Using the Internet to pick up, er, friends?

Talked to a friend yesterday about online chat. We did our fantasy football draft in a chat session and he said he had avoided them in the fear that some stranger might abduct him. Well, not really. But it was funny. I talked him through the chat session and he did fine (except for drafting some Arizona Cardinals).

But his joke reminded me of the almost paralyzing fear that some people had regarding meeting people online. The strangers and the abductions and the nefarious activities: all the kinds of things my family still fears about the internet. And there is certainly some peril out there for the uninitiated.

So we had lunch with some new friends--friends that we met on the internet. This was a first for all of us, I believe. They are bloggers too (and here), and after exchanging emails and comments and recognizing that we all live reasonably close to each other, we decided to meet face to face. We chose a restaurant equidistant (roughly) and set the date and time.

Wow.

Little nerve-wracking at first.

But then, damn cool.

After all, it isn't every day that you go on a blind, er, lunch date with two other couples. I know that sounds weird, but accurate. And it was a great experience. Funny and interesting people are usually good lunch partners. And that proved to be the case here.

So nice to find people in this area who are asking many of the same questions and who share some of the same frustrations. People who share similar values about justice and peace (even if some flirt with Nader!) :)

Nice to know that we are not alone out here in the Oklahoma wilderness. So, thanks to new friends.

Swift Boat charges falling apart
These guys have certainly gotten a lot of press with their accusations that Kerry lied about his vietnam experience. Finally the media appears to be doing its job.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

and then:


Chicago Tribune | Anti-Kerry vets not there that day: "But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."

Steve Earle

Coming next Tuesday is the release of a new Steve Earle album called "The Revolution Starts Now." For those who haven't heard him, he is a very interesting guy with a fascinating past. He has put out a lot of albums over the years from hits like "Copperhead Road" to a just fabulous album called "Transcendental Blues" to the controversial "Jerusalem" that included the controversial "John Walker's Blues" about American Taliban John Walker Lindh. He is also a fantastic song writer, great singer and musician.

He has been to prison, is a recovering drug addict and has become a staunch anti-death penalty crusader. In a recent Onion (yes, the Onion) interview, he spoke about his stance:

O: What about the criticism that you're more sympathetic to killers than to victims?

SE: Well, I'm not. Just look at my record as an activist. My main area is the death penalty, but I've done most of my work with Murder Victims' Families For Reconciliation and Journey Of Hope... From Violence To Healing. The idea that murder victims' families are best served by continuing the cycle of violence is something that I consider to be not only a lie, but criminally negligent. You lie to victims' families when you tell them they're going to receive closure if they participate in the process and witness the execution of a human being. I've witnessed the execution of a human being. This is not an abstract for me. I promise you, it isn't going to heal anybody. I'll never recover from it. It's incredibly irresponsible to allow victims' family members to witness executions.

Anyway, his new album comes out this Tuesday. I hope people vote with their feet just like they have with Farenheit 9-11 and buy this album. Show Toby Keith that he isn't the only picture of a modern American. BTW, in another interview, Earle watched as his dog Beau (a Blue Heeler! Wonder if Streak is related) gets sick during a taping. The dog had swallowed a tennis ball and had to have surgery the next day (he was fine).

Sucking on a cigarette, Earle says, "I can deal with losing girlfriends." He has been through six marriages with five wives. But, he adds, "there are two things I won't be able to stand: losing that dog and seeing Bush reelected." He tosses the cigarette and heads back into the booth.

Anyway, go order the album. Now.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > White House Letter: On the Road, Bush Fields Softballs From the Faithful: "'I'm 60 years old and I've voted Republican from the very first time I could vote. And I also want to say this is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House.''"

Wow. What kind of theology is this? Don't misunderstand me, I would find it equally offensive and stupid if it the recipient was Bill Clinton or anyone. What a positively moronic thing to say.

The second part of why this is moronic is the farce the Bush Campaign puts out there in the guise of public dialogue. I understand it. No one wants to have a hostile question or shouter. But that is our democracy. We disagree on lots of stuff. And pretending that we don't is disengenuous and even dangerous. Easy to make the leap from there that those who disagree are simply out of step and possibly subversive. Don't laugh. We have done it before. Free speech and dissent are not guaranteed. They are if people follow the constitution, but they don't always. A prof of mine reminded me once that when the people have to choose between freedom and chaos v. order and repression they will always choose the latter. They will always be willing to trade their freedom for a sense of order.

Whew!

Politics, loyalty, and stuff

I watched John McCain the other day chide the Swift-Boat Veterans for Trooth about their ad against Kerry. McCain called the ad dishonest and dishonorable and also suggested that this was the very same stuff they did against him in 2000. They, being the Bush people. They, who push polled South Carolinians about McCain's "black" baby (They adopted a child from Bangladesh, I believe) to remind the state's racists that they needed to be careful who they elected. They, who ran ads challenging McCain's patriotism even though he spent years in a POW camp. Evidently, by allowing himself to be captured, he was dishonoring the brave Cheney's (had better things to do) and Bush's (I served, I served, I served, but those records were destroyed).

Then, McCain is seen around swing states introducing this guy! What gives? McCain is supposedly not fond of Bush personally (who can figure that?) and has been openly dismissive of the administration (he was the one who said Bush spent more money than a drunken sailor). Yet, here he is endorsing this guy for president. Does Bush have pictures of McCain? Or, as many bloggers have pointed out, is McCain really not what many Dems wanted him to be and is instead a hard core conservative.

The answer is probably both (not the pictures). I think McCain hates Bush and loathes his policies. But what happens if McCain endorses Kerry? What happens to any Republican who crosses the line? They might be voting their conscience at that moment, but are risking their entire future in their party of choice. Makes me a little sympathetic for all those Republicans who are endorsing Bush through clenched teeth. I wonder how many of them will vote in secret for Kerry? That is, unless they signed that loyalty oath to see Dick Cheney..........

I think I am getting old

So, I have the Tivo, did I mention that? I am in the tv room watching King of the Hill. I had been working in another room with the computer and music going. Now I am watching the Tivo and start to get annoyed about the definite sound of bass coming from behind my house. Damn kids. I did the fist shaking and the swearing. Have always found it annoying when people play their stereo so loud that it interrupts my tv viewing.

Then it dawned on me. The bass was coming from my own computer. Damn kids.

The Olympics, or What is an American to do?

Those who know me are aware that I am not a fan of the Olympic games. I think they peaked with the Cold War battles between the US and Soviet athletes. Now, we make up rivalries between the Australian and American swim team, or turn to the women's gymnastics team to foster memories of Mary Lou Retton. And, I might add, the games have become huge money makers and are far more about the money than any sense of global unity or peace. Perhaps that has been true for a while, I don't know.

So, despite my opposition, I actually sat down and watched a little of the games. With the variety of channels, we have been trying to catch things like Olympic badmitton (????) or Table Tennis. I actually started cheering for the women's sand vollyball team, well, maybe for different reasons. I have to concede there are some great stories at the games. Martina Navratalova playing at 47 is kind of cool. And I know there are great stories of people who work their asses off at other jobs while they train for a sport that only seem to count at these games. So, those are cool.

But the stories that dominate the games? Michael Phelps and the so-called "Dream Team" men's basketball. Phelps is a swimming freak and was hoping to win a new record for individual medals. As is the norm, we had to suffer through the human interest stories about these athletes and so learned a little more about Phelps, the swim freak. Turns out he seems like a teenage jerk, who's big lesson from international competition has been that when he breaks a world record, he gets to buy something extravagant, like a "tricked out" Cadillac Escalade. No sense of global responsibility here. But, to be fair, he may have actually learned the lesson of the modern Olympic games--money rules!

And then we have the men's basketball team. Beaten to a pulp by Puerto Rico. And this was not a new trend. Beaten in preliminary play by Italy, and needing a miracle shot to beat a German team that didn't even qualify for the Olympics--we were not terribly surprised to see them lose to Puerto Rico. And yes, the team doesn't have its best playing, blah, blah, blah. But count me among one of the observers who are tired of the "Dream Team" crap. Kind of glad they lost. Maybe they will learn a little humilty--that used to be one of the things you were supposed to learn in sports.

ABCNEWS.com : Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape: "But on Tuesday, two senior officials expressed dismay that the arrest of Khan made it into the media too soon reported first in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to journalists by U.S. officials in Washington.


'Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away,' one of the Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity.


National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington 'on background,' meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it."

Hmm. So, let me see if I understand this. Our current administration is running on the claim that they are best suited to secure us from terrorists. Yet, to bolster their political stance they essentially broadcast an undercover operation in process that stopped us from capturing more people. This was a purposeful decision by the most secretive administration in recent memory--and yet there is no outcry. Why? Had this happened under Clinton, we would have multiple investigations and possibly an impeachment call. And this is the second time that the White House has imperilled our national security for purely political means (the invasion of Iraq doesn't count) when someone leaked to Bob "John Kerry has a lot of splaining to do" Novak the identity of a CIA AGENT WORKING ON WMD!!!!!

Yeah, Bush makes me feel real secure.

the parish: It Appears I am a Secular Humanist...Alas

Greg scored in the Secular Humanist zone, while I, apparently, am a Socialist. I didn't realize that and am grateful to the good folks at Worldview Weekend for pointing this awful truth out to me. Maybe there is something I can take for it. I wonder if I eat the Bible if that will help?

Very interesting test, btw. Here is a sample question (one that I failed miserably, btw):

When you study the Bible as a whole, it becomes clear that God is very supportive of an economic system that is based on private property, the work ethic, and personal responsibility.

Most of the others were just as bad. One other comment (kind of a spoiler for the quiz) is that their "correct answers" were always either strongly disagree or agree. No room for nuance in this worldview. No room to suggest that perhaps there are merits to a capitalist economic system, but many problems as well. No room to talk about the merits of government, not as a source of wealth, but as a powerful force that can assist business and also protect consumers. No room for gray at all. Black and White. Off and On. Right and Wrong. Binary thinking.

Pass.

Yahoo! News - Bush Listens to Sermon on Material Wealth
: "The Very Rev. Martin Luther Agnew preached Sunday to a packed Episcopal church just down the road from the Bush family's seaside estate. Its oceanfront parking lot was filled with luxury cars made by Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo, testament to the wealth of the summer visitors at this southeast Maine resort.

'Gated communities,' Agnew said, 'tend to keep out God's people.' But, he said, 'Our material gifts do not have to be a wall.'

'They can very well be a door. Jesus says, `Sell your possessions and give alms,'' Agnew said. 'I'm convinced that what we keep owns us, and what we give away sets us free.'"

Indeed. This speaks to a very interesting trend in protestant theology where greed has been exised from the faith. I suspect that the Bushes did not expect to be chastized for wealth, or more accurately, to have their wealth challenged. Churches simply don't do that. Class warfare and all that. Plus it implies that God doesn't want Americans to be wealthy if they work hard enough, right? Isn't that somewhere in the Bible?

I am not completely sure where this comes from, but suspect that whatever started it, the damn burst during the Cold War when criticizing capitalism was tantamount to agreeing with the Soviets and their God-less communism. In any result, the only sins we talk about anymore are those of the sexual or personal nature. Don't do drugs, don't have an abortion, don't have sex outside of marriage, and for Pete's sake, don't be Gay! Follow those rules and you are close to being a sin-free Christian! Well, not sin-free. You might still gossip and not study the Bible enough, but you will consider yourself more moral than the "world" as you drive through it in your Suburban to your Gated Community where your 4,000 square foot house (has two air conditioners) sits next to the other non-sinning protestants.

Iraq Seeks Arrest of Ahmad Chalabi (washingtonpost.com): "Iraq has issued an arrest warrant for Ahmad Chalabi, a former governing council member, on money laundering charges and another for Salem Chalabi, the head of Iraq's special tribunal, on murder charges, Iraq's chief investigating judge said Sunday."

This appears best sorted in the "what were we our leaders thinking?" file. Remember Chalabi? The guy sitting right next to Laura Bush at the SOTU? Remember the guy that Bush soon after tried to act like he didn't know? Well, he is being charged in Iraq with counterfeiting, while his nephew is charged with murder. Of course, it might be as Ahmed says, a politically charged sting, but it isn't like the guy is new to the world of fraud. Our leaders should have known that the CIA didn't trust this guy because he was widely known to be a problem. But our leaders, led by Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney, all loved this guy.

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb: "Bush’s words may be semantically secure, but his intent has always been to mislead."

Matt Yglesias has some thoughts on how Bush and his handlers say things that are technically true but actually misleading. Gives him some measure of plausible deniability, I guess, but it still stinks. It stinks in the way that Clinton was savaged for the same behavior with lower stakes.

Sometimes I really wonder about Bush's appeal. Do people really like his facade of steadfastness? Do they really think that their economic future is better off with this guy? What about security? Saw Marc Racicot on cnn this morning defending the Prez and attacking Kerry. Kerry, he noted, was impossible to understand because his message changed so much (big flipflopper) while the President, he noted, was still clear. Even with what he knows now about Iraq and WMD, he would still invade Iraq!

Now, I understand that the pundits and Bush's own people would stroke out if he actually admitted a mistake, and it would play badly with his base if he said that given what he knows now, he would have pursued a slower course in Iraq. But give me a break! We know that Iran (that's and "n") actually assisted the 9-11 hijackers, and, oh right, it is Iran who has a growing nuclear program, and, oh right, Iran that benefits greatly from destabalizing Iraq. I am not saying we should have invaded Iran instead, but how do you look at this situation and not have a trace of humility?

Shame on Bush for his obstinant flipflopping, and shame on the American public for encouraging it.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Home

Eric Muller continues his thoughtful dissection of Michelle Malkin's polemic.

The Washington Monthly

Kevin at the Political Animal points out that the Bush people might want to ask the Swift Boat Morons for Trooth (as Fafblog put it) to shut the #$%& up. Shut the #$%* up. After all, the more time we spend looking at Kerry's record from the 1970s, it become more and more relevant to ask where was George? Do the American people really prefer a guy who pulled strings to get into the guard and then didn't even fulfill that duty while on the other hand a young man of priviledge volunteers for service, volunteers for dangerous duty and then has the gall to speak out against the war?

I, for one, just don't get it. Paint Kerry as negative as you like for speaking out against the war, say that his purple hearts were for superficial wounds--that other people didn't get medals for the same kind or even better acts of valor--say it all. How is that still worse than a guy who cares so much about his country he won't even fulfill his Guard duty?

JuliusBlog

This is a timeline comparing Bush's poll numbers and terror alerts. Suspicious timing, for sure. Former President Clinton (I miss him) was on Letterman the other night, and as I noted in a previous post, he said this recent alert was a result of the administration playing it straight. But all those other times make this one suspicious. I am beginning to think that all of those things the rest of us learned in kindergarten--you know, about boys and wolves, and being nice to others, and not invading countries--Karl Rove, George Bush and Dick Cheney just didn't learn. Maybe Cheney had better things to do. Maybe we should look for those school records for Bush (hope they weren't destroyed), and I think we all know that Rove was out in the playground spreading rumors about the other kids and their military records, alliances with people of color, stuff like that.

World O'Crap: "Dennis Prager

Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children.

That is why liberals do not generally want children to call adults 'Mr.' or 'Mrs.'  Such titles render adults distinct from children.

Prager's column was indeed bizarre and argued that the Democrats desire to not distinguish children from adults led them to have this little girl chastize Cheney for his language. And how dare they, noted Prager, since:"Of course, this girl has accomplished nothing compared to Dick Cheney" said Prager.  So, World O'Crap suggested we compare the various accomplishments/attributes of the little girl v. Cheney.

But just to be fair, maybe we should compare their accomplishments:


                                                        Girl           Cheney


Served in Viet Nam                          No               No


Promoted false al Qaeda/Iraq ties   No               Yes


Taken in by Chalabi                          No               Yes


Seems likable                                    Yes              No


Conflicts of interest re Halliburton      No             Yes


priceless. Also note that many of the same people who loved Cheney having the moral fiber to tell Leahy off were shocked, shocked that Theresa Heinz Kerry would tell someone to "shove it." I am at least consistent here. I have said that Cheney's utterance to Leahy almost made me respect him. Almost. 

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad: "Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, ``I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt.''"


John! I hope you were kidding when you said that. Or had tongue firmly in cheek. What about the Bush administration and previous campaign tactics would lend you to say that?

McCain called the recent ad saying that Kerry was unreliable in Vietnam "dishonest and dishonorable," and noted that none, that is none of the individuals in the ad actually served with Kerry. Put this in that big file called "Whatever it takes to get Elected."

History, Internment, Racism and Celebrity

Much has been written about the blog world lately. Critics say that bloggers, since they are not real journalists, they don't have to fact check or use real sources or stuff that real journalists do. Of course, the real journalists don't seem very good at those things either. Else we might have had more critical questions of our WMD-induced war.

But back to the blog world and how this unique forum can really make a contribution. And also back to the celebrity of "journalism." Michelle Malkin, for those unaware, is a very conservative columnist who's views are routinely posted on townhall.com and she frequently appears on Fox (natch). Her fame supports my observation that the media is not really either liberal or conservative, but is drawn to the stupid and the loud and the pretty. Malkin isn't stupid. But she is loud and decent looking. Shrill works where facts and measured discussion fail, or that is how our modern world seems to work. So, in the vein of Ann Coulter attempting to redeem McCarthy, Malkin has decided to redeem and justify the Japanese Internment with a new book. She argues, from what I can pick up, that internment evacuation was justified not on racist terms, but because the government had ample evidence that the Japanese government was actively recruiting people of Japanese ancestry to work for the Emporer against the US.

The good part of this little story is that this incendiary book is bringing out some really good blogging that underscores what this medium can accomplish. The bad part is that it gives Malkin more publicity, and given the politics of celebrity, that means more sales and more sense of justification for her.

But back to the bloggers. Eugene Volokh's Volokh Conspiracy, provides a great (moderate) commentary on law and politics (he is a professor of law). He has invited Eric Muller (another law prof) of Is that Legal (another blog) to guest blog on Malkin's book. Muller brings expertise to this issue, having published a book on Japanese American draft resisters in World War 2, and let me say that I have found this entire discussion fascinating. This is exactly the kind of discourse that we need. Not Malkin, of course, but the others are countering this incindiery book with facts and thoughtful rebuttal. Read Muller here for part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 or what he calls Part 4, the Robinson Rebuttal where he cites Professor Greg Robinson's cogent review of Malkin, part 65. And by all means read David Neiwert's take on the book here.

All of these point out just how flawed Malkin's methodology and reasoning are in this book. Turns out that the Japanese government did, of course, try to cultivate spies inside our country, but they tried to recruit both of Japanese and non-Japanese heritage, which might have justified the internment of all of California.

Malkin wants us to be able to discuss internment without political correct lenses, but of course, she really wants us to be able to discuss racial profiling and possible internment of Arab Americans. But, by all means, let's discuss internment openly. I think the facts will show that it was a mistake and a racist policy that did little to make us safer.

But, finally, let's hear no more of the blog bashing....

Just the politics, please

In an attempt to manage between spamming my friends and going crazy with this administration, I am hoping to vent my rage in planned and measured outbursts rather than holding it in and taking it out on Streak's other friends.

So, a few news and notes.

First, it appears that one of the Republican fundraising and newspaper supporters is a traitor. That's right, the crazy and moronic Reverent Moon evidently helped North Korea obtain old nuclear submarines. Where is the outrage from George and his buddies? Why, oh why does the American people stand for this kind of stuff?

Second, speaking of FOB's (Friends of Bush), there is Katherine Harris, of Florida election fame. Now, a sterling Representative from that state (undoubtedly helping the mascara industry) Harris made a speech where she quoted a mayor from a town that had had uncovered a plot to blow up that town's power grid. Funny, but the mayor knew nothing of the sort. Then she said that it was still true, but was classified...not for her, of course.... Turns out it wasn't classified or correct.

Third? Yes, there is more. Our Veep, the estimable Richard "Dick" Cheney spoke in Albuquerque last week to a crowd of well-wishers. Not a dissenting voice to be heard. Well, actually, not a dissenting voice even allowed near. To get tickets, people had to sign a pledge that they supported the President and VP this fall. Add to that the free speech zones (no, the entire country is NOT a free speech zone) and this administration starts to take on a really bad vibe. I don't want to say goosestepping, but jeesh! Hell, if they can say I am unamerican, then I get to say they lean toward the fascist side of politics. Well? If you control the news, limit dissent, and make rulings in secret, what do you call that?

Fourth. After Tom Ridge's annoucement this week (as Letterman put it: "Hold on to your wigs and keys") we dealt with the whole fear that this administration has so politicized Homeland Security that these terror announcements are politically timed to discredit or distract the opposition. Truly disturbing allegations, and it should be noted, the former President Clinton said that the administration was playing it straight. But the administration has some credibility problems. Pandagon (damn fine blog, btw) noted this little gem:

Pandagon: Completely Divorced From Politics, You Betcha: "Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month."

See? No politics going on here. Just as they used the budget last February to publish campaign photos of Bush being "presidential" they are politicizing even our security. Add to this the Bush tactic of asking churches to provide their rosters to help the campaign, and I think we have a full folder called "Will do anything to get Elected!" That last thing made Richard Land mad. And his voice is usually muffled and hard to hear since he is speaking from inside the President's ass!

Ok, and now last something positive. Really. (At least for me.) Bruce Springsteen (yes, the Boss) is speaking out on the political election. And will be singing out in a tour with other lefties (or people just left of Bush). He argues, and I think this is a good argument, that people criticize artists and celebrities for speaking out on politics, but corporations also speak out and often for the conservative side. Artists have their own right to speak, and yes, to be criticized for it. But this is what Bruce wrote about America:

It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. (Thanks to Obsidian Wings)

We really can do better. I don't know about the Dems recent campaign themes, but let me say that I "Hope" that "Help is on the way."

John Kerry and stuff

I haven't blogged in a while. We were out of state for my grandmother's memorial service. It was a good thing, though fraught with other emotional family issues. Still glad I went, but came back completely exhausted.

Missed most of the DNC convention, which is just fine with me. As my friend Anglican notes, these conventions have a weird vibe to them. A little too reminiscent of revivals and other crowd manipulations. But I have read a bit about speeches here and there. Liked Clinton's acknowledgement that he is now a millionaire and has benefitted greatly from Republican policies. Nice touch. Like everyone else, was impressed with what I saw of Obama's speech. Like others, I am increasingly disgusted by the media and their inability to cover anything. Jon Stewart had a great bit the other night on how the media covered the Sharpton speech--including Howard Fineman charging that Sharpton was alienating black people. It was just stupid, and you realize just how horrible it is that these media people are celebrities. Hell, give me some of the celebrities. I am far more interested in hearing what John Cusack thinks than what Chris Matthews thinks.

So, Kerry. I watched it last night. First speech I have watched from beginning to end. I loved it. I thought he said all the things I wanted to hear. I liked that he said "reporting for duty" at the beginning--a clear reference to Bush and his "drinkfest through the National Guard." He was engaging, animated, and intense. And articulate. Is it too much to want a president who values reading? Who can put an argument together? Who is interested in ideas?

Positive Liberty: The Question: "At just about every cocktail party I've ever attended with non-historians, I get.... The Question:

'So, what do you do?'

'I'm a historian,' I say.

They make a face. It could hardly be worse if I'd said I was a dentist.

'I hated history so much in high school. And you know? I didn't have to take history at all in college.'"

Ah yes, the question. Otherwise known as the preface to the "what can you do with a history degree" question. In my experience, the revulstion expressed above is less common than the feigned interest followed by the lecture on some point of history. I remember an exchange with a family member on some historical issue.

[Me] "and the historical consensus is such and such."

[relative nodding head thoughtfully] "I don't know if I buy that."

It isn't that the Ph.D. makes me above reproach or means that I know everything. God knows that I don't, and I am more aware of what I don't know than what I do. But what makes non-historians so aware of the issues that they can either accept or reject? Do they talk to the cell biologist the same way? The engineer? Do they engage system administrators on the differing effectiveness of Solaris v. Linux?

Why are they so very ready to reject my interpretation of the American West?

BillOReilly.com: Articles - The Price of Freedom: "And the verbal violence on display daily by partisan fanatics is growing more despicable by the moment. Michael Moore and his acolytes hide behind the 'dissent' label, but they are not dissenters, they're destroyers. Moore has been quoted as saying capitalism is 'diabolical,' even as he trucks his millions to the bank. By the way, did you know that associates of Hezbollah want to help distribute Moore's movie in the Middle East? What does that tell you?"

Hmm, Bill. I believe that these same people loved Mel's Passion movie too. Hmm. Does that make Mel Gibson part of the Fifth Column? I never trusted that guy.

The truth is that America is a great country striving to protect itself in an ungrateful and dangerous world. We, the people, have sacrificed blood and money so others could have a chance in life. Yet many teenagers in Canada are convinced we are an evil nation. The powers-that-be in Canada should be ashamed that their young people are so ignorant but I know they are not. Ignorance, you see, is most often a contagious disease."

You all know people like this. They are never responsible for anything. The people who dislike them are just jealous and ungrateful. People like O'Reilly make America that kind of bully and jerk--the guy who pushes everyone around and then is shocked, SHOCKED, when someone doesn't like him.

The sad truth is that we are a great nation--despite people like O'Reilly and his buddies at the F-word network. We do a lot to help people around the world and can do even more. But we have also made some pretty serious errors in judgement and have succombed to greed and arrogance more than once. Some people undoubtedly hate us because they are jealous, but many hate us because we have bombed them or exploited them.

Lancaster Online.com: News : Bush quietly meets with Amish here; they offer their prayers: "At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.’’"

This bugs me. I don't have a problem with politicians having or expressing their faith. But believing that as President, God speaks through him strikes me as problematic. Or worse.

oh good god

This is where a lot of the anti-gay stuff comes from, I am sure. so
glad the guy relies on teh Family Research Council for his facts. It
has "research" right there in the name, after all.

Sampler:

> The common thread that ties these studies together is that not one
> produced any result that established a biological link to sexual
> orientation. What has been shown is that the most prevalent common
> denominators in homosexual orientation are dysfunctional relationships
> with the same-sex parent and early childhood sexual abuse. Three
> facts about homosexuality are indisputable:
>
> * There is no scientific evidence that supports the conclusion
> that homosexuality is inborn or that it is unchangeable.
> * A person can be seduced into the homosexual lifestyle.
> * A person can leave the homosexual lifestyle and live a fully
> productive and fulfilling heterosexual life, albeit not without
> difficulty, as with any life-altering addiction.


Really? One might add that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is learned behavior either. At least not that I am aware of. I am also not sure that the scientific lit supports the third claim that people can actually not be gay. The second point is probably correct, at least partially, in that youths who are sexually ambiguous and confused might "experiment" and so they might be the people that are used to support claim three. But those who are gay from birth aren't changing.

the historical stuff here is really inadequate as well. Sexuality is such a complicated idea, and for this numbnuts writer to say that because the word homosexuality was used in such and such a manner and didn't come into usage until the 1930s means that homosexuals don't actually exist, is ridiculous and stupid. And ignorant. and stupid.

There is a lot of stuff written on this subject, and the historical scholarship seems to suggest that the line between gay and straight was far more blurred in the 19th century--especially for women. Lot of evidence of women (with families and husbands) expressing love for other women in ways that would be clearly assumed as gay now, but was not then. It is in the early years of the 20th century when people started freaking out about the family that the lines become more rigid. And that family freakout occurred for a lot of reasons--immigration, birth control, changing roles for women, etc.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Butler condemns 'flawed intelligence': "Mr Blair today accepted Lord Butler's conclusions in full and admitted to the house that the evidence against Iraq was 'less certain, less well founded than stated at the time'. He accepted full personal responsibility for any mistakes made in good faith.

Mr Blair, who has previously admitted that WMD 'may never be found' in Iraq, said: 'It seems increasingly clear that at the time of the invasion Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy.'

However, he added: 'I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam.'"

I am not sure I accept Tony Blair's last statement, but believe he believes it. I am struck by the way that he admitted that he probably oversold the intelligence. Hmm. I wonder what his counterpart in the US did? You think he will say that he might have been less than rigorous? Or maybe overstated the threat? Highly doubtful.

ABCNEWS.com : Red Cross Fears U.S. Is Hiding Detainees: "The international Red Cross said Tuesday that it fears U.S. officials are holding terror suspects secretly in locations across the world.

The Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare require the United States to give the Red Cross access to prisoners of war and other detainees."

So what gives here? Does anyone really believe that this administration a) is above doing this and b) will respond to requests from the IRC? I imagine something like this going on:

[Administration lackey staffer]Mr. Vice President, the IRC is requesting assistance finding some prisoners that they haven't seen and don't know where they are.

[Vice President Cheney] Fuck the Red Cross pansies. Who are they to question us about anything? They should keep to ringing bells outside department stores.

[Lackey] That might be the Salvation Army.

[VP] Yeah? Well, they can fuck off too.

Hell if I know

Feeling a bit melancholy tonight. Not sure why. Maybe it is the reality of watching someone close to you go through a horrible experience--one that is mostly their fault. This is someone that 10 years ago, I would have called you a liar to your face if you had predicted this. Hard to tell about life.

Was on my own tonight. Made myself some dinner and watched a film: The Station Agent. This is a really good film. I don't know how to describe it and this isn't a review, but I really liked this film. About dignity, seeing life in a different way, and about suffering the indignity of stupidty. The main character is a little person, and one of the most compelling and interesting characters I have seen on film.

Life is a weird mystery. Watch this film. Connect to those around you.

the government

Was reading some blogs this afternoon. Brad DeLong has an ongoing discussion on why we deserve a better press corps. This morning, he talks about Grover Norquist's ability to push out the anti-tax message that says that we are working for the government until some made-up date. Delong points out that that government provides the police and fire and ems that protect all of us. That government provides roads, hospitals, libraries, etc. We don't work for them, they work (in a very positive way) for us.

I know that you all know that. I also had coffee with a colleague this morning and we talked about Reagan's funeral and legacy. He mentioned that one of Reagan's most negative "contributions" was this all-out attack on government. We all understand (and even agree) that government can be incredibly bloated and inefficient. I don't know anyone here who would like to see the government make cars, guns,
planes, etc. We all understand that the private sector, while having its own problems, is much better suited at creating goods at competitive prices and qualities. But the problem with the Reagan legacy is that he really downplayed and demeaned public service. I don't think that is a good thing for our democracy. I really am not comfortable with the idea of our best and brightest only going to serve in the private sector to make the highest return.

Anyway, I hope we can find a middle ground--one where we note the benefits of public service and even the good that government can do, while recognizing its limitations.

Tivo, Bush and Parliament

I have a Tivo now. For some reason last night, it decided that I might want to watch the House of Commons show on CSPAN. Who am I to question the wisdom of Tivo? Well, anyway, I watched. I had seen glimpses of it before, but never sat down and really watched. Amazing. Blair sitting down on the floor, receiving question after question--from health care to education, to prisoner rights in Gitmo, from AIDS to elections in Indonesia. He was masterful. He responded with clarity and on every occasion demonstrated that he knew what was going on in his government.

I couldn't help it. I imagined a Trading Governments show on the Learning Channel. Bush having to switch roles with Blair, and the show would be amazing too. I know, I know. It isn't fair to criticize Bush for being inarticulate. Blah, blah. He is smarter than he appears. Well, he would have to be, wouldn't he? Take away Blair's obvious charm and speaking ability and just imagine Bush having to answer detailed and confrontative questions from the House. Imagine him not being able to act insulted whenever someone doubted his intentions or questioned his policies. Imagine him having to counter with more than platitudes about "loving freedom," and "war footing."

It made me feel sad. It is as if we have returned to the monarchy days when the leader of our country is beyond reproach or question. One must not question him or hold him accountable. One should only believe that he has our best interest at heart. It felt sad that Britain had a better demonstration of democracy than we do.

Both of them

Or, aka, the braintrust behind this blog. Pictures of them makes me far happier than anything in the news.

102-0223_IMG Originally uploaded by streak541.

{if 0}

Posted by streak541 from Flickr.

{/if}

Obsidian Wings: Bringing in the Sheep: "I abhor mixing religion and politics. There are few things on this earth less spiritual than politics in my opinion and the closer the two come together, the more those in the church make bad decisions for their congregations."

I thought this was a good statement of why mixing church and state is so problematic. And we are seeing this--that the mixing doesn't really help either side. It confuses political situations when a ruthless thug like Tom Delay can be credited for being Christian--and it hurts churches who can't see the difference between their politics and their faith.

Streak's friend

While Streak is credited with his own blog, his good friend Alafair provides a lot of the inspiration and assistance. And she likes to nap.

102-0217_IMG Originally uploaded by streak541.

{if 0}

Posted by streak541 from Flickr.

{/if}

Cheney, swearing, and the Bush administration: "there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. Plame was outed in a White House attempt to discredit the finding of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me."

This Valerie Plame issue has been so unbelievable. Had this happened under Clinton, we would have heard immediate calls for impeachment, but under this administration, this is just called political. And by political, they mean the investigation, not the outing. The question this (and other things) raises for Bush supporters is, do you really think this administration puts this war on terror above politics? I don't.

Yahoo! News - Frist Won't Criticize Cheney for Cursing: "Cheney shot back an obscenity. He later confirmed to Fox News his use of the obscenity and said he felt better after saying it."


I have noted to friends that this is actually the first thing that Cheney has done that I like. But I really don't appreciate the hypocrisy of this administration. Evidently the only bad use of language is when critics of the administration use it. Just as everything else. It is fine for the administration to demean their opponents

Just read Pandagon and he said it all so much better than I could. Short version: fuck them, it is all ok. election year, emotions, we can say what we want! WooHoo!

Yahoo! News - Bush Says Europe Supports U.S. on Iraq: "'I wouldn't have made the decisions I did if I didn't believe the world would be better. Why would I put people in harm's way if I didn't believe the world would be better?' said Bush, who arrives in Ireland Friday night for a summit the next day with European Union (news - web sites) leaders.

Good Question. Why would you do that?

Bush was asked whether he was satisfied with the level of political, economic and military support coming from European nations in Iraq.

'First of all, most of Europe supported the decision in Iraq. Really what you're talking about is France, isn't it? And they didn't agree with my decision. They did vote for the U.N. Security (news - web sites) Council resolution. ... We just had a difference of opinion about whether, when you say something, you mean it.'"

Germany? What about the millions of Europeans that opposed the war?

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "America is no Christian nation and needs no theocracy,” said Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. “What we need is a stronger commitment to a high wall of separation between church and state, as well as fewer politicians and preachers preying on people of faith for their voters.”"

Exactly. What a concise statement of the problems of integrating religion and politics.

New Scientist: "Some dogs can predict when a child will have an epileptic seizure, a new study has revealed. These dogs not only protect their charges from injuries, such as falling, but also seem to help kids deal with the daily struggle of epilepsy.


Nine of the 60 dogs in the study (15 per cent) were able to predict a seizure by licking, whimpering, or standing next to the child. These dogs were remarkably accurate - they predicted 80 per cent of seizures, with no false reports."

this is just so damn cool!! Is there anything dogs can't do? Streak says "Nyet!"

Philadelphia Inquirer | 06/20/2004 | Editorial | Bush and Iraq: "First, preparation for the invasion's aftermath was tragically inept. That easily predictable failure has cost many Iraqis, Americans and others their lives.


Second, the prison abuses, which stem from poor planning for occupation and a bid to place U.S. behavior above international law, have lost America the moral high ground it rightfully occupied on Sept. 12, 2001.


Now, ask yourself, along with those 27 American diplomats and warriors: Have the last two years made America more secure, more respected?


The answer is obvious and appalling. The answer is no."

Finally, a paper that actually reports.

Jesus Politics: Jesus Gay Politics at the Southern Baptist Convention: "Gaines listed numerous problems and challenges being faced by America, such as terrorism, an uncertain national economy, finding a cure for AIDS, civil rights, global warming and nuclear disarmament.

'As important as these issues are, ... I believe they pale compared to two other issues that I believe will determine the future of America,' Gaines warned. 'I personally believe with all of my heart that the two issues that will determine what God will do not only with America but to America are abortion and homosexuality. ... America's economy and America's safety are more tied up with what's going on in those courts in Massachusetts than what's going on in Wall Street or over in Iraq.'"

This is really unbelievable. The SBC main sermon says that terrorism, global warming, nuclear war--all threats that pale in comparison to the threat from my gay friends.

Warblogging.com: Atrocity — Read in the White House: "The infidels who did this to Mr. Johnson must be tracked down, they must be tried, they must be brought to justice. They must be given no quarter, the Johnson family must get justice. These men who would do such things, they are not Muslims. They are not people of the Book. They are not civilized. They are not fit to be called human.



It may be too late for some of us, but do not allow your anger to get the best of you. That's why they do this. Al-Qaeda beheads these men because it knows that it will inflame America, and that America's angry actions will serve as recruiting advertisements for al-Qaeda.

We cannot fall into their trap any longer. We must react stoically, we must face their inhumanity with humanity. We must let their actions be a recruiting poster for America, not the other way around."

I think this right how we should respond. We should be outraged, we should seek justice, we should seek these people out. We should not over-react as that is exactly what the terrorists want. They would love nothing better than more Abu Ghraib torture, or carpet bombs. They would love more bad from us, justified by their barbarism. We should not give it.

Yahoo! News - Pistons Rip Lakers 100-87, Win NBA Title
: "Without a superstar among them and without being given much of a chance, the Detroit Pistons humiliated the Los Angeles Lakers 100-87 Tuesday night in Game 5 of the NBA Finals for their first title in 14 years."

I must say this makes me smile a bit. It isn't just that I dislike the Lakers, but more that it makes a nice story that we all like. (And I am very aware of the irony of me cheering for a Rashaad Wallace team.) We like the underdog winning at least some of the time. I also kind of like the fact that the Lakers tried to buy another championship and it really didn't work out--though had Karl Malone been healthy, it might have been a closer series. In the same vein, I am kind of please that my Colorado Avalanche lost early in the playoffs after picking up two of the best scorers in the league. People looked at those pickups very similarly to the additions of Malone and Gary Payton to the Lakers. In both cases, we learned that in professional sports, players are not "plug and play." I like that.

Flag Etiquette: "The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the flag is not to be used. They are:

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.


When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously."

From Pandagon, a reminder that the flag burning amendment to the constitution is still lurking out there. But here, from the US Flag org are some guidelines for treating the flag, including this list of things you are NOT supposed to do with it. Anyone else wonder what would happen to political advertisement or pandering from either side if these were actually followed? Why is desecration only considered burning, while draping in the flag for political purposes is, what? Patriotic?

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News

Interesting little turn of events. The Feds prosecuted Terry Nichols and got a life sentence. That wasn't enough for the good people of Oklahoma. Justice, in their minds, meant some kind of horrible death. That was all regardless of the facts of the case, and the fact that the guy was already spending the rest of his life in jail. Well, now the good people of Oklahoma have spent millions of dollars to put a guy in jail who WAS ALREADY IN JAIL FOR LIFE!

Well done. Well done, indeed.

Jesus Politics: More on Ronald Reagan: "By 1982 California cities were inundated with homeless people, with more than 30 percent of them having mental disabilities. Turns out that Reagan, as governor, had pretty much dismantled the mental health system (among other things) in California.

As Reagan's social policies were implemented in the early 80s, the rich got richer and the poor got - well, precious little, if anything. One columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle summarized Reagan's policies as 'unleashing greed.'"

If that is the Reagan years, then how do we describe this administration? I think revising the term greed to that it is now a glowing positive.

washingtonpost.com: Legalizing Torture: "Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of 'organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.' What if the foreign interrogator of an American 'knows that severe pain will result from his actions' but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should."

This very clear editorial from the Wash Post lays it out there pretty well. Bush and his administration seem to have forgotten some of their own theology, in that they are supposed to treat others the as they might want to be treated. They don't do that.

Another blog noted that Bush's statements from the G8 summitt are not comforting. He claimed that his administration had ordered his people to follow the law. But they didn't follow the law and not just a few bad apples. So, is the President in charge?

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb

This is a wonderful little letter to Peggy Noonan written by Ronnie after a week in heaven.

President Jesus returns. Again

President Jesus returns
I have been reading Fafblog lately (it is the only source for Fafblog) and struck by just how damn creative this blog is. Meanwhile, mine continues to rant and angrily link to stories that make me angrily link and swear. So, I have decided to try and do a little more of my own brand of comedy. If you guys don't like it, you can watch cable news like the rest of the world. So, here is another episode of President Jesus.

[Remember that our President said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, so this series imagines Jesus (as Bush sees him, evidently) as President. Scene opens with President Jesus holding yet another press conference. (Oddly enough, President Jesus holds more of these than President Bush. Hmm. May have to add to the set budget.) ]

Reporter: Mr. President Jesus, how are you responding to the death of former President Reagan?

President Jesus: I am heartbroken, as would anyone who loses their father. But don't worry, I will be just like him in every way. Except acting with a monkey.

Reporter: Uh, your father? Oh well. Nevermind. Mr. President, there are a lot of other issues in the news. Can you address the supposed torture memo?

President Jesus: Let me just say that my administration hates torture. It is not the kind of America that I know and love. But we must also recognize that we are on a war-footing. We have to do what we have to do. We must act to stop the evil doers.

Reporter: Does that mean that America now uses torture in the war on terror?

President Jesus: No, it means that we have redefined what torture is. It is just like how we have redefined certain sins. You used to be able to sin with money and keep your clothes on. No more. Now sin only refers to the druggies, the fornicators and the sodomites and gomorrohites. Only sin you can do with money is to have sex with it, or buy a hooker. Same thing with torture. What we used to see as torture is now just talking. It used to be torture to stick a light stick up someone's rear, but now that is just a friendly discussion. Even if we kill them, that isn't necessarily torture. Hell, in Texas, we kill people all the time. Perfectly legal.

Reporter: Sin?

President Jesus: I just signed an Executive Order to recategorize sin to only include sex (like that horrible fellow before me) or doing drugs. Oh, and killing someone while having sex or doing drugs. That is a sin too. Getting rich is fine. Good. Great. Go forward and get rich. I think I said that before. Maybe in Matthew. I know I said that "blessed are the rich because they are so much like me."

Reporter: Mr. President Jesus, how do you explain your administration's relationship with Ahmed Chalabi?

President Jesus: Who, now?

Reporter: The guy your administration was paying over 300 thousand dollars per month.

President Jesus: Doesn't ring a bell.

Reporter: He was the guy who stood right behind your wife during the State of the Union.

President Jesus: What wife?

Reporter: Ok, on to a different topic. Mr. President Jesus, can you tell us why former Disciple Tenet is a "former" disciple?

President Jesus: Who now?

Prison Interrogators' Gloves Came Off Before Abu Ghraib : "However, the memos also show that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned the White House that a tougher approach toward interrogation 'will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practices in supporting Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general.'"

Once again, Powell comes across as the one voice of reason in an otherwise borg-like administration. The rest of the LA Times piece argues that Rumsfeld authorized harsh treatment starting with John Walker Lindh, and did so with an eye toward expanding the options for interrogations. All of that makes sense, I guess, in an us v. them world, but as is true with most decisions like this, they fail to take into account the complexities of the real world. You justify harsh treatment toward potential terrorists, but then because you don't really know who is the real terrorist and who is the guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, you mistreat them all (and let God sort them out, I guess). But instead of revealing the great intelligence you hope, you end up alienating those who just disliked us before and now who think there is no reason not to support terrorism or participate against us. And, as Powell points out, you endanger every future American captured either by terrorists or by just enemy states.

CJR Campaign Desk: Archives: "Even C-SPAN, which is basically a video transcript, is now found 'credible' by only 23 percent of Republicans, down from 35 percent in 1998."

This is really troubling. Has the mantra of "liberal" media been so loud that now actually viewing our process is considered liberal?

One good note here, is that even Republicans don't find Fox news that credible. They watch it, but don't believe it? I hope that is true.

LarkNews.com

should have read the Parish before my satire below. He links to Larknews.com, where they are doing this better than I can.

Recent events have inspired me once again to move to the fictional world--especially that which appears truer than life. I give you, the new Church:

Nashville, Tenn. (BP)--Baptist and other evangelical officials announced Wednesday that starting with the Reagan Funeral this coming Friday, business as usual in conservative churches was officially over. "We are hearing the clarion call of our Exodus brothers," said John Salem, "and will return the church to its true godly leadership." Salem said that after Friday, several landmark churches would rename themselves after the former President. Ronald Reagan First Baptist Church of Nashville would unveil their logo and flag first, followed by similar changes in Atlanta, and Fargo. "We know where our hearts are," said Salem, " and we can no longer act as if Democrats and liberals aren't going to hell." It was time for the church to speak the Biblical truth, Salem noted, and those changes would lead to a revival in the nation.

Salem also noted other changes pending for churches across the nation. Some, since all could not be RR churches, would be George Walker Bush Churches, or possibly the standard of the Republican Baptist Church would suffice. In other news, the churches were going to start recruiting corporate sponsorship. "We have been preaching the gospel of wealth and prosperity for a long time anyway," Salem said, "and it is time that our churches reflected that. Many of our parishioners are too busy building their own portfolio and wealth to spend time 'giving' at a local church. With corporate sponsorship, we can reduce the need for member gifts." Churches would include credit-card machines in pews, and start selling indulgences muffins and coffee to raise money. Other advances like online application forms (both for the Church credit card and health club), payroll deductions, and family friendly wireless internet access in churches were coming soon. Salem admitted that many churches would start including advertisements in bulletins and logos on church buildings, but claimed that was in no way a problem. "These people truly know that capitalism and democracy are based entirely on the Bible. It is time for the old thoughts about that to fade away." Salem lectured for a bit about history, noting that capitalism and government were problems when "not controlled by Christians, but now that they were firmly in the hands of the believers, there is no need to preach about accumulation of wealth. It is all God's, after all, and as long as it is controlled by his people, there is almost nothing you can't do with it. Except sex, of course, which is the hallmark sin of the church."

When asked why the changes happened, Salem noted the recent "outrage" over Abu Ghraib, gay marriage, and how godless Democrats responded to the holy leadership of George W. Bush. "Torture is perfectly justified when fighting against heathens and infidels," but gay marriage was "an abomination in the sight of God and the Holy Republican Party."

Recent events have inspired me once again to move to the fictional world--especially that which appears truer than life. I give you, the new Church:

Nashville, Tenn. (BP)--Baptist and other evangelical officials announced Wednesday that starting with the Reagan Funeral this coming Friday, business as usual in conservative churches was officially over. "We are hearing the clarion call of our Exodus brothers," said John Salem, "and will return the church to its true godly leadership." Salem said that after Friday, several landmark churches would rename themselves after the former President. Ronald Reagan First Baptist Church of Nashville would unveil their logo and flag first, followed by similar changes in Atlanta, and Sarrasota. "We know where our hearts are," said Salem, " and we can no longer act as if Democrats and liberals aren't going to hell." It was time for the church to speak the Biblical truth, Salem noted, and those changes would lead to a revival in the nation.

Salem also noted other changes pending for churches across the nation. Some, since all could not be RR churches, would be George Walker Bush Churches, or possibly the standard of the Republican Baptist Church would suffice. In other news, the churches were going to start recruiting corporate sponsorship. "We have been preaching the gospel of wealth and prosperity for a long time anyway," Salem said," and it is time that our churches reflected that. "Many of our parishoners are too busy building their own portfolio and wealth to spend time 'giving' at a local church. With corporate sponsorship, we can reduce the need for member gifts." Churches would include credit-card machines in pews, and start selling indulgences muffins and coffee to raise money. Other advances like online application forms (both for the Church credit card and health club), payroll deductions, and multi-media stations in churches were coming soon. Salem admitted that many churches would start including advertisements in bulletins and logos on church buildings, but claimed that was in no way a problem. "These people truly know that capitalism and democracy are based entirely on the Bible. It is time for the old thoughts about that to fade away." Salem lectured for a bit about history, noting that capitalism and government were problems when "not controlled by Christians, but now that they were firmly in the hands of the believers, there is no need to preach about accumulation of wealth. It is all God's, after all, and as long as it is controlled by his people, there is almost nothing you can't do with it. Except sex, of course, which is the hallmark sin of the church."

When asked why the changes happened, Salem noted the recent "outrage" over Abu Ghraib, gay marriage, and how godless Democrats responded to the holy leadership of George W. Bush. "Torture is perfectly justified when fighting against heathens and infidels," but gay marriage was "an abomination in the sight of God and the Holy Republican Party."

Yahoo! Sports - NFL - NFL won't throw flag at Parcells: "Bill Parcells won't be fined by the NFL for calling surprise plays used in practice 'Jap plays,' a remark for which he later apologized. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Tuesday that no action would be taken by the league against the Dallas Cowboys coach.

Parcells made the remark, an apparent reference to Japan's 1941 surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, while talking to reporters during the Cowboys' minicamp Monday. Later in the day, Parcells issued a statement apologizing.

'I made a very inappropriate reference, and although I prefaced it with the remark, 'no disrespect to anyone intended,' it was still uncalled for and inconsiderate,' he said. 'For that I apologize to anyone who may have been offended.'"

Yeah, good little lesson there. If you have to say "no disrespect intended" several times as you are saying something, maybe you shouldn't say it! What a moron.

COMEDY CENTRAL

Must see Daily Show Headlines where Jon addresses the President's lapsed memories regarding Chalabi. Come on, folks! How are you all defending this guy?

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Religion: "While a source of opportunity and progress, markets focus on monetary rewards, according to Ms. Blank. A greedy mindset can lead to ethical abuses in the market, she said.

Mr. McGurn, a Catholic, said he rejects the idea the market is based on greed. 'A God that designed wealth based on greed seems like a perverse God,' he said during the panel discussion."

This book looks interesting. These two debate the morality of the market, and at a glance, I agree more with Ms. Blank on this. She says elsewhere in the interview, that the market is based on different assumptions than faith.

As for Mr. McGurn's arguments, I hope he was misquoted. "A God that designed wealth based on greed seems like a perverse God." Begs the question, doesn't it? While at least conceding that greed is bad, he assumes that God designed the market. Since God couldn't design something bad, therefor it can't be greedy? What kind of effing logic is that? What about all the other options--most apparently that mankind developed the market?

Most disturbing for me is the realization that for most Christians, especially in the conservative evangelical set, capitalism is completely compatible with Christianity. The odd thing about it is that the market system is Darwinian--a philosophy that most Christians hate. It rewards the strongest, not the weakest. It rewards those who are first, not those who are last.

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "Hinkle said the public schools were in the beginning “thoroughly Christian.” Southern Baptists supported public education that emphasized “non-denominational Protestantism.” This arrangement, supplemented by Sunday school stressing particular doctrines of the various denominations, “proved satisfactory to Protestants and precluded the need for private schools,” Hinkle said.

But that all changed in the last half century, Hinkle wrote in a 3,200-word editorial blaming Southern Baptists for “50 years of sinful apathy” concerning the decline of public schools.

Hinkle blamed the National Education Association teachers’ union for pushing a “liberal, socialist” agenda, the U.S. Department of Education for removing schools from local control and federal courts for imposing the separation of church and state.

One little thing that is often ignored in this debate is the rest of the historical context of both public schools and the increased federal and judicial presence in local schools. For the creation, Baptists supported public education because it was not Catholic, and they welcomed a more secularized education setting. Now, however, that doesn't meet their purpose. Second, the increased federal presence also occurred because of a little thing called "civil rights" and the critics of federal oversight like to omit that. Absent a strong federal presence, we could easily have segregated schools and public places.

He specifically criticized the NEA-backed “values clarification” for promoting moral relativism.

“I am often perceived as being blunt with my opinions, so let me reinforce that perception,” Hinkle wrote. “The notion that truth is relative is straight from the pit of hell for it mocks the ultimate absolute Truth--Jehovah God and His inerrant, infallible Word.”

I like this too. I have heard for years about relative morality, and the secular humanists like myself who supposedly operate that way. The alternative, apparently, are fundamentalist Christians who address the truth of an issue regardless of how it impacts them. Right. Let me just say that I am unimpressed with that argument. I have watched conservative Christians oppose Clinton for one reason, then support Bush for a similar reason. I have watched them make excuses for greed and excess, while at the same time chastising the sexual sinners without compassion.

Hinkle also blamed advocates of gay-rights and sex education for “insidious indoctrination” to “a host of things” once thought of as unmentionable."

Yeah, like sex. Or like two loving women trying to make a life together.

Eden Collections.: "This beautifully hand painted angel is sure to bring patriotic sentiment to any home. Plaque displays the words to 'God Bless America' below a waving American flag. Display it proudly in front of your window or in your family room. Perfect for this upcoming 4th of July!"

This feels very similar to Mel's licensed nails. Query: is it patriotic to say God Bless America?

I recently viewed the Chris Rock "Head of State" film where Rock runs for President. His opponent ends all his speeches with "God Bless America. And no place else." That is how all of this feels to me.

Body and Soul: Politics and Poetry: "It is very hard to talk about the promise of America without falling into self-congratulation and delusions, or worse, into a sense of entitlement. The language has been sullied, maybe beyond cleansing, by too many speeches in which our 'values' are a nicely wrapped package we can hand someone else, or even force on someone who doesn't want them. America as an inheritence from a rich daddy, which allows you to take whatever you want, screw up repeatedly, and never pay for your mistakes, and still believe that your the best piece of work God ever created."

A real nice essay by Body and Soul on the tension between loving this country and being exasperated by its problems.

Historians vs. George W. Bush : "Several charges against the Bush administration arose repeatedly in the comments of historians who responded to the survey. Among them were: the doctrine of pre-emptive war, crony capitalism/being “completely in bed with certain corporate interests,” bankruptcy/fiscal irresponsibility, military adventurism, trampling of civil liberties, and anti-environmental policies."

Historians rate Bush at the bottom of the Presidents. Bottom. Compared with Harding. Though one called him "the best president since Clinton." That is funny.

I also liked this one:

"GRANT: “He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.”

“While Grant did serve in the army (more than once), Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. That means that Grant is automatically more honest than Bush, since Grant did not send people into places that he himself consciously avoided. . . . Grant did not attempt to invade another country without a declaration of war; Bush thinks that his powers in this respect are unlimited.”

Ted Rall online

Good cartoon.

It's a Crock!: "(Time) — When Saddam Hussein was rousted from his spider hole (he) was clutching a pistol. He is now in detention at an undisclosed location, being questioned by American authorities and awaiting charges for war atrocities and crimes against humanity. But what ever happened to the pistol?

The sidearm has made its way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sources say that the military had the pistol mounted after the soldiers seized it from Saddam and that it was then presented to the President privately by some of the troops who played a key role in ferreting out the old tyrant. Though it was widely reported at the time that the pistol was loaded when they grabbed Saddam, Bush has told visitors that the gun was empty—and that it is still empty and safe to touch. 'He really liked showing it off,' says a recent visitor to the White House who has seen the gun. 'He was really proud of it.'"

Ok, and I know that R will hate this, but I think that this has far more to do with Bush and Daddy than it does anything else. Think about it. Every time 41 comes to visit, 43 can show him his little memento of his successful attempt to unseat Saddam. "See Daddy, I am better than you."

On another note, it is just sick.

San Francisco Examiner: Last straw for art gallery: "A North Beach art gallery owner who has been attacked and threatened for showing a controversial painting of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners has decided to call it quits."

This is why we should all fear "patriotism." See how this has worked out? The actual abuse, torture and murder were just "hijinks" and "pranks" (Rush), or really only a problem because of digital cameras (Rummy). And now we blame, not those who created the environment for this kind of abuse, but those who comment on it. The media is to blame. And artists who might be disgusted by it are unamerican. Not the people who did it, mind you, but those who are disgusted by it. (Inhofe).

Quiz for Conservatives

As a so-called academic, I have a natural inborn need to occasionally test those around me. I try to repress this urge, but it has always been there, since youth. Others teased me and called me names, like "tester" and "quizzy" but I am what I am.

Anyway, here is a quiz for the conservatives. As a non-conservative, I watch our Prez stumble around and lose more and more respect for him. But that not necessarily fair. After all, I never thought that much of him. But you conservatives love this guy, so I thought now is the perfect time to assess (that an education term) your take on GWB.

Please answer the following question with regards to the listed events: "This issue/event makes me more likely/less likely/as likely to vote for GWB this fall."

Administration invades Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Blames CIA and also states that the intelligence was fine--that there areWMD in Iraq.

Administration outs a CIA operative--an act that would have had Clinton sent to Siberia--in pieces.

Long line of former administration officials write books saying that administration is not very good. In almost every case, administration says that these people unhinged and crazy.

Administration pledges to show Iraq and Arab world real America. Stands by while many high-ranking officers warn of prison abuses. Blames few bad apples, and fires no one over emerging scandal. Oh, and scandal also includes people beaten to death.

Administration key source in Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi, now accused of spying for Iran. CIA always thought he a big fat liar, but Bushies loovvee this guy. Now, Prez Bush says, "Chalabi? Who that?"

Take your time.

the parish: It's a Meal, Folks. A Meal!: "Catholics will view the withholding of communion as critical because the Eucharist has a salvific role. Protestants are so confused about what it is they can't even agree whether they should take it weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, or give up on it altogether. They withhold it out of ignorance in most churches on a weekly basis. However, once the idea that this is an extension of Jesus' mealtime fellowship with believers and unbelievers is introduced, we can dispense with the silly notion that ordination gives me the right to call some and not others to the table. The Lord extends an invitation to whomever is thirsty to come drink, and to whomever is hungry to come buy bread with no money (that's in the Bible). So, all you priestly types, try sitting down with your flocks and eating with them. Hell, try eating with unbelievers. They're good to be around. They keep your ass from puckering overmuch."

Damn! Well said, well said.

The Washington Monthly

this is a very interesting issue for the Bushies to defend. The other day, evidently, Bush was asked about Chalabi and his falling credibility. Bush asks "Chalabi?" as if, you see, he couldn't quite remember him. Then says some stuff about how he had met with him very briefly, you know, at the State of the Union, and perhaps one other meeting with other people.

Kevin Drum has a good accounting here of how Bush demonstrated a quick knowledge of the man during the Russert interview that also talked about relying on him for future Iraq. Oh, and that other thing? He stood right behind Laura Bush during the SOTU speech! Is Bush really trying to now say he never relied on this man for his invasion?

This just more proof that this guy has no character. He is incapable of acknowledging any mistakes.

CBN News - John Kerry's French Connection

See what the right is doing here? Kerry is to be faulted for not overtly claiming his French ancestry, but Bush is still thought to be a working class hick from west Texas.

SBC Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: Passing the baton of history: "The sins of America are many. Among the most blatant are the insistence on the right to kill pre-born humans, the protection of pornography and the legitimizing of perversion as normal and healthy. While these and other moral failings are signs that the United States is far from healthy, a more subtle sign could be just as telling.

In his book "When Nations Die," historian Jim Nelson Black cites 10 warning signs of a culture in crisis. Among the trends that indicate a society has stopped making history and is in the process of becoming history is ?the loss of respect for tradition.?"

Thanks to the Parish for pointing to this example of stupidity from the Baptist Press.

The stupidity is wide spread in this post, and Parish points to the obsession with the military as well as extending rights and recognition to gays and other minorities. I would like to point to a few other stupidities.

I love the fact that he bases this moronic column on someone he calls "historian" Jim Nelson Black. I did some google searching and except for being lauded by such luminaries as D. James Kennedy, and supposedly teaching at Dallas Baptist University, I can find no background on this guy. He evidently has a doctorate, but in what and from where I have no idea. But you can see how this works. People like this pastor would probably dismiss me as a part of the liberal elite and not take my Ph.D., in American history seriously. My analysis would be tainted by secularism, or beer, or my association with gays, or something. But that doesn't mean that thumpers like this guy don't respect academic authority. No sir! It just means that they look elsewhere until they find someone they can reference with the title "historian."

This guy has written a book called "When Nations Die." And how do nations die? Evidently, because they forget tradition. The good author of this essay evidently uses Black's book to support this, waxing all sorts of nostalgic over the issue of Memorial Day. He moans that "only 28%" of Americans recognize the significance of this day and takes it back to its roots in post Civil War America.

All of it is true, as far as it goes. But this just goes to show how bad some "history" is. This analysis (or should I say "analysis") misses the underlying sentiment of that Memorial day creation to heal the wounds of the Civil War. To do that, many from the North recognized that they would have to figure out a way to give the Southern fighters a pass. After all, these were traitors who had taken up arms against their own government. In a different reality, they could have all been imprisoned (or worse) for this crime. So, to give the South an "out," people started discussing the war as one fought honorably between honorable men over a difference of opinion. No where in this "memorialization" was the recognition not only of the treason, but also the odious institution that sparked such a vigorous revolution. No one wanted to recognize that Southern culture was so wedded to racial slavery that they were willing to rebel against their own country. (Yeah, yeah, I know there are other underlying reasons for the war. But take slavery out of the mix and convince me that southern crackers take up arms over Internal Improvements or tariffs.)

Anyway, back to this great memorialization. This was part and parcel of figuring out how to incorporate all these disaffected southerners back with a distrustful north. To do so, it became very convenient to romanticize the glorious war and the honorable Southern gentlemen and Southern (Moonlight and Magnolias) culture. Left out of this? Oh, right. The former slaves. Dammnit. Well, one way to do that was to buy the Southern argument for slavery and racial inferiority. So, as a result of memorializing the gallant (white) soldiers who died in this family dispute, blacks became violent and subhuman rapists (all over again) who really liked slavery.

Now, does that mean that Memorial Day is somehow racist? No, not necessarily. But this kind of history is dangerous. It exalts romantic nostalgia over the nuanced past. It allows greedy industrialists who exploited people and resources to become "captains of industry" and name colleges and universities after them. It allows the growth of the industrial revolution to become a time when people had a "work ethic" rather than a time of tremendous exploitation and abuse when children were put in mines and immigrants were exploited. Western expansion becomes the romantic wagon trains instead of the ethnic cleansing of California Indians.

We should be asking serious questions about our past, and that includes respect for those who gave their lives in battle. But it also means thinking about the black men and women killed in a rage of racism and fear. It also includes those people who put their entire lives on the line to oppose a war, not because they hated their country, but because they loved America and wanted it to reflect the ideals of a free and democratic society.

Anyway, this guy is a tool.

Eschaton: "As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the 'homosexual agenda' and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. "

A touching and angry letter from a woman tired of the attack on homosexuals.