47:00.000-05:00

Barack Me Like A Hurricane

2006-06-29T13:00:00.000-05:00

I'm not much a fan of the DLC-style conservative Democrat. The DLC ideal being, essentially, that if only Democrats would act more like Republicans, then we'd win more elections. The paragon of this movement was President Clinton, whose abilities at "triangulation" in politics are near legendary. However, there's only one Bill Clinton and, unfortunately for the DLC conservatives, they just cannot make every would-be moderate into the Big Dog.

Sadly, Barack Obama seems to be aligning himself with the conservative Democrats, inching ever closer to Republican-lite politics. Hence this, from a speech given by Obama at a speaking engagement with Call to Renewal (via MyDD):

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty...

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

I agree with Obama's sentiment that Democrats would be making a mistake if they discounted the power of faith in the lives of the American people. The catch is, though, that I don't see a shred of evidence that Democrats are doing this. In a country where 95% of the population identifies itself as religious (85% Christian) yet only half or less vote Republican, clearly the Democratic party is made up almost entirely of Christians just like the Republicans. Certainly, as a Freethinker, I could find no home with the militant religious folks of the Republican party. But this notion that the Democratic party is a bastion of godlessness is just silly, and rightwing spin to boot.

When Obama says that not every mention of God is a breach of the Establishment clause, my response is "well, duh!" Who's claiming that it is? Obama's building himself quite the Straw man Democrat when he speaks this way. This is the kind of rhetoric that the Dobson's and the Perkins' of our society use to divide people of faith politically and Obama is playing right into that same rightwing stereotype.

Further, exactly which secularists are asking folks to leave their religions out of the public square? Sam Harris, perhaps? Hardly a hand exercising a tight grip on the levers of power in Washington. Plus, if anti-religion secularists are doing this, which candidates are they getting into place? The widely known atheist Senator Not-Appearing-In-This-Government? Claiming to be anything other than a Christian or Jew is nearly a rock-solid guarantee of unelectability in this country, especially at the national level.

Obama is not arguing against any legitimate demographic in the Democratic party. He's arguing against an imaginary enemy that doesn't really exist, and by doing so reinforcing the stereotype of liberals as being anti-religious. Some are, certainly. But they're a small voice and, moreover, I don't see many, if any, of them calling for the expulsion of religion from the public square.

It's bad enough listening to the Republicans trot out such well-worn tropes as the "secular assault on people of faith" without having to experience a prominent "rising star" in the Democratic party like Barack Obama doing the same. As a liberal atheist, I don't want religion taken out of the public square. I fully embrace people of faith expressing that faith in public. It's a free country, after all. What I cannot abide, however, are those telling me that this is a Christian nation that ought to be living by Christian values; values which seem to change depending on the believer's political philosophy. I've read every Christian writing I could find with the word "Gospel" in the title and I can say definitively that if Jesus Christ were designing a nation, it would bear little resemblance to the United States.

In his defense of Obama, RMJ at Adventus concludes with the following:

There are many reasons to tolerate religion in the public squre; not least of which is, it is already there. As I mentioned before, it was religiously motivated people who started, and continued, the movement against slavery. Schools for freed slaves were started by religious people. The civil rights movement was primarily a movement of religious people. We ignore that history at our peril. And the more we decry religion in the public sphere, the more we cede that sphere to the intolerantly religious. And in doing that, we all lose our public space as a space for all persons.

I agree with Jeffers on his assessment of the progressive good done by religious folks. But, just as I don't believe Sam Harris' view that religion causes much of the evil in the world, I don't believe the opposite is true either. Those folks who risked their lives for the good of others practice their religion in such a way as to reflect that compassion for others. Being religious didn't cause them to help end slavery or further the civil rights movement. I'm not religious and I find common cause with the enemies of slavery and champions of civil rights. Religious beliefs reflect the believer not the other way around, in my opinion. Just as an atheist like myself gladly works for civil rights, a Christian wearing the hood of the KKK would likely have little problem with black slavery.

Again, too, Jeffers echoes Obama's claim that secularists are decrying religion in the public sphere, and I don't see that as the case. We're decrying the use of religion as a divisive tool of public policy, as a wedge dividing our nation into warring camps. That's what we'd like removed from the public sphere; this notion that true morality and social justice flows from religion and nowhere else. And, yes, this is what conservative Christians believe. Does a stance against religious indoctrination in government enable the intolerant mooks who make up the Religious Right to seize the public arena, or is it that seizure of public influence that causes secularists to be more suspicious of the motives of religious folks? A chicken and an egg, probably...

There is room in our public discourse for the religious and the non-religious. However, there is no room for the intolerant of either side. Religion is not going to disappear (at least, not anytime soon) and no amount of evangelizing is going to convince all atheists to embrace faith. We can all co-exist under the label of "secularists"; those who recognize the secular character of our laws and government. It's not the religious that secularists decry in the public sphere, or at least it shouldn't be. It should be the theocratic, which progressives of any faith or none at all, should oppose. Obama, by co-opting the language of the theocratic fundamentalists, stakes his claim in opposition to many who would join him in common cause.

Raisin' me some liberal babes...

2006-06-28T22:25:00.000-05:00

So, I generally try to avoid silly little anecdotes about my children (isn't that what MySpace is for?), but this is just too good to pass up:

Most of our regular readers know that Sam and I have three small children. Baby Cecelia being the youngest, at 9 months. I currently do and will continue to try to instill good {liberal} values, encourage open minds and foster a wide variety of educational opportunities for my kids.

So, normally around 10pm I start getting Cecelia ready for her long journey towards bed time... just in time for me to catch The Daily Show, as I breastfeed the baby. As as the theme music starts, baby begins to tap her feet. Then John starts talking and she must stop nursing... his voice is drawing her in... she must look... and then a BIG smile! :)

It's official! My 9 month old is in love with John Stewart!

Washing Our Hands Like Pilate

2006-06-27T21:55:00.000-05:00

As any of you who hang around here probably know by now, my employer forces their employees to suffer through Fox "News" in all the breakrooms. Changing the channel is verboten, so I cope with this indignity in the only ways I am able. Today, that way is blogging about something on Fox so stupid, so egregious that even cursing at the TV (and startling one of the cafeteria workers) was not enough.

The onus for my outrage today comes from that obsequious toad with the poofy hair and wire rim specks: John Gibson. Now, normally I wouldn't waste my beautiful mind on the rantings of this bargain-basement, Rush Limbaugh wannabe. Today, though, John crossed a line, more in a matter of tone than in substance.

While conducting an interview with a former Under Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush (his name escapes me and Fox doesn't have the transcript) concerning the announcement by the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, that Iran no longer feels the need to debate its nuclear ambitions with the United States. Probably a largely posturing move designed to test the U.S. leadership (such as it is) but nonetheless concerning. So concerning, in fact, that John Gibson asked no less than three times whether or not this meant a military solution for Iran was the only remaining viable solution. His tone gave away that he was practically begging for a positive answer, a confirmation that war with Iran was inevitable. And it disgusted me far beyond the normal level of nausea I experience when watching Fox.

These pro-war conservatives do not just support war, be it in Iraq or Iran. They love it. They long for it. I don't know any other way to describe this sort of thinking but sociopathic. Of course, these gung-ho supporters of war have no intention of going anywhere near the actual fighting. But the enthusiasm with which chickenhawks like John Gibson pray for more U.S.-instigated violence in the world is appalling. And I think it's much more widespread than just the halls of Wingnut News Central.

I can feel conservatives like Gibson salivating over the prospect of war with Iran and, hopefully, for them, North Korea. These kinds of folks represent the basest in human interaction, the codification of the schoolyard bully into a political philosophy. To them, diplomacy is weak, messy and ultimately unfulfilling in a visceral sort of way. But the glory of war, the noble cause, the charging cavalry coming to the rescue of an endangered America...this has the real emotive appeal that these conservatives crave. It's an immature understanding of the true nature of warfare, propagated by a Hollywood war film understanding of the topic.

Iraq is the reality of war. It's a long, slow, bloody occupation, that slowly grinds down each side. Conservatives idealize World War II without understanding any of the historical context of that conflict. The war that we joined in 1942 was really the second act of the first World War, and folks understood this much better then, than conservatives do today. The U.S. entered the war late and never experienced anything like the casualties that Britain, France or the Soviet Union endured. Of course, that war had the ideological advantage of a clear cut enemy. The Nazis and the Japanese were clear nationalist entities fighting imperial wars of expansion. Not so, the Iraqi insurgency. That's a war grown by us, in a land we had no business invading. The sheer arrogance and moral vacuousness needed to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqis on the ideological grounds of "spreading democracy" (since that seems to be the only reason remaining for the war's continuation) is truly breathtaking. It's as though these conservatives cannot imagine Iraq as anything more than one dictator, his military and his political machine, instead of the reality of tens of millions of everyday folks who are truly paying the price for American imperialism.

So will it be with Iran. It's all too easy to see a war with Iran as an expedient answer to a difficult foreign policy question. But war is never simple, as every single war ever fought would indicate to conservatives if only they got their knowledge of war from somewhere other than Hollywood or the History Channel. It's never the ruling regime that pays the price for war; they're insulated against those costs. Does anyone truly believe that Saddam Hussein is suffering more in prison than his people are under American occupation? Again, the same will hold true for Iran. Perhaps we could invade, topple the government and begin the same process in Iran as in Iraq. But it's not the Supreme Leader or President Ahmedinejad who will bear the cost of such action by the United States. It's the thousands of everyday Iranians who will be killed in the process.

In a democracy, we are responsible, directly, for the actions of our government. It's another of those costs of freedom conservatives think only applies to dead soldiers and lost rights. The blood of Iraq is on all of our hands, as will be the blood of Iran. It's on mine and it's on yours, even if we didn't support the war and never will. That's why I despise John Gibson and his ilk; they seek to bloody my hands further and I already can't wash them clean...

The Homosexual Agenda

2006-06-26T16:24:00.000-05:00

Pam Spaulding has it at last!!

Be sure to burn your computer when done reading. Can't have it falling into the wrong hands...

Comparing Creationist Apples To Astrological Oranges

2006-06-26T13:46:00.000-05:00

[Time to shamelessly steal a page from the DAS playbook, and do a (modified) comment whoring of my words at The Politburo Diktat. It's a sincere form of flattery...]

Who would dare compare the academic scourge of Intelligent Design with the whimsical silliness of astrology? Don't turn around (uh oh!), Der Commissar's in town:

Does the Left have a segment of their base that believes a certain pseudo-science, a segment their leaders are reluctant to antagonize? Is astrology quietly acceptable within the “progressive” community? The Left takes great pleasure in bashing Republican Creationists and ID advocates (quite appropriately, and I join them in this, as my readers know).

[...]

I think a little distancing would be in order, from the Left’s “Defenders of Science.” (If they have in the past, I’d be delighted to correct this post.) Update: Nor do I suggest that any of these guys “buy into astrology,” rather it has been perhaps unimportant and inconvenient to take a stand on. “Why rock the boat? We’ve got the granolas on board …”

I'm fairly certain that I'm not one of "the Left's 'Defender's of Science'" to which Commissar is referring. We're a small outfit here at A Beginner's Mind. That said, I think this kind of argument via Straw man fallacy has become so common with conservatives that it's almost impossible to escape.

In answer to Commissar's first question, I say "Yes", there probably is a segment of the progressive movement comprised of astrology believers. In fact, I know several folks whom I'd consider Leftist astrology fans. Maybe not "believers" but fans, nonetheless. That may be a very small segment, but it's a segment still. However, I've never seen anything in our political discourse to indicate that public policy decisions were being made in an effort to woo these kinds of voters. A person's belief in astrology has never really been much of an issue at any level of political activism in which I've participated. It's only the Republicans that feel the need to kowtow before the most fringe elements of their religious base and actively seek their approval. You won't see a Constitutional Amendment to ban Aquarian Senators coming from the Left anytime soon (though God knows we need to stop those moody bastards!)

As to Commissar's second question, my answer is certainly "Yes". There are many, many communities of folks being quietly (or not so quietly) accepted within the progressive community. That's why we're the progressive community, after all. We recognize the value and importance of diversity. Of course, with that acceptance comes the tacit agreement that evangelizing anyone's particular beliefs in an unwanted manner is unacceptable. I certainly embrace as many astrologers in the progressive movement as would like to be in it, so long as they don't try and convert me to their mysticism. Personal beliefs run a huge spectrum but don't preclude a community coming together to fight for higher ideals. Unless, of course, that community is conservative, where the members had better not be too brown, too gay, too atheist, too poor...well, you get the idea.

I further reject the idea that we on the Left need to "distance" ourselves from the astrology fans that find common cause with us in the progressive movement. I really don't care if they plan their lives based on their current view of certain stars and planets, so long as they're willing to stand up for civil rights, equality and peace. Those are what matter to me, not some archaic system of prognostication.

The real meat of this false equivalency is the idea that somehow having folks who believe in astrology as part of the progressive movement makes liberals the ideological equivalent of conservative creationists. Perhaps in the most tenuous of ideological comparisons that might almost be true, though again I think it ultimately fails in light of the Right's rigidity of enforced belief among its ranks. However, when examined in terms of political clout and social impact, the comparison between Lefty astrologers and wingnut Creationists becomes completely absurd. Progressive astrologers are not attempting to have astronomy replaced by astrology in public schools as an attempt to "teach the controversy". I've yet to see a progressive politician advocate for astrology in the way that President Bush has advocated for Intelligent Design creationism. I don't see any Leftist astrological organizations with the kind of political influence over the Democratic party that the Discovery Institute or The 700 Club exerts over the Republicans. In short, while one is a cornerstone of conservative political policy, if not always ideology (damned libertarian exception), the other is a bit of entertaining fluff found in the comics section of the local newspaper.

Personally, I think astrology is silly, though I do still read my horrorscope from time to time. I get a chuckle out of predictions about my randy love life or soon-to-blossom financial future. But Creationism, due to its political and financial support, is no laughing matter. It's a damaging policy of anti-intellectualism that attempts to subvert our understanding of the universe and undermine our educational institutions. There is no equivalency between the two pseudo-sciences, in terms of social impact and popular acceptance.

Perhaps, if the astrology believers become too militant, we liberals will concern ourselves with the pseudo-scientific speck in our eye. But only after conservatives deal with the fundamentalist log in their's...

Sparkling Sunday!

2006-06-25T14:15:00.000-05:00

Sam is the BIG 3-0, today!

Expand Your Holiday Horizons: Happy Summer Solstice!

2006-06-21T12:08:00.000-05:00

Today is June 21 -- Summer Solstice -- Litha
Also known as: Alban Heruin (Druidic)

Litha comes from a Saxon tradition (the opposite of Yule). This is the longest day of the year, where light & life are abundant.
At mid-summer, the Sun God has reached the height of his greatest strength. Seated on his greenwood throne, he is also lord of the forests, and his face is seen in church architecture peering from countless foliate masks. The Christian religion converted this day of Jack-in-the-Green to the Feast of St. John the Baptist, often portraying him in rustic attire, sometimes with horns and cloven feet like Pan (the Greek Demi-God). Midsummer Night's Eve is also special for followers of the Faerie faith.

Traditional Foods: Fresh fruits & vegetables
Herbs and Flowers: Mugwort, Vervain, Chamomile, Rose, Honeysuckle, Lily, Oak, Lavender, Ivy, Yarrow, Fern, Elder, Wild Thyme, Daisy & Carnation
Incense: Lemon, Myrrh, Pine, Rose & Wisteria
Woods Burned: Oak
Sacred Gemstone: Emerald
Special Activities: An Ideal time to reaffirm your vows to the Lord and Lady or your dedication to following the old traditions

Religious Exploration III: Becoming a Saint

2006-06-20T19:47:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Saint: One facet of religion, that I have had virtually NO experience with. So, I wonder... who can become a saint? How? When? Where? Why?

I did a little research and here is what I've discovered...

PATRON SAINTS

The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century.

Exactly how many saints are there?
Simple answer: I don't know.

Longer answer: There are over 10,000 named saints and beati from history, the Roman Martyology and Orthodox sources, but I know of no definitive "head count".

Why don't we know exactly? Isn't there a list?
There are several lists. However, the exact number varies from one list to another. Some reasons:

* not all saints are part of the universal calendar, and their cultus was not always known to each of the list makers through the centuries

* due to lack of surviving documentation, we're still discovering martyrs from the early Church who were not previously known, or (more commonly) whose names have been combined, mispelled, etc. resulting in their being counted as several persons

* the 1969 revision of the General Calendar resulted in many of the saints being moved to local calendars, or those of specific orders; some folks were dropped entirely as better scholarship showed they were pious legend instead of flesh and blood

In addition we have the problem of not knowing the names of all the saints. Sometimes we know that a number of Christians were martyred for their faith, but we don't have their names, or we only have the names of the people considered their leaders. There are any number of reasons for this, but usuall the persecutors were illiterate, did not care who their victims were, or (in more modern times) were trying to cover up the incident.

Finally, there are unquestionably incidents of missionary monks, nuns, or lay people who were killed who-knows-where, and whose deaths were known only to themselves, their killers, and God.

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

So, now that we know (or don't know) that there are many, many Saints out there, recognized by the Catholic Church... I wonder: "how does one qualify?"

Procedure for Causes of Beatification and Canonization

1. Canon norms regarding the procedure to be followed for causes of saints are contained in the Apostolic Constitution 'Divinus Perfectionis Magister,' promulgated by John Paul II on January 25, 1983.

2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate.

3. The bishop of the diocese in which the person whose beatification is being requested died is responsible for beginning the investigation. The promoter group ('Actor Causae'): diocese, parish, religious congregation, association, asks the bishop through the postulator for the opening of the investigation. The bishop, once the 'nulla osta' of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his state in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered. At this point he is entitled to the title of Servant of God.

4. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the acts and documentation are passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public copy used for further work is put together here. The postulator, resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the 'Positio', or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The 'Positio' undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of the theologians are in favour, the cause is passed on for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If their judgment is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father, who gives his approval and authorizes the congregation to draft the relative decree. The public reading and promulgation of the decree follows.

5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.

6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."

-12 September 1997, Vatican Information Services

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

And... who is responsible for this?

Congregation for the Causes of Saints

With the Apostolic Constitution Immensa Aeterni Dei of 22 January 1588, Sixtus V created the Sacred Congregation of Rites and entrusted to it the task of regulating the exercise of divine worship and of dealing with the Causes of Saints.
Paul VI, with the Apostolic Constitution Sacra Rituum Congregatio of 8 May 1969, divided the Congregation of Rites, creating the Congregation for Divine Worship and for the Congregation of Causes of Saints.

With the same Apostolic Constitution of 1969, the new Congregation for the Causes of Saints took on its own structure with three distinct offices: the judiciary, that of the Promoter General of the Faith, and the historical-juridical, which was the continuation of the Historical Section created by Pius XI on 6 February 1930.

The Apostolic Constitution "Divinus Perfectionis Magister" of 25 January 1983, and the respective "Normae servandae in inquisitionibus ab episcopis faciendis in causis sanctorum" of 7 February 1983, made possible both a profound reform in procedure for canonization causes and the restructuring of the congregation. It was given a College of Relators, assigned to take care of the preparation of the "Positiones super vita et virtutibus (o super martyrio) of Servants of God.

John Paul II, with the Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus" of 28 June 1988, changed the name to Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

The pro-prefect of the congregation is Archbishop Alberto Bovone, Archbishop Edward Nowak, and Monsignor Michele Di Ruberto. In addition, there is a staff of 22 people. The congregation has 23 members - cardinals, archbishops and bishops - 1 promoter of the faith (prelate theologian), 6 relators and 71 consultors.

Joined to the dicastery is the "Study," instituted 2 June 1984, whose objective is the formation of postulators and those who collaborate with the congregation, as well as those who exercise the various assignments before the diocesan curia for the treatment of the causes of saints. The "Study" also has the task of updating the "Index ac Status Causarum."

The congregation prepares each year everything necessary for the pope to be able to set forth new examples of holiness. After approving results on miracles, martyrdom and heroic virtues of various Servants of God, the Holy Father proceeds to a series of canonizations and beatifications.

One From The Vaults

2006-06-20T15:43:00.000-05:00

I was cleaning out some of my work document files and found this little gem from a few years ago. Since it absolves me from composing my own work for one day, I thought I'd share it. Please enjoy responsibly.

Things You Have To Believe To Be A Republican Today

•Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

• The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

• A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

• Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Charles Darwin.

• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

• If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time Allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

• HMOs, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

• Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

• Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

• The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving and military record is none of our business.

• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

• You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

• What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ‘80s is irrelevant.

Save Screech's Home

2006-06-20T11:41:00.000-05:00

Keep our streets safe!
Who would want Screech wandering the rural roads of WI, homeless?

Red America Or Blue America?

2006-06-19T14:19:00.000-05:00

Time for a little pure politics, I think. I read quite a few different political blogs and pundits, gathering what I feel is a good cross-section of just what my progressive brothers and sisters believe about politics in general. Normally I write about the issues that interest me and leave the pure political gameplay to others who have a much better sense of these things than I. However, I keep seeing a recurring theme pop up in various places that I think is very dangerous to the progressive movement heading into November.

That danger manifests in what I believe is a serious misunderstanding about the character of a mythical beast known as "the average American" or, collectively, "the American people". As everyone knows, every politician and political party understands exactly what "the average American" needs and each politician has just the cure required for what ails "the American people". Right. With George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress essentially in a race to the bottom in the regard of the American people, it's no wonder that many progressives are beginning to see a rout in the offing for November. Certainly the polls (check out First Draft, as Holden does a fairly frequent rundown of the national numbers) bear out the perception by some progressives that the rule of the Republican majority is swiftly drawing to a close. I hope they are correct but, sadly, I'm not that optimistic and I'll explain why.

Certain liberal pundits and commentors, online and otherwise, have lately been expressing the belief that the national polls indicate a tipping point has been passed for conservative voters. These voters, the thinking goes, have seen that Bush and the Republican Congress have not delivered as promised, either on social issues or foreign policy, and thus are likely to either vote against the Republican party or, more likely, not show up to the polls at all. While I certainly agree that turnout will be low for the mid-terms, as it normally is, I don't necessarily think the low polling numbers for Bush and Congress will manifest in turnout that is unusually low. The reason why rests in the tenor of the voters.

I have lived in both urban and rural areas, including rural Illinois, Chicago, Indianapolis and now rural Wisconsin. As such, I feel I have a pretty good impression of the political bent in a good portion of "Middle America". As such, I am convinced of two things concerning conservatives in the Midwest.

First, I am convinced that a greater number of people identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals in the Midwest, and the number is growing all the time. Certainly this is not a problem for Illinois, as Chicago is a bastion of liberal politics and likely will remain so for many years to come. However, outside of the cities, such as rural Wisconsin, the pervasiveness of political conservatism is much greater than many pundits realize. Every aspect of life is informed by belief in a kind of old-fashioned conservatism that binds the small rural communities in this area. It's a conservatism that believes in religious freedom, as in everyone should be free to worship Jesus in their own way. It's a conservatism that believes property taxes are too big a burden, yet also believes that schools should be well-funded. Well, schools should be well-funded as long as that funding isn't moving in too great a quantity into the pockets of the teacher's union. For that matter, it's a conservatism that doesn't trust unions much at all, and considers the salary and benefits of union shops to be unfairly inflated. It's a regionalist conservatism; it revels in the righteousness of obscure places like the "Coulee Region" while condemning the moral vacancy of Milwaukee or Madison. Most notably, it's the conservatism of the Second Amendment, as opposed to the liberalism of the First. All this conservatism wrapped up in small communities where liberalism stirs feelings of unease and atheism feelings of outrage. This is Red America inside "Purple" Wisconsin and it's tightly knit community.

The second thing I'm convinced of concerning the conservative folks of the Midwest is their lack of swing voter potential. This is where I think the pundits out there cheering for a big swing in November towards the Democrats may really be missing something important. After having lived in the Midwest my entire life, in rural and urban areas, and having spoken to many people about politics and read local letters to the editors it's clear to me that, for most conservative Midwesterners, the only thing worse at this point than George W. Bush and his Rubber Stamp Republican Congress is the possibility that they could be replaced by liberal "Ted Kennedy" Democrats. And that's a reality that I think is not getting nearly enough attention, either by progressive pundits or the Democratic party.

The conservative folks in the Midwest, many of them, are fed up with George W. Bush. They are outraged by the excesses of Congress and its refusal to act as a brake on presidential power. And yet, when they contemplate their political fortunes, these conservatives are not going to vote for a Democrat (all of whom are liberal as far as Midwestern conservatives are concerned). They believe George W. Bush has mishandled the war, but trust that he will protect their perception of a strong, morally-certain America better than the Democrats. They believe that most social welfare beneficiaries are gaming the system and receiving benefits that are unearned. They believe that Democrats will raise taxes and, even worse, waste their hard-earned tax money on art endowments and pointless scientific studies. They believe that many Republicans are corrupt but that Bill Clinton was the most corrupt politician in history, and they distrust his wife and former associates much more than Tom Delay or Duke Cunningham. They believe that, for all his faults and failures, George W. Bush is still a good Christian like they and that his party will represent Christian values while the Democrats represent godless secularism. They're afraid of Mexicans, afraid of gays, afraid of Muslims but most of all they're afraid of change and progressive politics are the politics of change.

Now, I realize that these are all gross misconceptions of both parties but they are very real among Midwestern conservatives. I suspect these same concerns and mistaken notions are common in the South and Rockies as well. Conservatives realize that the Republicans are bungling significantly, but they also believe that liberalism, encapsulated by the Democratic Party, is the bane of everything they hold dear about America. It's a terribly fractured view of the country and one that movement conservatives worked very hard for many years to foment. From the Nixon years onward, conservatives have worked diligently to construct the most frightening straw man of liberalism possible and have sold it completely to at least half of the American people.

This is the key that I think many progressives are not understanding about conservatives: no amount of Republican corruption and bungling is going to win them to the Democratic side. At best, the low poll numbers indicate a lack of will from conservatives to actually get out and vote. More importantly, though, is those polls indicate a dissatisfaction with the leadership that does not necessarily translate into votes away from that leadership. In fact, I think conservatives are going to stick with the Republicans in November, so long as the Democrats continue to fly on auto-pilot. After all, better the Devil you know than the Liberal you don't...

What's desperately needed for the progressive movement is for the Democratic party to take a leadership position for November. They need to stop watching the Republicans flounder and instead toss them an anchor! Run on leadership instead of issues. The issues are good to a point, but they don't matter if liberal Congresspeople cannot get elected. Leadership, confidence, clearly-articulated values and a non-stop barrage against the Republicans are the techniques needed. These are the tools that Russ Feingold, Al Gore and Jack Murtha have put to devastating use lately, and won the accolades of liberals and the respect of some conservatives for their efforts. The substantive policy debates can wait until Democrats regain some power in Washington. Otherwise, all the well-drafted policy the Democrats can create does nothing but give the Republicans an easy target to beat on (or idea to steal). The American people deserve the government for which they voted, so let them have it. But show them that there is a better alternative than the corruption and incompetence of the Republican party. Red American will not be turned (back to) blue by Republican malfeasance alone.

[Editor's Note: I chose not to link to any bloggers/pundits expressing the idea I'm contesting against here because I didn't want to turn this into an ad hominem attack on other progressives whom I respect, nor invite the same in return. I ask your trust and indulgence. - S. Sam]

Sparkling Sunday!

2006-06-18T17:37:00.000-05:00

Reagan-esque

2006-06-14T15:32:00.000-05:00

It's always essential in modern wingnut mythology to earn that most elusive of all prizes: a comparison to St. Ronald Reagan. Today, George W. Bush has achieved wingnut apotheosis by finally replacing Reagan as the most mentally vacuous president in U.S. history (from Attaturk):

Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times begins to ask Bush a question at the press conference:

Bush: You gonna ask your question with shades on?

Wallsten: Yes...

Bush: But there's no sun out here.

Wallsten: It depends on your perspective.

Bush: Touche.

Ken Wallsten is BLIND!

Folks, this is the man that takes the "nuclear football" to Crawford with him. Do you feel safer now?

Certainly this is not the stupidest thing Bush has ever said. Trust me, I've got one of the numerous volumes of "Bushisms" (thanks NPR!) available and he makes moronic comments fairly regularly. Most of them, though, are just Bush trying to stay on message while not being able to think quickly on his feet (and possibly being, ah...shall we say, "impaired", seemingly). His exchange with Wallsten is something else entirely. It's a combination of Bush's disdain for the press and his complete lack of association with reality. His father was undone by charges of being "out of touch"; Dubya takes being out of touch to an entirely new plane of being.

After seeing the resurgence of Al Gore in recent months and now in light of this, I have to say that I'm struck once again with a profound sense of loss about the 2000 election. Just thinking of what we could have had and what we've been stuck with is almost too much to bear. Certainly Gore was not the perfect presidential candidate. But then, none are. We're a diverse country and no one candidate appeals to everyone's interests. However, no one could ever say of Gore that he lacked intelligence, focus or a comprehensive understanding of the issues facing the country. Regardless of how his public persona may have appeared in 2000, Al Gore is a brilliant man and would have made a fine president. George W. Bush is an embarrassment, an elevation of name and privilege over any substantive qualities. An empty suit, a brand name and an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Please, God, I will renounce my atheism, begin attending church again, tithe, whatever you want, so long as you don't give us another moron like Bush in 2008. Haven't we suffered enough?

Homosexuality And Evolution

2006-06-14T13:48:00.000-05:00

In a discussion of the writings of Joan Roughgarden on sexuality from an evolutionary perspective, PZ Myers offers the following possible explanation for a biological component to sexual orientation:

Homosexuality is a byproduct.

This is my favorite explanation, because ultimately it's about development. Why do men have nipples? Because women need them. Both men and women have the same set of genes (more or less), and follow very similar developmental pathways, and the nipple represents a developmental constraint or byproduct: mutations that knock out the male nipple might also knock out the female nipple, so the structure is retained in both sexes. Male nipples are a byproduct of a function needed by the other sex.

We might also ask, why do some men love other men? The answer: because women need to love men. (We could also propose the complement, that lesbians exist because men need to love women.) If there are pathways that can predispose an individual to find males sexually attractive, the base structure is present in both men and women, and what we have are additional mechanisms to modulate the expression of the trait in men vs. women. Just as we guys have an echo of a female attribute in our nipples, why not assume that we also bear echoes of female mate preferences in our brainsÂechoes that can't be expunged without also eliminating women's desire for men (and oh, no, we mustn't have that, I know)?

To those more versed in biology, perhaps this sort of view comes as no surprise but I have to say that I honestly had never heard a biological explanation for homosexuality that centered around the sharing of other traits between men and women before. I've read arguments before, such as Roughgarden's, that propose homosexuality as a trait which has social bonding advantages. I don't necessarily disagree with that, though I'm no biologist and what sounds reasonable to me may not to a trained scientist.

What I like about the convergence of the two ideas, that homosexuality has advantages and that it's a byproduct of shared traits across both genders, is that it neatly begins to eviscerate most arguments against gay civil rights. One of the biggest claims by opponents of gay rights, beyond any dogmatic religious taboos, is that homosexuality is not "natural". The underpinning of this mistaken assumption is that the sole purpose of sex is procreation, which is obviously not true in any biological sense. It's purely an ideological stance generally based on, again, certain religious views. Sexuality has many purposes and is both physically and emotionally gratifying, which facilitates more harmonized relations between individuals and, by extension, societies at large. That this same harmony can beachievedd between members of the same sex seems, to me, to be a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. I will say, and Myers points out, that it is difficult, from an evolutionary perspective, to completely jump on board the notion of homosexuality as a biological advantage without a proven heritability to homosexuality. Still, I think it's a compelling idea.

I have long maintained that a biological versus behavioral distinction of cause for homosexuality is moot in terms of gay civil rights. Whether homosexuality is an inborn tendency or a learned behavior is irrelevant; the government still should not be in the business of regulating the sex lives of Americans. However, since so much of the counter-argument to gay rights revolves around phony pleas to biology, I'm always happy to see science continue to make religious fundamentalism eat its own guts. The reality is that sexuality is much more complex than the gay/straight duality allows for and, unfortunately, that duality completely dominates the political discussion. A good case for the biology of homosexuality can have the added benefit of further marginalizing the anti-gay crowd by demonstrating that the differences between gay & straight really aren't so big as they appear.