Yeah!

from The New York Times:

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
...
Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

Although others have said that "Intelligent Design" might in fact be away to teach about how aliens (or Raeliens) actually created / designed life, Christian critics of such ideas belie their claim that they want "all possibilities" taught together. I believe in God and am not opposed to teaching about religion in public schools. However, science cannot prove God's existence. The two are entirely different subject matters. Here's to the spread of sanity!

Oh, and for the partisans in the crowd:

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

response to Rep. Schmidt

from US Rep. Jean Schmidt's regular e-mail to her constituents:

... To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been. In just over two-and-a-half years, much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, the drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution, introduction of a sound currency, the equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
...
Some have suggested pulling our troops out of Iraq. But pulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory.
...
Our troops have not failed us. We must not fail them.

There are so many errors in her letter, and it all begins with her statement, "To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been." In fact, Rep. Schmidt has no interest in understanding where we have been. U.S. history with Iraq, as far as she is concerned, appears to go back no further than our invasion; perhaps we might, by extension, take a date as early as Sept. 11, 2001 (though any references suggested are false, ie, a lie), but there is no indication in her e-mail to suggest looking earlier. This is not history; this does not begin to cover "where we have been" with Iraq, nor does it do any justice to the experience of Iraqis themselves.

Her list of accomplishments is laughable. Let's consider:
1) The removal of Saddam's tyranny. Hey, we helped the guy get started, we supplied him with money and weapons, we turned a blind eye to his tyranny until it was no longer politically convenient. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been removed; I'm saying we never should have helped lift him to power in the first place. The lesson we would learn should we actually take the time to look at "where we have been" would be to stop propping up and supporting dictators like Saddam in the first place.

2) Negotiation of an interim constitution. This one was really pretty easy. We allowed for the appearance of actual constitution haggling to take place while certain award-winning appointees simply worked up whatever they wanted in secret, forcing through all sorts of rules that allowed the US to maintain control even after the hastily staged "hand-over" of power. If we honestly evaluated "where we have been," we would see that this behind the scenes manipulation only increased anger and resentment at US occupation and revealed the hand over as a sham.

3) Restoration of full sovereignty. This is just absurd. If the Iraqi's have full sovereignty, what are we still doing there? If "training forces" is the answer, what's taking so long? In fact, looking at "where we have been," we see that there is no intention to restore full sovereignty; at least, not until we can prop up another puppet / rabidly-pro-US government in Iraq.

4) Holding of free national elections. Sure, the people were free to come and vote. In their first election, when they voted for candidates who would have among their responsibilities the drafting of a Constitution, they couldn't vote for individuals at all but rather party slates. Often, the people who were on those slates weren't even known and when they were, their names were released just days prior to the election. A look at "where we have been" shows that we've been busy re-defining elections, electoral processes, and democracy itself.

5) Formation of an elected government. I'm not even sure what this means; it sounds the same as #4, she's just trying to take credit for it twice. Or does Schmidt mean that not only did we allow people to go to the polls and vote for mystery candidates and people to be appointed later, but we also made a building safe enough for these people, once elected/appointed, to show up (with a small number killed when they tried to get there)?

6) The drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution. In fact, this constitution is far from permanent. There were so many disputes over its provisions, and the threat of it failing by popular vote so strong, that in the closing hours a provision was written in that allows for changes to be made at a later date, once the referendum had been conducted. So Iraqi's were asked to vote on a constitution that, once approved, could be changed markedly. Why not just ask them to vote on a blank piece of paper, on which they are promised that lots of good things will be written? If we look at "where we have been," a sad pattern begins to emerge: apparently, US leadership (read: the Bush Administration, neocons, the Republicans base, and lackeys like Jean Schmidt) is more concerned with going through the motions than with actually accomplishing anything.

7) Introduction of a sound currency. She must be referring to the influx of US dollars which have been drained from our own treasury and poured into Iraq in mismanagement and bribes, the billions that cannot be accounted for, that have been funneled to friends of Bush and anyone willing to cook up stories that Bush & company like to hear. (The latest news on that front: we've been buying propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, discrediting yet another foundation of so-called free states, a free press.) On this issue, "where we've been" is on the side of waste, fraud, and abuse.

8) The equipping of Iraqi security forces. This would be a joke except it's far from funny. This is the only reason consistently stated for why we are still in Iraq, and the administration has been lieing about our success on this point from the beginning. Rumsfeld in particular has regularly inflated the numbers of Iraqi troops and police supposedly trained; in fact, we have yet to come close to the numbers that he was giving even two years ago. Even worse, it appears that much of this training is benefiting the insurgents who come to learn then use their training against us. An honest evaluation of "where we've been" ought to tell us pretty clearly that we need a smarter approach and, if this is truly our remaining goal in Iraq ("As Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." - Pres. Bush), we ought to ask why we're not pouring more resources and effort into actually accomplishing this.

9) The increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation. Once again, this is a repeat - it's the same as #8. Is Schmidt just trying to inflate the list of accomplishments, or what?

The one task our leaders in Congress and in the White House / Bush administration should be doing constantly is looking at "where we have been," learning lessons from this war as it takes place, adjusting and adapting and fine tuning our efforts to end the war as quickly and easily as possible, including taking the least possible lives in the process. I had grave misgivings about the war from the start; it is hard to be a Christian and not be a pacifist. In fact, given Jesus' own statements about peace and reconciliation and his own example, the burden is on those who are not pacifist. It has long since been clear that the war in Iraq was begun on fraud, that Pres. Bush did not pursue all reasonable efforts before engaging in the war but in fact did the exact opposite: he made every effort possible to ensure support for a war that he had no intention of avoiding. Now he's created a mess and he seems not to care. He won't lay out a plan for victory because a victory would mean an end to the war. It is absolutely ridiculous to begin any project without an idea of what the goal is. Whether in business or in war, where there is no clearly articulated statement of success, there is no clear direction or purpose or activity. Instead, an environment is created where anything goes (torture, anyone?). Bush never met a business he couldn't fail at (without major Saudi money, anyway); it appears the same goes for war. Why won't he state the goal, clear and simple? Why won't he make plain what are the terms for victory? There can be only three reasons: 1) He has no idea. 2) He knows very clearly what his goal is and he knows that the public would never support it, so he lies and dissembles in order to play on public opinion. 3) He has no goal because he doesn't want the war to end.

And people like Jean Schmidt stand up and say things like, "...[P]ulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory." Please, Rep. Schmidt, tell me: What is their goal?

Support our troops, Rep. Schmidt? How about telling them the truth - like whether or not you support an end to this war, whether or not you actually want them to come home, whether or not you really care that they are being asked to risk and sacrifice their lives for what began as a fraud and appears to have no end in sight.

letter to an elder, a friend

Hey B,

I just wanted to follow up a little on the topic you raised with your devotion last night. It was a good one! And I thank you for bringing it up. I have two basic reactions that I wanted to share with you.

The first is, along the lines of what S. was saying, I don't believe the Hype. I simply don't believe there is a real move 'against' Christmas. Maybe there is a problem, and I certainly think the allegations should be discussed. But I really get pissed when I hear people (like Limbaugh) say there's a "War on Christmas." There is real war in this world that we ought to be concerned about; however, to equate the debate over a season's greetings with the real violence happening in Iraq, Sudan, Haiti, and elsewhere goes beyond absurd and to me reveals the true character of these radio personalities.

Along the lines of the "don't believe the hype," here's an article you should read. Written by a woman who works for a local chapter of the ACLU in Indiana, I find it short and basically to the point. She does take a pot-shot at the very end that I found, well, funny but unnecessary.
How the ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas

Anyway, that's my first reaction. My second is this: I am THANKFUL that businesses, especially large corporations, are not going over the top in pandering to Christians this Christmas holiday season. The season has nothing to do with helping the bottom line at Wal-Mart or Target or other retail stores. The over-commercialization of Christmas, in fact, often negatively contributes to things Christians ought to be concerned about, especially poverty. People rack up more debt buying more junk (often made by people working in sweat-shop [near slave] conditions) they don't need and I am glad that big business actually draws the line somewhere in terms of manipulating or preying on our Christmas "tradition" of shopping till we drop. I perceive the over-commercialization of Christmas as a larger problem than the under-commercialization, and asking for more of it is like an alcoholic asking for more booze.

Basically, I think that these talking heads and so-called Christian organizations who are making a stink are simply trying to increase their audience - and their contributions. The debate here ought to be about inclusion, sensitivity, and respect, not about the decision some corporate big-wig made about the wording of a banner or advertisement. There's always the question, too, of what Jesus would be concerned about at this time of year and whether he would even notice. In the middle of his conversation that contains the well known "whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me" and the lesser known "whoever puts a stumbling block before a little one, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and be thrown into the sea" is this often forgotten statement: "Whoever is not against us is for us." It is completely counter to the current thinking and public sentiment of at least our political leadership; Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others seem to share the opposite line of view as well. But Jesus' statement here applied to the alleged situation would seem to say this: Unless they are hanging signs which say "Christians Not Served Here," there is no problem.
The scripture is Mark 9:33-42.

Anyway, I'd be glad to continue the conversation and hear your response. I just wanted to share some thoughts. I'm sorry to have grown so long-winded. I certainly think conversation on the subject is healthy. It's always good for Christians to work our for themselves what the important issues are, and I am glad that you brought your awareness of this subject to the elders meeting.

Later,
J

PS - I just found an interesting item: apparently O'Reilly & Fox [Fake] News are on the side of the pro-"Holiday"/anti-"Christmas" party after all - they're marketing lots of stuff on their web-site using the word "Holiday" instead of "Christmas."
Hmmm, who are the politically correct, hyper-sensitive, liberal weenies now? ;)

oh so proud of Ohio

On a late night run to Steak and Shake, while waiting forever for my food, I flipped through a stack of newspaper sections lying on a nearby table. I've been carrying around this gem ever since, just waiting to share. From the Nov. 17, 2005 Columbus Dispatch, page D5:

The Kansas school board, in approving standards last week that cast doubt on evolution, might have helped boost an entirely new area of science, a move Ohio started last year

Where to begin? I'll start with the second part: someone will have to tell me, I guess, if the claim is true that Ohio "started" this move toward a new area of science. I've lived in Ohio most of my life; I really don't think this is true. Maybe we were the first state to have legislation on behalf of, or state school board endorsement of this dogma masquerading as science. But did we really start the move? Either way, I guess, I'm embarrassed for the state that I love dearly.

But look, just calling "intelligent design" a "new area of science" is ludicrous. THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. In fact, the proposition is a denial of science. There is no hypothesis. No collecting of empirical evidence. No tests to run and re-run, no measure for accuracy of the proposition and validity of its claims. Allow me to quote a bit more:

...The Kansas board also challenged widely accepted science that all life has a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.

The board also went one step further - broadening the definition of science.

You see, that's the only way that these anti-education folks can cram the so-called theory of "intelligent design" down the throats of innocent, and politically naive, kids: they had to change the very nature of science because "intelligent design" IS NOT SCIENCE. As often as proponents of "i.d." publicly state otherwise, this move is the lie that exposes them. They've also done it Ohio, I learned:

Last year ... the [Ohio] State Board of Education did the same thing. "We changed the definition as well - very similarly, quite honestly," said Deborah Owens Fink, a state board member from Richfield.

That's right folks, at least two states no longer care to educate their children on sound, fundamental science. Despite the fact that basic tenets of evolution have been soundly tested and affirmed by ample evidence, elected politicians are apparently better experts than professionals. Peer review, academic standards, and the scientific method itself mean nothing to these people: rather than expand their own worldview, they choose to try and limit the view for others.

The sad part is, these two propositions, that life on earth has evolved over millions and billions of years, and that there is an "intelligent designer" - can't we just say God?! - who created, crafted, even directed the process, are not contradictory. Most of the people believe they are biblical literalists - that they take the Bible word-for-word as Truth. Yet the real contradiction, if their view were correct, is encountered in the first and second chapter of the first book of the Bible. There we discover that there are in fact TWO very DIFFERENT stories of creation. Taken literally, these stories themselves contradict each other; reading the Bible in this way fails before it really begins. A wider perspective, one that takes these texts as a testament to faith but not as literal truth, allows the reader to see that their power and their truth is found in their meaning, not their word-for-word dictation. And with such an understanding, evolution can stand as sound science without being an affront to God; and belief in God can stand as sound faith without being anemic to an inquisitive mind: in fact, the Creator gave us gifts for learning, studying, and enlarging our understanding. Jesus told us that the Truth would set us free; he did not ask us to bind ourselves to it. Paul, writing in Romans, encourages us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds; he did not advise us to close our minds and never change a bit.

There's more in the article, including a clear indication of the opportunity for blowback. I wonder, now that the definition of science has been shot to hell, how these folks will react should any of this come to pass:

In Kansas schools, science might no longer be limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. New definitions could open new research realms.

"Like witchcraft," said Kent State University anthropologist Owen Lovejoy, who studies the evolution of early humans.

Or voodoo, ESP or the study of ghosts.

But Owens Fink disagrees.

"I think he's worrying unnecessarily," she said. "We wanted to investigate intelligent design."

Of course she thinks that. Because she doesn't want to admit to the real possibility of what she has helped achieve. Now that science has been re-defined to be the butt of a very bad joke, what's to stop people from pushing all kinds of strange and completely unverifiable theories as "science"? It was the prophet Hosea who said, many centuries ago, "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

In fact, the article goes on to talk about a group that is among the "i.d." boosters: Raelians. I've heard that term before but always thought it was a joke. Not so! It turns out that Raelians believe that "extraterrestrial scientists brought DNA from another planet to get the ball of life rolling" - and they're thrilled to support "i.d." because it allows their alien theories to be discussed in the midst of Bunsen burners and microscopes and periodic tables. Though if this really pans out, why on earth would schools waste money on scientific equipment that will merely collect dust?

The whirlwind is coming - may the harvest be plentiful indeed!

thought for the day

"Do not wait for great strength before setting out, for immobility will weaken you further. Do not wait to see very clearly before starting: one has to walk toward the light. Have you strength enough to take this first step? ... You will be astonished to feel that the effort accomplished, instead of having exhausted your strength, has doubled it - and that you already see more clearly what you have to do next."

Phillipe Vernier, French theologian

as quoted in Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time by Paul Rogat Loeb

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day, a day for raising awareness about the devastating pandemic that is HIV/AIDS. Want to do something helpful? From the Human Rights Campaign:

...In recognition of [World AIDS Day], the Human Rights Campaign is issuing our second annual report card to America's leaders, grading their response to the AIDS crisis.
...
Take a moment to read America's report card, and then please urge Congress to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act in 2006. The CARE Act provides funding to states for critical services to people living with HIV/AIDS, and its authorization expired on September 30, 2005.

Then, do something locally. Look for local HIV/AIDS service organizations here.

a pair of lists on Bush, war

It's been a little while, once again. I seem to be in this cycle of post a few, then take two weeks off. Of course, it doesn't help that I was on the road nearly all of last week (Yeah Holidays!). This isn't really the post I wanted to begin with, but I can't resist sharing these two lists. The first comes from an e-mail I received from Sen. Barbara Boxer via her PAC For a Change (slightly different version here); the second was David Letterman's Top 10 List last night. Both have Truth, but only one is laughable - and then, not all of it.

Today [Nov. 30], President Bush delivered what was billed as a major address on Iraq. Instead, unfortunately, it was just more of the same "stay the course" rhetoric, moving us no closer to a resolution of the conflict.

We've all been waiting for many months for President Bush to come clean with the American people about the war in Iraq. But clearly, the President still fails to see and confront the truth:

1. President Bush refuses to acknowledge that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on our country by al Qaeda, and it has diverted us from our appropriate response to that attack which was to go into Afghanistan and hunt Osama bin Laden.

2. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that our long term presence in Iraq is fueling the very insurgency that he vows to end.

3. President Bush refuses to acknowledge that any mistakes were made and that this war was based on false pretenses.

4. He ignores the tremendous financial burden on our citizens, and he completely ignores the thousands of wounded that need to hear that they will not be forgotten and that they will receive the care they need.

5. President Bush even refuses to acknowledge that Iraqi government officials believe that we can withdraw within a two-year time frame, while continuing to demean those members of Congress who disagree with him.
...
With American confidence in his handling of the war in Iraq at an all-time low, when will President Bush get the message? It's up to us to keep standing up and speaking out until he does.

The staff at the Late Show must have received Boxer's message, too:

Top Ten New President Bush Strategies For Victory in Iraq

10. "Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign"
9. "Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah"
8. "Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge"
7. "Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'" [pronounced "We Rock"]
6. "Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama"
5. "A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head"
4. "Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb"
3. "Wait, you mean it ain't going well?"
2. "Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag"
1. "Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'"

*emphasis mine - my personal favorite

this is funny (DeLay, cont.)

from the transcripts of Larry King Live, Sept. 28, '05, on the day Tom DeLay was indicted by a grand jury, King interviewed Dick DeGuerin, the defense attorney for Tom DeLay:

...KING: What did Tom say to you today?

DEGUERIN: He said let's get out there and fight them. He's ready for the fight. He was hoping that he wouldn't be indicted because, you know, an indictment, Larry, is as bad as a conviction.

KING: Yes.

DEGUERIN: Because he had to step down as majority leader. But he's resolved to fight this out. There's going to be no compromise, no settlement. This is either going to go to trial and we're going to win or it's going to be dismissed before trial.

KING: So, they know there's no plea bargain here or anything?

DEGUERIN: Hell no, excuse me, but no there's not going to be.

Hmm...why did DeLay's attorney emphasize so strongly that there would be no deal, that DeLay wouldn't consider it? As we now know, it's because DeLay already tried to make a deal - stupidly confessing to his crime in the process - and was turned down.

*emphasis mine

DeLay - confessed criminal now cries victim

from the Washington Post:

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.
...
Another DeLay lawyer, Bill White, confirmed that "we had authority to kick . . . around a bit" the idea of guilty pleas. But he emphasized that DeLay was negotiating with Earle out of duress. His lawyers were trying to figure out: "Is there any way around this so he does not have to give up the leadership?"

First of all, I can't believe that DeLay actually admitted to being involved in money laundering. There is no other way to describe what the Republican PACs did, illegally transfering money to hide its source and funnel it to Republican campaign coffers. But now his lawyer wants to claim that he made the confession under duress? Give me a break! What kind of duress? Physical torture? No. Psychological torture? No. He didn't endure threats of a personal nature, either. No, poor Tom DeLay was under the extreme duress...of having to give up his cushy, money-raking post as Majority Leader. This just shows how nuts the guy is, and how out of touch Republican Party Leadership has become. He has no remorse for the crime; he committed it, it paid off handsomely for Repubs in Texas, and now, if it would allow him to keep his coveted post, he's willing to confess to it. Only the D.A. said No Deal, and now DeLay wants to take it back! Duress my foot. If he wants to know what duress really feels like, he should try to live a month in the life of an average American citizen, balancing the costs of his family's food and health care and trying to make room in the budget for clothes and school supplies, all while living with the uncertainty of not knowing whether your job will still exist next month. The man, if he's as guilty as he admitted, deserves no sympathy: he's a criminal! But then to claim duress at the thought of having to give up his leadership post? What a jerk!

good news for Muslims, world

from Coming soon to fight extremism in Britain: the Imam Roadshow and Islam Online:

After years of watching radical Muslim groups teach violence in town meetings and on the Internet, Muslim leaders announced plans on Thursday to fight back by taking the message of mainstream Islam onto the road and out into cyberspace.

A task force set up after July's suicide bomb attacks in London concluded that extremists have found recruits among young Muslims "fuelled by anger, alienation and disaffection from mainstream British society."
...
Among its recommendations were a roadshow of Islamic scholars -- who could visit towns and cities and explain mainstream Muslim teachings -- and "Islam Online", a Web site for Muslims looking to understand their faith.
...
"There is no doubt that the Internet has opened opportunities for all sorts of people and groups. And some are extremist groups who have used the Internet as a means of propaganda to spread their hate and division. There is a need to ensure that mainstream Islamic teachings are also disseminated."

The task force -- including prominent Muslim figures ranging from members of the House of Lords to Yusuf Islam, the former singer Cat Stevens -- also proposed new training for imams and better teaching of Islam in schools.

In writing this, I have struggled to find the words to talk about extremism. It seems to me that there are three factors at stake in conceptualizing "extremism": flexibility, treatment of others, and the social norm. That is, an extremist belief will have some mix of the following: being uncompromisingly rigid; engendering acts that violate another's rights (including the taking of life); and standing outside of what is considered normal or mainstream. [A caveat: Linking extremism to the social norm is always dangerous because if a society itself is extreme on a position, then what appears to be an extremist position may in fact be the most moral position. As an example, the abolitionist's position against slavery in the early 19th century United States comes to mind.]

Extremism is not limited to religous belief, although that certainly is where attention in the last few years seems to have focused. Political and economic positions and policies, for example, also can be marked by two or even all three of the characteristics I have described. In the end, except for the most extreme of extremists, making such judgment calls is a largely subjective endeavor. It is even more complicated in areas where belief or even action is separated many degrees from its result: an economic policy in one country that leads to starvation in another; a religious speech that stirs feelings which fester in a person for some time before he or she acts out on the meaning they derived from it.

In any case, as difficult as extremism is to name (except, again, in the most extreme cases), the conditions which can lead to such dangerous positions may be identifiable. In the case of religious extremists who claim to be faithful followers of Islam, it is good to see that Muslim leaders are standing up and effectively working to take away the (false) religious underpinnings of the extremists' beliefs. The best way to approach extremism may well be to deny the foundational principles. Once a person has bought into an extremist position they will be hard to sway from it. By denying the extremist's claim to faithfulness, however, and offering an appealing and legitimate alternative, it may be possible to stop extremism's spread.

We can hope. And we can work to make such strides against all extremism, of any faith or political philosophy.

I'm stunned!

from American Chronicle, found on Zogby International:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

I knew that the President's numbers were falling (his latest approval rating stands at 37%, thanks in part to a 2% approval among African Americans and especially to Republicans beginning to register their disapproval). Still, this impeachment number caught me by surprise. More Dems, obviously, supported the question; the younger a person is, the more likely they are to be in favor of impeachment; and ethnic and religious minorities also are more likely to be in favor of impeachment. Geographically, the breakdown shows support is fairly widespread - belying the notion that this is a "left coast," elitist, or otherwise liberal attack:

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 76% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50% of Independents and 29% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51% of those 31-49, 50% of those 50-64, and 42% of those over 65. 56% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 90% favored impeachment, compared to 67% of Hispanics, and 46% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Others favored impeachment, while 49% of Protestants and 46% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in the East (53%), West (56%), and Central states (58%), but not the South (43%). In large cities, 58% support impeachment; in small cities, 56%; in suburbs, 49%; in rural areas, 46%.

For comparison's sake, the author looked back at polls conducted around the question of whether Clinton should be impeached.

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

It should be no surprise that support for impeaching Clinton was always relatively weak. The Republicans, however, led by a few nuts with a fixation on getting Clinton out of office, managed to keep such an option before the public for months. (For an excellent book on this subject, written by someone who was on the ground floor to the hype and scandal-mongering, see David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.) I can't help but wonder where the "liberal" media is now? Hmm. Maybe they're not so liberal after all.

The overarching question is: Did Bush lie? How you answer that determines whether or not you support impeachment, and whether or not the Congress ought to follow up on this matter. (It also reveals how well you've been paying attention.)

Happy Elections Day! Time for me to go vote!

Mourning Rosa Parks * and Remembering Her Real Story

from CNN:

"I think that she, as the mother of the new civil rights movement, has left an impact not just on the nation, but on the world," [U.S. Rep. John Conyers] told CNN in a telephone interview. "She was a real apostle of the nonviolence movement... [T]here was only one" Rosa Parks.

*and this from Paul Rogat Loeb's Soul of a Citizen:

Before the day she refused to give up her bus seat, Rosa Parks had spent twelve years helping lead the local NAACP chapter, along with the union activist E.D. Nixon from the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, teachers from the local Negro college, and a variety of ordinary members of Montgomery's African American community. The summer before, Parks had attended a ten-day training session at Tennessee's labor and civil rights organizing school, the Highlander Center, where she'd met an older generation of civil rights activists and discussed the Supreme Court's recent decision in Brown v. Board of Education banning "separate but equal" schools. During this period of involvement and education, Parks had become familiar with previous challenges to segregation: Another Montgomery bus boycott, fifty years earlier, successfully eased some restrictions; a bus boycott in Baton Rouge had won limited gains two years before Parks was arrested; and the previous spring, a young Montgomery woman had also refused to move to the back of the bus, causing the NAACP to consider a legal challenge until it turned out that she was unmarried and pregnant, and therefore a poor symbol for a campaign. In short, Parks's decision didn't come out of nowhere. And she didn't single-handedly give birth to the civil rights movement. Rather, she was part of an existing broader effort to create change, at a time when success was far from certain. This in no way diminishes the power and historical importance of her refusal to give up her seat. But it does remind us that this tremendously consequential act might never have taken place without an immense amount of humble and frustrating work that she and others did earlier on.
...
Think about the different ways one can frame Rosa Parks's historic action. In the prevailing myth, Parks decides to act almost on a whim, in isolation. She's a virgin to politics, a holy innocent. The lesson seems to be that if any of us suddenly got the urge to do something equally heroic, that would be great. Of course most of us don't so we wait our entire lives to find the ideal moment.

The real story [of Rosa Parks] conveys a far more empowering moral. It suggests that change is the product of deliberate, incremental action, whereby we join together to try to shape a better world. Sometimes our struggles will fail, as did many earlier efforts by Parks, her peers, and her predecessors. Other times they may bear modest fruit. And at times they will trigger a miraculous outpouring of courage and heart-as happened with Parks's arrest and all that followed. We can never know beforehand the consequences of our actions.

*Loeb material added 11/10/05
*emphasis mine

2001 reasons to declare victory and come home

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000.

Iraqi constitution passes, officials say.

big brother is watching -- this time, at Wal-Mart

I close out the night with another article from The Progressive:

Selina Jarvis is the chair of the social studies department at Currituck County High School in North Carolina, and she is not used to having the Secret Service question her or one of her students.

But that's what happened on September 20.

Jarvis had assigned her senior civics and economics class "to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights," she says. One student "had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb's down sign with his own hand next to the President's picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster."

According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent.

But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service.

Duh! Everyone knows that for teenagers today a thumb-tack stuck in a picture is a real threat, the hip equivalent to using a bobble-head as a voodoo doll. Good thing attentive Wal-Mart employees everywhere are on the look-out for the slightest sign of disrespect aimed at G.W. That hippie social studies teacher will probably give the student an A for the semester for this unbelievably sacrilegious behavior.

Honestly, the irony is just too much. It's funny and frightening, sad and scary all at once. If nothing else, it's one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart (where local economies are liable to fall faster than the store's prices).

Good night and God bless.

an interview with Viggo Mortensen

from The Progressive, Nina Siegal poses a straight-forward question that elicits a sharp response:

Q: Are you anti-Bush, as the pundits say?

Mortensen: No, I'm not anti-Bush; I'm anti-Bush behavior. In other words, I'’m against cheating, greed, cruelty, racism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, treason, and the seemingly limitless capacity for hypocrisy shown by Bush and his Administration.

Obviously, people will disagree on whether they see these qualities exhibited in the President's and his Administration's behavior. But, if reactionaries can keep their knee-jerk under control for a moment, Mortensen's comments should help them understand why so many people are increasingly upset with the current leadership of our country: it is because lots of different people see some of these same qualities on display. And anyone should agree that cheating, greed, cruelty, treason, and hypocrisy are morally reprehensible. Honesty would go a long way to helping bridge the supposed differences (which I don't believe are as large as some claim) among Americans. For example, we don't have to begin by fighting over environmental legislation. We can begin by agreeing on the fact that calling legislation which will weaken environmental protections of our atmosphere "Clear Skies" legislation is wrong. Then we can talk about whether the need for environmental security overrides the need to give yet another hand-out to certain industries.

news from the other side of the pond

from The Independent:
The headline of the article gives its point of examination: "Are British troops at breaking point in Iraq?" Half-way through its investigation of this question is this curious statement:

Recent comments by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, that British forces might have to stay in an increasingly volatile conflict for up to 10 more years have exacerbated fears among British forces that the conflict in which they are engaged is open-ended and lacking a credible exit strategy.

10 more years?! I haven't heard Rumsfeld (or anyone else, for that matter) make those kind of statements. But then again, expressing such honesty would make it hard to justify Bush's sunny-optimism and his constant claim that the situation is improving. Given how often an administration official has made this claim, Iraq ought to be Utopia by now, perhaps even returned to the mythic Garden of Eden. Bush & company choose, instead, to speak in vagueries, suggesting on the one hand that troops may begin to come home soon and on the other that the war on terror will be long and require much sacrifice (though who that sacrifice should come from, besides our troops and their families, is also equally vague; it certainly doesn't apply to big oil or any of the BushCo favorites like Halliburton). If someone in the administration actually stood up and said, "We'll have troops in Iraq for the next 10 years," there would likely be an immediate revolt from all over America against any ongoing occupation. Pity the truth is so frightening to the Administration, given that it has the ability to set us all free from the sins of empire, war mongering, and greed.

*emphasis mine

Iraq was to be just the beginning...and Saudi Arabia was in the cross hairs!

from Bush Told Blair of 'Going Beyond Iraq':

George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan," according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.

It would've been interesting to hear/see how Bush justified going after Saudi Arabia, given that he's been best-buds with the Saudi royal family, gladly accepting their money for corporate buyouts and campaign spending. No wait, candidates aren't allowed to take foreign money for campaigns. My mistake. He might also have to explain why he helped a whole bunch of bin Laden family members get home to Saudi Arabia in the days after 9/11/2001. Though that probably wouldn't take too much spin on one of his most favorite phrases: "I sent them home so that we don't have to fight them here." So how the President have done it? How would he have betrayed his family's close friends, gone after their leadership and their oil? With the occupation in Iraq struggling and the President's approval rating now at 38%, it appears we will never know.

holding out for "total victory," whatever that is

from the AP, Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged:

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The President made these remarks in a "carefully scripted" teleconference, where Pres. Bush played the part of interviewer to a carefully selected and coached group of soldiers. My question for the President: What is "total victory"? I hope it doesn't have anything to do with electoral politics and the timing of the 2006 elections here in the U.S. But I won't bet on it.

As I fill in the title on this entry, another thought occurs to me: I hope Bush's idea of "total victory" doesn't fall in line with total victory related to, say, a game of chess. In a game of chess, you don't have to wipe out every single one of your opponent's pieces before taking the king. It may be fun, sometimes, but it's mostly mean-spirited. To make the same effort when real lives are at stake is, to use a word the President can understand, evil.

'End This War': Hundreds of Thousands Protest Iraq War

Pictures from the march in Washington, D.C. last weekend. Peace.



To read the accompanying article, click here.

Credits: 1st photo - AP Photo/Noah Berger; 2nd photo - REUTERS/Jason Reed

this is disgusting

from the Inter Press Service, "US Army Whistleblowers Describe Routine, Severe Abuse":

Two sergeants and a captain in one of the U.S. Army's most decorated combat units have come forward with accounts of routine, systematic and often severe beatings committed against detainees at a base near Fallujah from 2003 through 2004.

According to their testimony, featured in a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), beatings and other forms of torture were often either ordered or approved by superior officers and took place on virtually a daily basis. The soldiers, all of whom had also been deployed to Afghanistan before coming to Iraq, testified that the same techniques were used in both countries.

The beatings were so severe that they resulted in broken bones 'every other week' at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mercury, where detainees would ordinarily be held for three or four days before being transferred to Abu Ghraib. In one case, an Army cook broke the leg of a detainee with a metal baseball bat, according to one of the sergeants quoted in the report, entitled Leadership Failure.

Why is a cook having any contact at all with prisoners - let alone swinging a baseball bat at (at least) one of them?! The article goes on to describe how the Captain "said he had made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about the abuses and obtain clearer rules about the treatment of detainees but was consistently told by higher-ups to ignore abuses and to 'consider your career'." Their testimony completes belies "the Bush administration [claim] that only a handful of poorly trained reservists were responsible" for prisoner abuse.

It is a sad state of affairs when Republic Congressional Leaders feel they have to pass "legislation that would require the Pentagon to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual in its treatment of all detainees."

Sadder still, and shameful, is the fact that "their effort has so far been frustrated by opposition from the George W. Bush administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, who has personally lobbied against the provision, and the Republican leadership in Congress."

Here's the truly disgusting part:

Suspected insurgents, according to the testimonies, were called PUCs, for "Persons Under Control," to distinguish them from prisoners of war, or POWs, a practice that first began in Afghanistan after the Pentagon announced that it did not consider detainees captured there subject to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions for POWs.

PUCs were held in tents at FOB Mercury that were surrounded by concertina wire and were routinely subjected to abusive techniques that included "smoking", which was normally ordered by Military Intelligence before interrogations and involved 12 to 24 hours of stress positions, sleep or liquid deprivation, and physical exercises sometimes to the point of unconsciousness, and "f**king", which referred to beating or torturing detainees severely.

Front-line and other soldiers were invited to take part in both practices, according to the report, while, if the detainees were injured as a result of the abuse, a physicians' assistant would administer an analgesic and sign off on a report stating that the injury took place during capture.

The beatings and other abuses served mainly to relieve stress, according to the three soldiers. "On their day off people would show up all the time," said one sergeant. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport."

The soldiers blamed the abuses in large part on the failure of civilian and military leaders to clarify what was and was not permitted, particularly in light of the administration's position that the Geneva Convention, in which the unit had been trained, did not apply to detainees captured in Afghanistan.

"We knew where the Geneva Conventions drew the line, but then you get that confusion when the (Secretary of Defense) and the president make that statement," said the captain. After the invasion of Iraq, "none of the unit policies changed. Iraq was cast as part of the war on terror, not a separate entity in and of itself but a part of a larger war."

"Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it," said one of the sergeants. "They wanted intel (intelligence). As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumours of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit (like that)."

These people are human beings. They may be "enemies" of the US, but they are still human beings. Denying them the rights of the Geneva Conventions is inhumane. Ask John McCain how important respecting the Conventions is - how, when we abide by them, they save the lives of American Prisoners of War. He knows; that's why he's doing the right thing, sponsoring legislation that should be a no brainer. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have long maintained that prisoner abuse was the work of a few rogue individuals. Attorney General Gonzales conveniently failed to recall drafting the documentation that led to Bush rejecting Geneva Conventions for "enemy combatants" or "PUCs," arbitrary terms for arbitrarily differentiating among POWs. This report makes it clear that they created the atmosphere in which all such abuse took place, with a wink and a smile.

When breaking bones and beating people nearly to death becomes a sport condoned and encouraged by Bush and his administration, it is clearly time to step back and ask again what our purpose in Iraq really is and whether our actions are truly helping or sorely hurting that purpose. If our goal is to piss off the Muslim world, add fuel to the raging insurgency, and feed a generation of Anti-American hate while pretending to occupy some moral high ground, then I'd say the President can proudly declare: "Mission Accomplished."

*emphasis mine

it continues...

from CNN - 'Intelligent design' debate back in court - Sep 26, 2005:

"Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
...
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
...
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
...
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
...
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
...
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

I've posted on this before, and there really isn't much to add to the article. It's only a shame that they ended with Thompson's quote, because it's a lie. While there may be a few in the scientific community who deny the merits of evolutionary theory, Prof. Miller spoke accurately in saying, "There is no controversy within science." And this is what is most frustrating: that proponents of this alleged "theory" of intelligent design insist that it is some kind of science. By their own admission, we cannot test the possibility of a designer. It therefore fails one of the basic principles of science: that hypotheses be testable and that procedures be repeatable. The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Gravity: questions remain about each, but they have been supported by huge amounts of research and data. Each was a hypothesis at one point in time, much like "intelligent design" is now. The difference between them, however, marks the difference between science and, well, philosophy. At best, "intelligent design" could be argued as a theory for philosophy (I mean, given that its proponents are fighting hard not to have it labeled a religious doctrine).

As a matter of fact, in many collegiate introductory philosophy classes, questions as basic as the beginning or origins of life will be considered. My Philosophy 101 class considered Creation as proof of a Creator (or Designer or Engineer or whatever) in a week, maybe two, then moved on. There simply is no science involved in "intelligent design" and it has no place in the science classroom. At the same time, accepting tenets of evolutionary theory does not therefore rule out the possibility of God (or any other creator, for that matter). We need to do a better job of religious education in our churches. And we need to stand up to those who would divide us for political purposes. A reasonable, Bible-believing person can accept evolution and believe in a God who is Creator of all that is and not be caught in a contradiction.

Our children deserve the best education we can provide. That means teaching science in the science classroom, philosphical reasoning and argument in philosophy, and religon in religious studies curricula and especially in the church.

Eggo waffles and a theological response

An early morning reflection...

As I sat here this morning nibbling my Eggo waffles and wondering what to write, a verse of scripture popped into my head: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." (1 Cor. 13:11) Uh oh, not a great way to start the day. And then another scripture came to mind: "I (Jesus) know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16) And reading a little further (3:20) we find this: "Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me."

In my defense to Corinthians, I only picked up the waffles on a whim. I ate them often as a kid but I honestly can’t remember the last time I had them. And it’s true, what Revelation warns - they are hard to keep hot! Even when I burn them, they cool off way too fast. In their place, one burning question remains: If Jesus comes a-knockin', do I have to hide the waffles?

Understanding the Bible is not always easy. People often jump to crazy conclusions. Another case in point: A number of Christian public speakers have sought to explain, with scriptural citation, why God caused Hurricane Katrina. They remind me of the importance of personal and communal Bible study as a balance to our absurd tendencies. Next time I hear one of those guys blathering on like that, I think I’ll send them a short letter: "Leggo my Eggo!"

more on the buffoons...

Sorry for the time away ... I actually was well into this post yesterday when my computer restarted itself.

Anyway: last Thursday, I listened to Jerry Springer talk about the very quotes I mentioned in the previous post. And he made the point: if God cared so much about putting an end to terrorism (as in Colson's, "God sent Hurricane Katrina to show that we're not prepared for the next big attack!"), wouldn't it be easier for God to simply stop the guy with the back pack bomb, or the car filled with explosives? Duh! One well targeted heart attack would save a lot of misery, and certainly be a smarter and more creative approach than a devastating hurricane.

To Robertson's comments, it occurred to me that it is absolutely absurd to say God allowed or caused the hurricane as a defense against America's abortion rate. If that were the case, why devastate communities in Mississippi, one of the most difficult states in which to receive an abortion? There are only 3 or 4 locations in Mississippi where a woman can go for such a procedure (and none in Gulfport or Biloxi). Surely other "targets" would have made this point more clearly.

And here's more data (direct link not possible) to discount Robertson's ramblings as absurd: in Mississippi in 2000, 14% of all pregnancies and 16% of teen pregnancies resulted in abortion, accounting for .3% of abortions in the United States; Louisiana's share was higher, accounting for 1% of US abortions, but their percentage was lower, as 12% of all pregnancies and 13% of teen pregnancies resulted in abortion. If God were punishing America for legally allowing abortion, why hit states with proportionately low figures?

I was disappointed that Springer didn't pick up on Robertson's assertion that terrorists, too, act on God's behalf. But I want to follow up on Springer's comments a little further, because he made exactly the kind of statement I used to make after 9/11/01. While the usual suspects (Falwell & Robertson, e.g.) were busy blaming America, others were scrambling to show just how God was working to help. Look, they'd point out, the planes were relatively empty, and, My, an awful lot of people were late to work! God, they offered, was super-busy that morning, diverting traffic & resetting alarms, doing all kinds of things to stop people from winding up in harms way. Two responses scream back. First: What, then, do you say to the families of those who were killed in the attack? That God didn't care enough about them to protect them and save their lives? This shows their argument to be callous and presumptive, assuming to know something about how & why God 'saved' certain people from harm. Second: Instead of trying to effectively re-direct the lives of thousands of people, why didn't God just do something about the nineteen terrorists? This shows their argument to confess of some weakness of God's part, that God couldn't do this. God didn't even have to intervene on all 19 - for example, all God had to do was alert a handful of security guards of their presence, or cause a computer glitch to prevent them from boarding the planes while working in other ways to expose their plan. Don't misunderstand, I believe God was very much present and active, but one thing it appears clearly that God does not do is direct our day to day behaviors. And I assert that that is a good thing, that we are not simply marionettes on strings.

wow, it took 'em nearly two weeks!

from Media Matters, Robertson again proved capable of spewing hate and ignorance (oh, and some very anti-Christian theology):

Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some religious conservatives have speculated that the storm was sent by God as an omen or as a punishment for America's alleged sins. Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson.
...
ROBERTSON: "I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, 'the land will vomit you out.' That -- you look at your -- you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, 'well 'vomit out' means you are not able to defend yourself.' But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way?"
...
LINDSEY: "It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun."
...
COLSON: "Katrina gave us a preview of what America would look like if we fail to fight the war on terror. 'Did God have anything to do with Katrina?,' people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again."

Okay, so Lindsey is just a huge nut; unfortunately, he's a nut with a pretty big audience. Still, I'd put money on the fact that he will have to continue to "expect for decades" the end that he thinks has just begun. Colson decides that God destroyed the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people just to warn the United States not to go soft on terror? I'd like him to point that out in the Bible. Robertson, however, once again takes the cake: according to Robertson, God works on the side of terrorists who attack the United States. That's right. That's exactly what he suggests: Because we were defenseless against the hurricane, God sent it; we are defenseless against some attacks by terrorists; therefore, God must be sending them, too. And of course Robertson decides that the innocent blood we're shedding against God's will is by allowing abortions to take place. If God sent the terrorists to attack us, though, doesn't that make their blood innocent, too? Or even, somehow, holy? Yet we're shedding not only their blood but the blood of thousands of people who are innocent by any measure.

When are people going to wake up and see that this guy isn't a man of faith? Hell, none of these guys are, not really. They all have an agenda that blinds them to at least 90% of the Gospel. Or maybe Jesus didn't mean all those things he said about loving our enemy, practicing forgiveness, giving to anyone who asks for aid, proclaiming release to the captives, giving sight to the blind, oh, and not worrying about the 'last days'/ end times / end of the age because no one knows about that time except God.

trapped inside the nightmare...

Here's a story by two who were trapped in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit that is not to be missed. A highlight:

We also suspect the media will have been inundated with "hero" images of the National Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the "victims" of the Hurricane. What you will not see, but what we witnessed,were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and kept the generators running. The electricians who improvised thick extension cords stretching over blocks to share the little electricity we had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses who took over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually forcing air into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive. Doormen who rescued folks stuck in elevators. Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, "stealing" boats to rescue their neighbors clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who helped hot-wire any car that could be found to ferry people out of the City. And the food service workers who scoured the commercial kitchens improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded.

Read it.

we must live into our dreams, not live in them

from a New York Times editorial:

Revising 9/11

On the first three anniversaries of Sept. 11, 2001, the nation had the grim luxury of uncluttered memory. We looked back on that day's events as the most terrible thing that could happen on American soil. Today, we are cursed with an unwanted expansion of that vision.
...
[B]y the time [Hurricane Katrina] died down and the floodwaters stopped rising, it became clear that this hurricane would force us to revise 9/11, which, until now, had defined the limits of tragedy in America.

Without realizing it, we had internalized what happened four years ago in a rather tidy story arc: Terrorists struck with brutal violence and the country responded. Everyone rose to the occasion...

We felt that 9/11 had changed our lives in an instant, that we had been jerked out of a pleasant dream. The difference in the blow that Katrina struck was not merely that we could see it coming. It was that, as a nation, we thought we were already fully awake.

I end a long day of posting perhaps where I should have begun: by remembering the tragic violence that struck the United States four years ago. It was said that a slumbering giant was awakened that day; much as the attack on Pearl Harbor drew the U.S. into World War II, so the attack on New York City and the Pentagon, and the plane downed in Pennsylvania, awoke Americans to another great peril. It is true, we were awakened.

But were we awakened to a great menace, a clear and present danger? Or were we merely awakened from one form of self-delusion to another? After all, the attack of 9/11/01 happened, we might argue, because we fell asleep to world affairs. Americans simply were not paying attention to world events. The captivating headlines of that summer were about shark attacks: and that despite the fact that the number of such attacks was not unusually high. Then the Twin Towers were hit, smoke was seen over the Capitol, and we were shocked out of the security of the world we had created (if only in our minds) with one resounding question: Osama who?

It was a name most Americans were not familiar with. But some were; some had known him since they helped arm him, train him, and assist him and the Taliban in fighting against the Soviet Union. That he later turned on the US was an embarrassment. But because he was such an unknown to the American public, he was a much smaller embarrassment than was Saddam Hussein - "our son-of-a-bitch." Remember, it is possible that the chemical agents Saddam used to gas the Kurds were supplied to him by the United States.

But I digress. I love the NYT editorial's simply elegant suggestion that 9/11 jerked us out of one dream long enough for us to create a "rather tidy story arc" and then fall into another dream state. Our first dream was that all was well with the world. Our second dream was that all will be well with the world, if we just trust our leaders and go shopping. We traded our freedoms and personal liberties for an illusion of security. We bought a false story (that Saddam was an imminent, "mushroom-cloud" threat - sold to us, of course, by those most embarrassed by the way he turned on them/the US) because we wanted to return to our pleasant state of ignorance. We trusted; we trusted things would get done. Hurricane Katrina proved that nothing has been done that has made us more prepared for disaster. Even with warning, most responders (FEMA and Homeland Security topping the list) fell flat on their faces. The cost for our selfish ignorance? Suffering and death for thousands of people (mostly poor and mostly black).

What should we do to remember the victims of 9/11? What should we do to honor them and the victims of Hurricane Katrina? We should not allow ourselves to be lulled into another dream state. We should plug back in to the world. We should pay attention to world events (like the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and its spread in Pakistan), to scientific discoveries (like global warning, which hardly counts as a 'discovery' these days, except to a few deniers), to the plight of people in foreign places (like those suffering in Sudan; as often as President Bush has stood in the devastation that Hurricane Katrina wrought and referred to it as "this part of the world" [on Sept. 2: twice in Alabama before arriving in the disaster area, twice more in Biloxi, MS, and then four times in Kenner, LA!; and on Sept. 5: twice in a very short speech in Poplarville, MS], Louisiana and Mississippi are not in a foreign country). We should especially pay attention to the way that our lifestyle choices - everything from guzzling gas to shopping for the cheapest clothing - leads to the enslavement or even killing of innocent people.

Too many of our leaders in government and big business are hoping, right now, that Americans settle back into an even deeper cycle of sleep, as it were. We should pay attention to them, as well. Because while many do have the best interests of the American people at heart, the temptation to worship the throne of power and feed at the trough of the almighty dollar is constant. Do we have the strength and moral fortitude to stay awake? It will not be pleasant. It will force us to challenge much that we take for granted. But the alternative is simply more of the same: pleasant dreams for a time, followed by yet another rude awakening. And who knows? Next time it might be you or I who isn't privileged to wake up. Would we really want some cheap platitudes offered in our memory as a way of hypnotizing people back into their REM cycle?

Jesus used to say, "Let those with ears listen." Now, most everyone he met had ears that worked just fine, of course: the problem was that many people chose not to use them.

what would a Christian leader do?

Cornel West writes about Hurricane Katrina & Race:

In the end George Bush has to take responsibility. When [the rapper] Kanye West said the President does not care about black people, he was right, although the effects of his policies are different from what goes on in his soul. You have to distinguish between a racist intent and the racist consequences of his policies. Bush is still a 'frat boy', making jokes and trying to please everyone while the Neanderthals behind him push him more to the right.
…
Bush talks about God, but he has forgotten the point of prophetic Christianity is compassion and justice for those who have least. Hip-hop has the anger that comes out of post-industrial, free-market America, but it lacks the progressiveness that produces [organizations] that will threaten the status quo. There has not been a giant since King, someone prepared to die and create an insurgency where many are prepared to die to upset the corporate elite. The Democrats are spineless.
…
[N]ow that the aid is pouring in, vital as it is, do not confuse charity with justice. I'm not asking for a revolution, I am asking for reform. A Marshall Plan for the South could be the first step.

war without end may spell the end for life as we know it

Norman Solomon, writing about the post-9/11 manipulation of America, reminds us of a NYT editorial published by Rumsfeld on 9-27-01 and other, more prescient warnings:

Purporting to be no-nonsense, the message from the Pentagon's civilian head was expansive to the point of limitlessness: "Forget about 'exit strategies'; we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines."
…
In late November 2002, a retired U.S. Army general, William Odom, told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few."

Solomon concludes:

[M]ass media and politicians still facilitate the destructive policies of the Bush administration. From Baghdad to New Orleans to cities and towns that will never make headlines in the national press, the dominant corporate priorities have made a killing. Those priorities hold sway not only for the Iraq war but also for the entire "war on terrorism."

While military spending zooms upward, a downward slide continues for education, health care, housing, environmental protection, emergency preparedness and a wide array of other essentials. Across the United States, communities are suffering grim consequences. "Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war," Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967. The same statement is profoundly true in 2005.

*emphasis mine

soldiers for hire; goons already on the job

In a NYT piece that explains much about the response to Hurricane Katrina but is soft on examining competing claims, I came across this interesting tid-bit:

Pentagon, White House and Justice officials debated for two days whether the president should seize control of the relief mission from Governor Blanco. But they worried about the political fallout of stepping on the state's authority, according to the officials involved in the discussions. They ultimately rejected the idea and instead decided to try to speed the arrival of National Guard forces, including many trained as military police.

Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, explained that decision in an interview this week. "Could we have physically moved combat forces into an American city, without the governor's consent, for purposes of using those forces - untrained at that point in law enforcement - for law enforcement duties? Yes."

But, he asked, "Would you have wanted that on your conscience?"

Funny.  The federal government had no problem securing soldiers-for-hire to patrol the streets of New Orleans:

Heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, are openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans.

But they aren’t government troops.  So that makes it okay.
Oh, and from the same NYT piece comes more stories that border on criminal:

Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area. The delay, some volunteers complained, meant lives were being lost in New Orleans.

"On the news every night you hear, 'How come everybody forgot us?' " said Joseph Manning, a firefighter from Washington, Pa., told The Dallas Morning News. "We didn't forget. We're stuck in Atlanta drinking beer."
…
William D. Vines, a former mayor of Fort Smith, Ark., helped deliver food and water to areas hit by the hurricane. But he said FEMA halted two trailer trucks carrying thousands of bottles of water to Camp Beauregard, near Alexandria, La., a staging area for the distribution of supplies.

"FEMA would not let the trucks unload," Mr. Vines said in an interview. "The drivers were stuck for several days on the side of the road about 10 miles from Camp Beauregard. FEMA said we had to have a 'tasker number.' What in the world is a tasker number? I have no idea. It's just paperwork, and it's ridiculous."

Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, who interceded on behalf of Mr. Vines, said, "All our Congressional offices have had difficulty contacting FEMA. Governors' offices have had difficulty contacting FEMA." When the state of Arkansas repeatedly offered to send buses and planes to evacuate people displaced by flooding, she said, "they were told they could not go. I don't really know why."

On Aug. 31, Sheriff Edmund M. Sexton, Sr., of Tuscaloosa County, Ala., and president of the National Sheriffs' Association, sent out an alert urging members to pitch in.

"Folks were held up two, three days while they were working on the paperwork," he said.

Some sheriffs refused to wait. In Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit, Sheriff Warren C. Evans got a call from Mr. Sexton on Sept. 1 The next day, he led a convoy of six tractor-trailers, three rental trucks and 33 deputies, despite public pleas from Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm to wait for formal requests.

"I could look at CNN and see people dying, and I couldn't in good conscience wait for a coordinated response," he said. He dropped off food, water and medical supplies in Mobile and Gonzales, La., where a sheriffs' task force directed him to the French Quarter. By Saturday, Sept. 3, the Michigan team was conducting search and rescue missions.

"We lost thousands of lives that could have been saved," Sheriff Evans said.

on the day Brutus betrayed Caesar, our American Caesar betrayed his own brutality

from an Agence France Presse report:

A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."

The document, titled 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.

Wait, it's not as bad as it sounds...

But the official, who spoke to AFP late Saturday on condition of anonymity, said it has not yet been signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus has not been made official policy.

"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.

Never mind.

This is despicable. It's like we're looking for a reason to return to the height of the Cold War, a reason to live just the push of a button away from annihilation. Our government leaders spend so much time and energy decrying those who seek nuclear weapons (think North Korea and Iran) as lunatics. Isn't it lunacy to draw up a policy that gives at least eight different excuses for setting the world on a path of utter destruction? What makes our leaders think, once a nuclear weapon is deployed, that no one will strike back? That no one will say, enough is enough, America is too proud? Because it wouldn't take much, in nuclear terms, for a rapid and devastating response. Under nuclear threat, Gandhi's wisdom needs a bit of an update: "A nuclear bomb for a nuclear bomb, and the whole world is a wasteland."

The article ends with the following comment - which I would love to hear more about because it sounds like baloney to me:

The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."

The Water is Going Down Slowly. The President's Popularity is Sinking Like a Stone

"Brownie's" out of the picture, sort-of, but the disconnect continues; from The Independent (UK):

...President Bush at first told his emergency management chief, Michael Brown, that he was doing 'a heck of a job', only to relieve him of his hurricane relief responsibilities on Friday.

Mr Brown, and the administration, had endured days of intense criticism about the dearth of federal aid for days after Katrina hit. And Mr Brown only confirmed the widespread impression that he was completely unsuitable for the job by telling reporters in flood-stricken Louisiana moments after being ordered back to Washington: "I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff margarita and a full night's sleep."

As many commentators were quick to point out, the victims he had let down and left behind were sadly not afforded the same opportunity. Even conservative commentators have expressed their amazement at the apparent frivolity of President Bush and his allies in the face of the worst natural disaster in American history.

Texas congressman Tom DeLay, arguably the most powerful man in the House of Representatives, added his voice to a string of gaffes from the Bush family and others by telling a group of evacuees in a Houston shelter that their experiences were not all that different from attending summer camp.

"Now tell me the truth boys," Mr DeLay said, "is this kind of fun?"

Oh yeah, the article also comments on latest poll numbers: Bush's popularity is under 40 percent and 65 percent now say the country is headed in the wrong direction!

*emphasis mine

some 'Informed Comment'

from one who knows his stuff:

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield maintains that the US government can both take care of New Orleans and pursue the "global war on terror."

Uh, Donald, let's look at this situation. First, much of New Orleans is under water. You stole money that should have been spent on its levees for the Iraq War, and you stole state national guards from Louisiana to fight in Iraq. (The state national guards hadn't signed up to fight foreign wars and were surprised when you kidnapped them, sometimes for a whole year at a time.) So you haven't actually done a good job with the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. In fact, the job has been so bad that some wags are saying they can't believe you personally were not in charge of the recovery effort.

Then let's consider the war against al-Qaeda. ... Bin Laden and Zawahiri are at large and free men, which is your failure.

Then there is the war in Iraq. I don't need to tell you that that isn't going very well. ...

You left out the fourth war Bush is fighting, on the US poor. The average wage of the average American work[er] fell last quarter, amidst rising corporate profits. Bush cut billions in taxes on the rich, and then gave $300 checks to some poor people, who didn't seem to realize that by taking it they were giving up all sorts of government services and maybe even their social security payments.

So, Donald, maybe it is true that you can save New Orleans, occupy Iraq and fight a global war on terror all at the same time. But you, at leas[t], cannot actually do these things successfully. Which is why you should have resigned a long time ago.

Read more of his insight, and news from the Middle East, here.

*Emphasis mine.

Quote of the Day

from Honor Their Sacrifice, Jonathan Schell writes:

A majority of the American public now looks on the war as a mistake, but most of the leaders of the so-called opposition party have failed to articulate an antiwar position. In the resulting silence, only the deaths are speaking. The loss of soldiers' and civilians' lives is the price of the politicians' gutlessness.

*emphasis mine

timeline of failure

I've found two time-lines, so far. One is from ThinkProgress and it lays out the details in black and white, referencing and linking to official statements by the Governor and the President as well as numerous news outlets and other sources.

The second one is less detailed, but presents enough facts and legitimate sound-bites to convey the President's attitude. Oh, and it's in video format, a segment from the Daily Show. (I watched all the interviews excerpted here, and in fuller context Bush still sounded like a jerk.)

as if we needed more proof

These headlines speak for themselves:

Bush Launches Inquiry and Puts Himself in Charge of It
*simply outrageous
FEMA Blocking Photos of Katrina's Dead
*hmm...sounds familiar - like their pattern of denial
Barbara Bush: Houston Shelter is 'Working Very Well' for Poor
*this one from the New York Post!

I've seen enough.

I've resisted saying more about the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina - and the disaster that was the failure of our government to respond. I've resisted, because I've felt that the most important thing is focusing on those who need help, those still waiting for food, medicine, even rescue! I've also resisted, because our corporate media has awakened from its slumber and actually done it's job this time! (You should've heard me cheering as Ted Kopple gave Michael Brown, head of FEMA, a good whooping - exactly what he deserved, I might add.) But my anger and frustration have smoothed out now to where I can calmly recount the things that should not have happened:

Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Card should not have remained on vacation. From the moment the seriousness of the IMPENDING storm were clear (which, at the least, was 48 hours before Katrina made landfall), they should have been on top of the situation. Instead, they stayed on vacation, and as of 48 hours after, were seen: fund-raising (Bush), fishing (Cheney), shoe shopping (Rice), and not at all (Card). This should not have happened.

Buses and emergency transportation, which were needed, again, 48 hours before landfall, were not sent in until at least 48 hours after. One bus driver for FEMA reported being ready and in his bus Monday afternoon, yet his boss wouldn't let him leave until Friday morning. This should not have happened.

Soldiers in the National Guard and other Armed Forces should not have been sent beginning Tuesday, or Wednesday, or even later. Navy ships that could both house people and supply water should not have been sent Thursday and Friday. These military units should have been sent as close as possible on Saturday & Sunday, poised to move in Monday as soon as the storm passed. Instead, soldiers were seen across flooded rivers, up on dry ground, playing basketball because no one gave them any orders to help. This should not have happened.

Then again, the diminished troop strength and shortage of equiment (including at least 1/3 of Louisiana's National Guard and 50% of their equipment, even their wet-land vehicles!) hurt any response. These absent soldiers and supplies are stretched thin protecting and rebuilding in Iraq, leaving us in precarious predicaments at home of which we were well aware. Yet, they were sent anyway. This should not have happened.

Looters stealing everything from TVs and stereo equipment to drugs and guns made the situation worse for many and are a national disgrace. This should not have happened.

President Bush going on national television and declaring a zero tolerance policy toward looters, whether they were stealing TVs or food, water, and baby formula for survival, was also a national disgrace. This should not have happened.

Then again, I could go on about the things President Bush did and did not do. He flew over once and said it looked bad. Feeling the pressure, he went back and joked about his drinking days in New Orleans, praised those who had bungled operations while declaring that the response was not enough (which is it, Mr. President?), refused to answer direct questions about what went wrong and why more wasn't done, and then pointed out that, Hey, Trent Lott lost a house in this storm, too! That this happened, all of this, his lame, shrugged-shoulders response, should be no surprise to any of us by now.

There's plenty more I'm leaving out. Like how Wal-Mart (gotta give credit where it's due though I've plenty of bones to pick with them) tried to send in trucks full of water on either Tues or Wed, and FEMA refused to let them distribute it. Or how FEMA didn't know about the thousands of people who sought refuge at the Convention Center until Thursday. Or how the Bush administration continues to disavow global warming which did not cause this storm but definitely made it worse. Or how the Bush administration slashed money budgeted for levee support and an emergency response plan, even after Congress had approved some of the funds. And they didn't just slash it once, they slashed it year after year, against the protests of community leaders and reporting by the widely circulated Times-Picayune (which, by the way, predicted the possibility of such a disaster several years ago while Bush still claims 'No one could have predicted it.') and even against the protests of the Army Corps of Engineers. Or, speaking of predictions, how prior to 9/11, a major hurricane & flooding in New Orleans were predicted by the federal government as one of the three worst possible events that America could suffer (another being a terrorist attack on New York City, which, again, 'No one could have predicted it.') The price tag for this disaster will easily be 100 times what better protection and prevention would have cost, and that's just early estimates on how the economy will react. And I must offer at least one statement to 'big oil': these are the biggest looters of all, as their $1-$5 million gifts to the Red Cross are but a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they will rake in as a result of this tragedy.

I've rambled enough. My heart still breaks for all who suffer, for those who have lost loved ones and for those who have lost their whole livelihood. But it boils at the level of incompetence that has been displayed from the very top, and there is no doubt in my mind that no one deserves as much blame for the continuing tragedy as President Bush.

Now, a little faith context is appropriate:
The Old Testament calls us again and again to take care of the widows, orphans, and foreigners (strangers) among us: these are the people who had the least means for taking care of themselves. Jesus made this calling the heart of his ministry. Who was left behind as hundreds of thousands fled the storm? The elderly, the sick, the homeless, and thousands of working-poor who don't have a car, couldn't afford gas or a bus ticket or any other way out. For a 'Chrsitian nation,' we have a lot of work to do. Personal piety is not enough. Jesus made it his mission to break down barriers of class, wealth, and ethnicity as he worked to heal and set free. He challenged both the imperial powers that reigned in his time and also the complacent religious leaders of his day who were satisfied with their own self-gratification but turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of their people. I should add that it is absolutely absurd and a grievous sin to declare that this storm was in some way a punishment from God: no, it only had the effect of highlighting the sins of humankind - our selfishness, greed, our lack of mercy, shortage of justice, and failure to walk faithfully with God in times of great need. There is one school of Christian thought which says: the focus is on getting myself to heaven with Jesus. There is another faith that says: we have a responsibility to work with Jesus/God/Holy Spirit on realizing heaven here & now, and that ain't none of us gonna get there unless we all get there together. Guess which one I hold as a more authentic faith? Jesus Christ fought against the neglect of the poorest and neediest while releasing those people from such bondage. We are free people, beneficiaries of Christ's grace, blessed to reach out while we reach up. It's time we started acting like it.