Would Jesus Torture Someone?

I was reading some blogs the other day, and read a horrifying post at Obsidian Wings about our government wanting to export torture. We are not supposed to do it, even George Bush said so, but we are willing to legalize the process of sending people we can't torture to people who are more than willing to torture people. Here is more information about it. The argument seems to go the way of the ticking bomb scenario. Wouldn't you be willing to torture one person if that torture could save thousands of lives? Mark Kleinman has linked to a blogger who continues this argument by pointing to all the evil that is happening in Baghdad and other parts of the world. Hard to muster sympathy for people willing to do this kind of thing.

I am reminded of a story in the Dallas News from years back. Locals were shocked to find out that their neighborhood now included a sex-offender so some of the locals decided to send the message that they didn't want people like that around. Unfortunately, the guy they thought was a sex-offender was just a mentally challenged guy living at the wrong address. They beat him pretty badly. People said it was unfortunate, but sex-offenders shouldn't have rights. The irony of the fact that this guy wasn't a sex-offender seemed to miss their pea-sized brains. Our judicial system is not there to coddle the guilty, but to somehow determine who the guilty are. This story and the current one show the ignorance of most people regarding the judicial system. I think when most people complain about judges and the courts, they assume going in that the guilty are the only ones there. The fact that due process is there to insure that you and I are not wrongly convicted seems missing.

So, the above question should be rephrased. Instead, it should be "how many people are you willing to torture to get some information?" Or, "are you willing to torture people that might have information?" That is what happened in Abu Ghraib when some of the people tortured (remember, some of them were kids) were just neighbors of suspected terrorists. Oh well, they all look alike, right?

So where is our Jesus model here?

Can anyone imagine Jesus of Nazareth in a hot dark room. He isn't torturing of course, but is sitting over in the corner watching as the interrogators hook up the battery cables. Jesus turns away as the suspect screams in agony....

No! Of course Jesus would never do such things. So why are all his vocal followers so damn silent? Why are they supporting Republican leadership? Why do they support a Bush administration that can both denounce torture and look the other way while others do it.

WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. WE SHOULD GODDAMNED WELL ACT LIKE IT!!!!!

The Washington Monthly: "POLAND....During the debate John Kerry suggested that the war coalition wasn't really much of a coalition: only the U.S., Britain, and Australia. 'We can do better,' he said.


Bush, obviously peeved, snapped back, 'He forgot Poland.' My initial reaction was that this line was going to make pretty good joke fodder on late night TV (insert your own one-liner here), but Julian Sanchez at Hit & Run actually has the best response. Here's what President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland thinks of the coalition today: 'They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.'


Maybe Bush would be better off forgetting Poland too."

Debate conclusions?

I think Kerry did fine. Actually, I think he did better than that. Bush may not have lost any from his base, but I think there might be those in the undecided camp that found Kerry pretty strong on foreign policy.

Kerry, on the other hand, I think did a great job of invigorating his base. He may have singlehandedly stopped some of the hand-wringing that dems have been doing for the last month or so. We can win this, and this guy is smarter and better then their guy.

Bush lying continued and frequent

Of course Bush doesn't know what "pass the global test" means. He hasn't passed a fucking test in his life.

The Washington Monthly: "9:37 — Bush: 'You forgot Poland.' That line could end up as fodder for Leno and Letterman.

9:35 — Overall, Bush seems more defensive than usual tonight...."


Bush is such a liar. "You can't switch positions when you are fighting a war on terrah."

AND

perhaps the biggest lie of the entire Bush administration and one that keeps getting repeated.

"We will provide troops or remove troops when the generals on the ground say so."

This administration has never listened to the Generals on the ground.

Dirty goddamn rotten liar.

Dirty Rotten Liar continued goddamnit

BUSH CRITICIZES KERRY FOR NOT SAYING HOW HE WOULD PAY FOR HIS PROGRAMS!!!!

More dirty rotten lying

Have I said that I am not fond of Bush?

Live blogging continued

Not really news, but Bush is a big fat liar. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR.

"I didn't need anyone to tell me to go to the UN. I went there because I thought I needed to."

LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR. DIRTY ROTTEN MONKEY-LIKE LIAR. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR.

"We do have strong alliances!"

"We are keeping wmd away from terrorists."

DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR. LYING SACK. LYING SACK.

Damn, it is going to be a long debate.

Live Blogging

Best line for Kerry so far. "Bush didn't use American troops to kill Osama Bin Laden. He relied on Afghan warlords and outsourced that job too."

Obsidian Wings: Legalizing Torture

This blog entry discusses an effort in congress to legalize the practice of Extraordinary rendition," which, evidently, is the practice of sending suspected terrorists to countries that practice torture. Think about it. We are saying that it is wrong to torture, we badmouth terrorists for their extreme methods, yet we are willing to send suspects (not convicted or sure bad guys, but suspected) terrorists to a place where others will do the torture for us. Unbelievable.

Question: if you believe that killing is wrong, but put the object of your hatred in front of someone who is willing to do the killing, are you any less morally responsible?

I go back to one of my ongoing questions as well. This administration and the Republican dominated congress are big on their Christian faith. How does torture fit in there? It is one thing to believe that Jesus supports bombing efforts, but can you really see Jesus of Nazareth sitting in the corner while someone hooks up a Philistine to battery cables? Is Jesus the one smoking and smiling while the suspect shudders as the shock hits his body?

Our moral sense is fading and going fast. And it isn't the porn industry that is doing it. It isn't the liberal pro-abortion people who are doing it. It is the moral majority--family values crowd who are promoting, supporting, or tolerating the biggest moral relativism in recent memory. Someone in Bush's Justice office wrote a memo earlier this year justifying torture. Bush responded by saying hadn't read the memo (duh), but then appointed the memo writer to the appelate court.

Evidently, according to President Jesus, torture in the pursuit of global power is no vice.

I am sick to my very core.

To Debate, or not to Debate?

This appears to be a pivotal day in the Presidential election, yet I am unclear if I am going to watch or tivo King of the Hill. These debates are supposed to show us the candidates and their grasp of the issues. Yet, instead, we seem to get yet another "reality" show that isn't real. The candidates have negotiated and scripted so much of the debate that you wonder if any of this is real. Both sides do this, but there was one line I found the most telling:

"The biggest question mark had been the middle presidential debate, which could put Bush in the unusual position of facing questions from critics. Bush campaign aides had been reluctant to agree to the St. Louis debate, but with the president commanding a solid lead in many polls, especially in Missouri, they decided it did not present much risk.

Are you kidding me? This "democracy" and the leader of this "democracy" does not want to face questions from critics? How do the American people tolerate this?

Speaking of democracy, I am struck by the conversation over at the Parish where Greg's wife relates a story on how many fundys see the election. Concerns about life seem to be very limited to abortion and not reflective of other, very important moral issues.

This made me think of a story on NPR the other morning. Being one of the few "liberal" voices, they do periodic stories about soldiers killed in Iraq and interview their families. This one, as I recall, was a soldier from Oregon. His father spoke of the war in eschatalogical terms. He said it wasn't a war between Iraq and America The Coalition of the Willing, but a spiritual battle between God and, I guess, Satan. "The people who don't understand this, need to dig into their bible and read about it. It is predicted, it is predestined." The father goes on to say that his son knew that Bush was a devout Christian and understood that he needed to go because Bush understands this spiritual war that is going on. This struck me how that it took Bush's individual actions or character or choices or morality completely out of the equation. Bush then becomes God's man for the job--period. He is fighting some apocalyptic battle described in the Bible and so the fact that Bush doesn't act like a Christian is irrelevant. I am certainly aware that this family was speaking out of grief as well, and it would be much easier to address a loss that has a divine calling than a meaningless death in a hopeless war.

This (from Jesus Politics) goes along with this thread. We see a President who is more than willing to use and abuse his religious affiliation in any way possible to get elected.

Boston.com / News/ Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Kerry's Catholicism: "The Republican attack on Kerry's religion goes hand in glove with George W. Bush's exploitation of religion for narrow political purposes. Bush salts his public statements with religious references as a way ofpreempting challenge, a tactic one expects to see in the debate this week. If Jesus is his political philosopher, or if the heavenly father is his adviser on Iraq, then Bush has to explain neither his despotic politics nor his disastrous Iraq policy.

Bush sponsors 'faith based' social projects to disguise his agenda of dismantling structures of government that provide basic human needs. Bush cites religion as a way of justifying a politics of exclusion --wanting America to be a place that bans gay people, keeps women subservient, suspects religious 'outsiders' (whether Muslims or atheists). Such religion is the ground of the 'us versus them' spirit that defines Bush's foreign policy.

Bush uses religion to justify his penchant for violence, which is manifest in nothing so much as his glib use of the word 'evil.' Once an enemy is demonized, transcendent risks can be taken to destroy that enemy. We see this apocalyptic impulse being played out in Iraq today. If in order to obliterate 'evil' it proves necessary to obliterate a whole society -- so be it. A divinity seen as willing the savage murder of an only son as a way of defeating evil is a divinity that blesses an America that destroys Iraq to save it.

So will the debates matter? Will people really care if Bush is a fumbling, bumbling idiot or if he smirks and does that little shoulder shrug at all the inappropriate moments? Will people see God sitting smiling behind Bush? I don't get it. What do people see in this guy?

Twisting the Truth (washingtonpost.com):

"A very intelligent political reporter I know said the other night that Republicans simply run better campaigns than Democrats. If I were given a free pass to stretch the truth to the breaking point, I could run a pretty good campaign, too."

Exactly. When truth doesn't matter, Bush looks great.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible:

"The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that 'liberals' seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.


The mailings include images of the Bible labeled 'banned' and of a gay marriage proposal labeled 'allowed.' A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: 'This will be Arkansas if you don't vote.' A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians."

At least they admit it. But the question still remains: how do people of faith support this garbage? How do they nod while the GOP says directly that liberals can't be Christian?

A Meditation on Personal Violence

College football fans know that the nationally ranked Oklahoma Sooners dismissed one of their best players last week. He was, by all accounts, a great football player and a good student. But last week, he (and details are still pending or unclear) put a friend of his in the hospital. This event brought to light other similar events and revealed not a good kid who lost control, but one who has a history of off-field violence.

One of my good friends noted that he heard football fans discussing this case--but all from the perspective of the football player. The injured kid was ignored. I did some of that myself. But other events in my life (no details yet, at least right now) make me far more sensitive to the issue of personal violence. This event now seems far more troublesome from a societal perspective. It isn't just our President who jokes about violence. It is our entire culture.

Personal violence is a very powerful idea in American culture. I teach a course on Western Film and spend a lot of time talking about masculinity and violence. John Wayne's character in Stagecoach saves three bullets for his battle with the evil Plumber gang (they killed his pa). In My Darling Clementine Wyatt Earp faces down the evil Clanton's in a showdown--a test of personal masculine virtue. This theme is ubiquitous in Western film. To truly be a man, you must prove yourself in some kind of physical contest. Violence, and the ability to handle violence, is a good thing. When Jimmy Stewart's character in The Man who Shot Liberty Valance finally tires of John Wayne's bullying, he punches the Duke in the mouth--knocking him down. Wayne shakes his head and grins--later telling Stewart that he had thrown a good punch.

Yet in the real world, these things have real consequences. My brother once (many years ago) got into a fight with a man at a movie theater. My brother was not much of a fighter, and this was over the stupidest of things, but he pushed a little, and this person he didn't know hit him, and my bro spent the next few months eating through a straw. Over what? Nothing of significance, I can tell you. I relate that story in my class when we watch Hud. The film includes a great scene where Hud's (Paul Newman) nephew (Brandon Dewilde) looks at a cute girl in a bar. The girl's companion takes offense, and the bar fight breaks out. In the film it is all good fun. In real life, people actually die in these stupid fights. I ask the class about that scene and mostly get thoughtful responses. Young women usually find the boyfriend's behavior boorish and reflecting insecurity. Young men often are surprised, because they think they are expected to act that way--that women want to be rescued. One student told me that I was completely wrong and that he knew for a fact what women wanted, and his girlfriend would expect him to fight. Sigh.

I remember during my childhood my father telling me that he would never punish me for fighting unless I started the fight or ran from one. I don't actually think he believed that, but it was part of his culture and he thought he had to make me a man. In little league, I had a run-in with some twin boys on my team. Their dad was my coach (and actually a nice guy) but they were the meanest little kids I remember, and for some reason during practice they told me I would get a beating after practice ended. I got out of it by asking their dad for a ride home. I remember sitting in that car with those two kids glaring at me as their dad took me to my home outside town. My wife always compliments me on getting out of a sticky situation (and I agree) but at the time I felt great shame for not fighting. What stupidity.

How does all this relate to a football star's woes? It makes me think how much we absolve violence and laugh it off. It makes me realize that there are many angry, angry people who feel a great entitlement to their anger. When you cross them (drinking or not) they feel the right to hurt you. And we often just sidle. We talk about the drinking, or perhaps that the other guy caused it, or whatever. But most of us don't work that way. We don't hit those who anger us, even if we briefly consider it. We don't feel that right. We get angry, but we don't hurt others.

This violence issue goes well beyond bar fights. That might be for another post.

Bush worst thing for Evangelicals since, well, Moral Majority

Those who read this blog and/or know me, know that I have little good to say about this president. I find him arrogant, short-sighted, and anti-intellectual. I think his John Wayne-like foreign policy has created a horrible mess for America. I think when the dust has settled, historians will find Bush at the bottom of the Presidential ladder--making us long for the days of Harding and Grant.

But his worst sin is to the evangelical church.

I have not attended church for 12 years. But during much of that time, even as I disagreed with my friends and relatives in the church, I believed they had a depth of moral and theological thought. I found the Moral Majority annoying and self-righteous, but ultimately powerless. I never minded religious people engaging in politics, though I rankled at the Christian Coalition meddling in churches and mischaracterizing liberals. But I respected those people even as I disagreed. I understood that there was a depth of moral thought behind their opposition to abortion. I disagreed with their stance on the death penalty and homosexuality, but felt that they were earnest in their beliefs. My friends and relatives who shared these beliefs were serious people, who didn't just throw these things around. They tried within their ability to live up to those ideas.

But now we have W. People I respect; who try very hard to treat their coworkers with respect; who try very hard to be honest in their dealings with friends and adversaries alike; who have deep regrets about past racism and a modicum of humility about present bias. All of these people I respect. All of them now in the situation of defending someone who acts in ways that they would not allow in their children. They are forced to defend a man who allowed his campaign to allege an opponent had a black baby out of wedlock. The operative word in South Carolina was always black more than wedlock. This man who claims to follow Jesus Christ belittled a woman condemned to die; he took pleasure in the deaths of enemies; he taunted those who would fight against the American troops. He strutted, he brags, he displays embarrassing arrogance and pride, while showing no humility.

And that may not be the worst. Bush has made his Christian faith a big selling point for his presidency. During the 2000 race he noted that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. While most people winced (is Jesus really a philosopher?) Bush won great acclaim throughout evangelical Christianity for daring to publicly acknowledge Christ. During the march to war he talked about the importance of his faith. While speaking to Christian audiences he has taken every opportunity to speak "Churchese" in a way they understand. He even worked a Christian hymn (or his speechwriter did) into the most recent State of the Union address. In the Bob Woodward book, he claims that he doesn't ask his earthly father for advice (despite having the unique position of an ex-president father who went to war in this very region), but turns to his heavenly father. After all, not only is Christianity a big selling point, it is the only justification he has for his character. Think about it. If Bush wasn't "Born Again" then what character would he have? He is simply a person with a famous name who drank his first 40 years through failed business and irresponsible behavior. He has nothing to offer.

In my days in the church, I was taught that Christians would be known by their actions. People understood very well that it is easy to speak certain ideas, but much harder to act on them. I have asked my conservative evangelical friends to give me an example of Bush acting as a Christian. If you didn't hear him tell us he was Christian, would you know? Any humility? Any treating enemies or adversaries differently than the "world" does? Anything? As of yet, I have not received any evidence of Bush's christianity beyond his own words and have observed numerous examples of him acting contrary to the faith.

So, Bush has taken a couple of thousand years of Christian theology and turned them into campaign moments and talking points. Even worse, he has turned some key Christian ideas on their head. "Turn the other cheek" has become "bomb them first before they bomb you." "Love thy enemy" has become "love thy friends and spite thy enemies." War is good, peace is unattainable. Poverty is unavoidable, and wealth is not only attainable but preferable and good. Would Jesus (as Bush sees him) feed the 5000 richest Americans and lecture the poorest on their work ethic? Would this Jesus scoff at environmental destruction and dismiss science? People who believe in truth and justice are justifying Bush's actions with the "Kerry does it too," or "Clinton was less moral than Bush." Huh?

I can handle Bush. At least partially, anyway. I can manage with a President who is cynical and manipulative--who has not thought his theology through. I am having a bigger struggle with my friends and family who contort their heartfelt faith to make allowances for this guy. I have lost all sorts of respect for the evangelical approach. It seems much less rigorous than I thought. It seems more content to take a tax cut and ignore serious theological problems. It seems more relativistic and less clear. It is willing to look the other way while Bush savages his opponents and detractors. It seems more concerned with power than with principle.

WWJD?

Bush Slogans

Thinking about Bush (or more accurately anti-Bush) slogans. Read one today that I liked: "Kerry/Edwards: Bring Back Complete Sentences."

Here is my suggestion: Bush: All Hat and No Cattle

Thinking about church and stuff

Micah has a great post about a Jesuit ministry that puts ex gang members to work and Micah connects that to the current worship movement. He notes that one of the problems with that type of worship is that it is mostly singing about God and how great he is rather than actually trying to BE more like him. As one of the comments put it, that kind of worship service acts as if God is incredibly insecure and has to be soothed with his worshippers telling him how great he is. This is a great contrast between religious faith that actually, tangibly changes people and one that makes the attendees feel good, period. Is that really what faith is about?

Then, in a related vein is a fabulous post by Greg over at the Parish about what the cross means in Christian life. He notes that this stark symbol of sacrifice and obedience has become yet another symbol of self-centered religion. As in Micah's post on worship, the cross no longer calls us to BE anything, since it has all been done for us. Church is rapidly becoming a place where people consume their own ego and call it faith. A place where you sing about how great God is, but don't try to actually do anything to make the world a better place. A place where you can nod "amens" to the sermon about Jesus feeding the 500 and see no irony in your own affluence.

Brandon over at Badchristian has a nice rant going on how his worship leader has graded volunteer worship leaders into categories. The thought of it gives me the willies. The next day he went to church and saw a cheezy drama (in the service) about this binary challenge between good and evil. Church as entertainment, I guess. I am reminded of a church in OKC that was advertising on tv that they would give away a motorcycle at their church service, but you had to attend to be eligible. It all feels for sale.

And finally, a weird and probably common scene. On our way to Austin to the music festival, we glimpsed a church off the interstate in Oklahoma. Not uncommon, and neither was the American flag pole in the front driveway. Circled around this flagpole was a group of people holding hands and (if you can tell from 70 mph) praying. I have heard of the Meet at the Pole movements and suppose this was something like that. But it was the very first time that I ever saw how clearly that looked like people praying to the American flag. But that is what they are doing, right? God=America=GWB=Democracy=Capitalism=SUV, right?

Republicans say that Liberals will ban Bible

WTF? This is the most obvious appropriation of God and the Bible that we have seen in recent years. After all, if Liberals are willing to ban the Bible, they must not be Christians like the good old GOP (God's Own Party?). Disgusting.

ABCNEWS.com : GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban Bibles: "Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word 'BANNED' across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word 'ALLOWED.' The mailing tells West Virginians to 'vote Republican to protect our families' and defeat the 'liberal agenda.'"

Austin City Limits music fest 2004!

Well, I am surviving ACL 2004!

Don't get me wrong, the music is great, but the heat is almost scary. And the crowds! Probably twice as many people as last year. Heard some great stuff though. Friday it was Roseanne Cash who really impressed us. Terri Hendrix was very interesting, and Sheryl Crow was much better than expected. Ryan Adams (unbelievable voice) is still an ass.

Saturday was a short one for us. Too much leftover heat and fatigue. Heard the Old 97's and they were well worth the heat. Then heard Bruce Robison (married to Kelly Willis and in-laws with a Dixie Chick) and he was really good.

Today we have a long day on tap. Kelly Willis (maybe), Mindy Smith (for sure, dude) Centro-matic, Ben Kweller Jack Ingram, and Drive-by-Truckers. Then, if we can last till then; Wilco. That will be all for us.

It has been really interesting so far. Lots and lots of half-naked people, both those who intrigue you and those who disgust. I am constantly amazed a the beer bellied dumbass frat boys who feel compelled to share their upper torso with the rest of us! Dude!

Ok, that is it for now. The blogging has been on hold since the hotel is internet deprived (bastards!). Probably a good thing since the news seems to be still bad and stupid.

Later.

Update

Sunday was indeed one of the hotter days at the festival. We were used to it by then and it didn't seem so bad. Mindy Smith was very impressive, Ben Kweller was so-so, and Elvis Costello was good. Jack Ingram suprised me, and the Drive-by-Truckers sounded very good as we were waiting for Wilco. Wilco was great. They played a lot of stuff off their new album as well as a few of my favorites off YHF. "Poor Places" was great. Ended the show with "Spiders." That was cool.

Then dinner at the Chili place and an early drive back home the next morning. All in all, a very successful festival.

Light blogging

ACL music festival!

Defective Bible

Just too damn funny. Thanks Jape!

McSweeney's Internet Tendency: This Bible You Sold Me Is Clearly Defective and I'd Like to Return It, Please.: "THIS BIBLE YOU SOLD ME IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE AND I'D LIKE TO RETURN IT, PLEASE.



BY MATTHEW SIMMONS

- - - -


The printer must have run out of black ink, because a bunch of it is in red.


At no point does it tell what the middle initial 'H' in our Savior's name stands for.


It seems to only sort of implicate the Jews in the Crucifixion, and instead suggests by way of self-deprecating irony that humanity as a whole is to blame.


I could not find the part where Moses says, 'You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you all to Hell!'


My understanding is that Noah is supposed to be a large, talking cucumber.


This has got to be a bad translation because the Book of Revelation, instead of very clearly explaining the end times, the Rapture, and the final war with the Antichrist, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. It's full of a bunch of obscure symbols that are so open to interpretation, they could be applied to anything.


I'm pretty sure the real Bible mentions Attorney General John Ashcroft somewhere in it.


- - - -"

Forgiveness.


What the hell is this?

I grew up in a church, and in a church-going family.

I heard about forgiveness my entire life.

I still don't know what it means.

In most situations, this is what it seemed like. Person A did something bad to Person B. According to the church, Person B was supposed to, no FORCED to forgive. No choice involved. I am fine with that, but I still don't know what it means? In this above scenario, it often worked out as Person B giving up any future right to every complain about Person A. To do so would mean that Person A could pull out that chit and say "hey, you can't criticize me anymore. You already forgave me."

I am dealing with this for a reason. Tough stuff, no need for details here. But one person has asked me if I can forgive, and I don't know what that means. Am I holding a grudge? Not really. I am observing a situation where the behavior that I am most grieved by continues. In many ways, it is more disappointment than resentment or grudge. I am disappointed that good people continue to act in ways I find unhealthy. I am trying to keep my perspective here. The asking if I can forgive seems more about control than about forgiving a grievance.

What I do know about forgiveness is that it is often more about me than the person I am supposed to forgive. If I resent people, I am the one who hurts.

Anyway...

Do modern churches value women?

Very interesting post below from someone who suggests that the contemporary church consistently elevates male voices above female. I don't attend church anymore, but it certainly reflects my growing up Baptist in Colorado.

a badchristian blog... - my misogynistic worship experience--a longish treatment: "At our church I think that women have been lied to. Men have told them that their voices are more valuable than men's in certian areas. These areas are often child care, secretarial duties, and general baking tasks. Men are left with caring for the flock, leading worship, and generally being in charge of the structural issues of the church. It doesn't take long to do the math and figure out if the church is segmented into male and female roles where males do an inordinate amount of the leadership in 'malish' tasks and women do the 'femalish' tasks--EVERYTHING QUICKLY BECOMES LESS THAN IT COULD BE IF WOMEN AND MEN WERE ON EQUAL FOOTING IN OUR CHURCH. EVERYBODY LOSES!"

Bush and Company annoy me

Seriously. They are killing me with their fake Christianity and fake compassion. So I am taking on some other topics. Namely the Death Penalty--something I have opposed in earnest for sometime. I oppose it because I believe the process is riddled with racial and class problems. The poor and non-white are most likely to end up with the needle. DNA evidence showed a lot of convicted killers were wrongfully convicted. I think that the numerous documented problems with the death penalty really require its abolition.

But that was before I learned of the "brutality effect." A discussion with someone in the sociology biz suggested something that I have long suspected. It turns out that people in the business talk about "stranger homicides" v. well, you know, the crimes of passion and stuff like that. States without the death penalty have a steady stranger homicide rate. Those with have a higher rate. What? And it isn't just the higher rate, but a higher rate of homicides, abuse, etc, associated with the execution dates. Streak's partner and I suspect that this makes sense--it is the stoking and encouraging of rage and hatred. The state says that killing is ok and extends to victim's families the false idea that executing someone else will make them feel better and ease their pain. Instead, it stokes the rage and hatred and encourages violence against others. The death of others is held out as a solution. This not only externalizes the health of the hurting, but repeats the idea that violence solves things. It may in certain situations. Certainly if someone is physically attacking my loved-ones I would endorse violence to save their lives. But as an after thought in some death house miles away? No. My hatred will live on unless I deal with it. Killing someone else will not mollify that hatred or rage. And the state is wrong to sell it as a palliative. And doubly wrong if capital punishment encourages the very behavior that they say they want to stop.

The death penalty becomes much like a "bug zapper" supposed to kill the disease carrying mosquitoes that actually kills the wrong bugs and fails to accomplish the intended goal of stopping the mosquitoes. But it looks dramatic and convinces the beer drinking slugs under its light that they are better off. Likewise, the death penalty sells the public a fake sense of security, but makes them less safe, and less moral.

More research on this later.

Newsday.com: Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery: "WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) _ President Bush on Friday wished Bill Clinton 'best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery.'

'He's is in our thoughts and prayers,' Bush said at a campaign rally.

Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. "

Exactly. Why not? WWJD anyway?

UpdateAP now backing off that story. My apologies for believing it so quickly. Republicans dont' impress me very much right now, and I find that easier to believe than I should.

Obsidian Wings: Why I Will Not Vote For Bush #1: The Constitution:

"The person who supervised the working group that produced this [torture] memo has been nominated to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; his nomination may, however, be derailed by the disclosure of this memo. In any case, neither Bush nor his deputies, when confronted with this memo, seem to have concluded that those who wrote it were dangerously wrong about the Constitution. Instead, they nominated them to judgeships. If they had their way, those responsible for this memo would be able to apply their understanding of the Constitution to us for the rest of their lives."

A long, but very interesting post on why Bush is a danger to the constitution.

I am combining rant points today, not because I am lazy, but because they are converging.

A friend and I have discussed the contemporary evangelical emphasis on the personal relationship with God. As I understand it, the idea of "works" was replaced (and for many, many good reasons) with a grace based theology. All of that makes sense, but it has morphed into something else. At least under works, people were required to actually do something. Under the contemporary theology, the obligations are as follows: pray, read the bible, communicate with God, attend Church and worship. Your banned behavior is essentially sexual and personal in nature. Don't cheat on your wife, don't be gay, don't have pre-marital sex. Don't do drugs, drink too much, and (possibly) don't gossip or steal pens from the office. Seem like I am dismissing it? Maybe. Kind of frustrated this morning. The problem I have with it is two-fold: the reason I am supposed to pursue this relationship with God appears to be all about me. The works doctrine was at least supposed to help those around me. But the relationship is another me-focussed activity where I benefit from my relationship. How will others know? As far as I can tell, because I would tell them that I pray, communicate with God, attend Church, and generally speak the language of Churchese. Any benefits to those around me are incidental. Perhaps I lead others to the church and get them to have that relationship for them. But I am not expected to act in ways that are beneficial to a broader community.

Second part of the Rant: another friend and I have discussed the morality of GWB. I heard some doofus on Fox the other night saying that Bush was not the first President to talk about his faith (though his is more open and in-your-face), but he was the first to try to act on his faith. Act? How the hell? He has certainly given lip service to the points above: he allegedly prays, reads his Bible, reads a devotion, has a personal relationship with God that he will tell whoever wants to hear about it, and we know he attends church (just as just about every recent president--except Reagan, ironically). Check, check, check. But, where is the f-ing fruit? Where is any proof that he acts on that faith? Has he treated his enemies, either political adversaries or international foes, differently than previous presidents? Well, kind of. He ruthlessly punishes political adversaries and bombs his international foes. Has he brought meekness, love, kindness to the process? Has he? If you take away his talking about faith, would you know or suspect he was a Christian? That is the standard, I think.

He has, as I noted above, treated his political foes with a kind of ruthlessness that is hard to imagine with Christ. Imagine Jesus saying that McCain had fathered a black baby (and meaning that as an insult)? Or criticizing McCain as possibly betraying his country as a POW. Imagine Christ saying "bring it on." Pursuing "usable" nuclear weapons? Invading countries? How about mocking Karla Faye Tucker on death row? How about going to Bob Jones University and embracing racism? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like the Jesus I believe in. Not even close.

But that appears to be the rub. Bush has all the aspects of contemporary evangelicalism down. He does the relationship thing, and just like other evangelicals, he is not expected to actually act on them. He is not expected to treat God's creation with respect (not a moral issue), nor is he to address greed and the love of money (a moral issue only if you are Scrooge), and he is certainly not to address capitalism critically (it is a divinely ordained, magical self-moderating economic device). He is not asked to address his own weaknesses (beyond sex and beer) and is not asked to actually act like Christ, just to merely figuratively wear the WWJD bracelet.

I know that there are many evangelicals who are good people who work hard to be moral. I am deeply frustrated by what I see as evangelicals embracing someone as a good christian man, while completely failing to hold him accountable for acting on that faith. "You shall know them by their fruit" only applies to Monica and the blue dress, evidently. And I think that stinks. I am amazed that people seem to care so little about the environment that they will reelect this man. I am amazed that people don't mind the growing gap between the have's and the have not's. I am amazed that people lament divisiveness in politics and then seek to reelect the great divider.

Done for now.

PhD woes

So, I have a PhD. It isn't nearly as impressive as it sounds. I am glad I completed it, know that it was an accomplishment. No more than many countless other accomplishments, and in fact, less than a good many others.

And I know all too well how little I know, and sometimes how much I think I should know to qualify as a "Dr." Today was one of those days where I am reminded of how little I know. Had a student walk up after class and ask, "is there anyway to make some sense out of your lecture?" Well, not quite that bad, but maybe not the best reaction for a PhD speaking on his area of expertise.

But here I am. It has been a few years now, and I happened to stop by my old advisor's office today. He was in with a student. Grad student. Poor bastard.

So, I say hi, and talk about the class. He introduces me to the student this way: "my old TA." Old habits, I imagine. For that student, that might mean that I never finished. Or the old advisor might have filled that part in after I left.

It really is ok. One of the things I learned when finishing this degree was what it meant to me and what it didn't mean. I knew it was a mistake to expect the degree to somehow make me something I wasn't. People who didn't respect me weren't going to change their mind when they saw the initials.

It would have been nice to hear the old advisor proudly say who I was. But that is his issue. He is the one who can't handle me as a peer. That isn't my problem. I know who I am.

For Shame - A leaked video reveals what Bob Dole really thinks about Bush's tactics. By Chris Suellentrop: "But Dole also made another statement that day, one that hasn't been aired until now. Of McCain's charge to President Bush during a 2000 debate—'You should be ashamed'—Dole told Wolf Blitzer, 'He was right.' Dole made the remark off-air, while CNN broadcast the Kerry ad called 'Old Tricks,' the one featuring McCain's 2000 debate remarks. The campaign stopped airing it recently at McCain's request."

Watch this damn video! Even Bob Dole thinks Bush should have been ashamed in 2000. Why not now?

'We Could Control This Country': 33 Extreme Reasons to Give Bush the Boot - Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com: "Barbara's Daily Buzz"

Last week, I wrote about how the GOP's secret bride, the Religious Right, will be shuffled into the broom closet during next week’s Republican National Convention. And lest you think this is a case of leftist 'religion bashing,' consider this: The National Council of Churches, which represents the country's Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and 32 other denominations, has, against all tradition, been brushed aside by this President, while evangelicals have enjoyed unparalleled access.


'Bush has shown an ideological commitment to the literalist Christian tradition at the expense of the broader view of the larger religious community,' National Council of Churches general secretary Rev. Bob Edgar told Salon.com, which is just a nice way of saying that the girl next door has been dumped for Tammy Faye Baker. 'He is the first president not to meet with the leadership of mainline Christian traditions since George Washington. We've been able to talk with the prime minister of Britain and the chancellor of Germany, but not our own president.'


The Reverend Fritz Ritsch also questioned this historic snub. 'The president apparently believes that he can talk about theology from the bully pulpit without talking to theologians,' Ritsch wrote in the Washington Post. 'Which begs the question: When did the president become theologian in chief?'


'I trust God speaks through me,' George Bush reportedly told a gathering in Lancaster, PA."

A laundry list of all the reasons we need to be concerned about Bush's theology and the people who benefit from his term in office. And it is scary. Scarier than that last line.

Via Slacktivist, via Atrios, a transcript from the Daily Show that is funny, yet not funny about how the media operates. And I thought it was the liberals who were dismissed as postmodern idiots who thought that every point of view was equal (ridiculous as that sounds), but it appears that the media loves this point of view. Not because of any philosophical stance, but because actually analyzing the merits of the various arguments takes work. That and they have been so cowed into believing the "liberal media" bullshit they have bent over backward to appear "objective." Anyway.

slacktivist: A dispute: "Monday night's Daily Show had what I thought at the time was a very funny bit with Rob Corddry (transcript via Atrios):

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?


CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.


STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.


CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.


STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?


CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.


STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?


CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me."

Really interesting discussion from a linguistics professor on the problem we have communicating between conservatives and progressives.

Linguistics prof. George Lakoff dissects the "war on terror" and other conservative catchphrases: "What's in this new 'essential guide for progressives'? Even the Democratic Party seems to have trouble defining what makes a liberal.


Well, for that reason I wrote a chapter on what unites progressives — a moral system, certain political principles, and what I call policy directions as opposed to policies. A policy direction is something like 'Let's have a sustainable environment' and 'Working people shouldn't be living in poverty' and 'Everybody should have health care.' The problem is that the Democrats have wanted to talk about programs rather than policy directions, and programs call up distinctions, which tend to separate people. For example, Kerry should be talking about health care for everyone, and just put a white paper with the details of the program on his website. The values, principles, and general directions are what people care about and what brings them together. It's pointless to argue about the policy-wonk details, because they're going to change anyway."

One more, I guess Carlos is on a roll! This from the Baptist press's Tim Ellsworth, talking about the Iraqi soccer team (I admit, I cheered for them). Evidenlty, Sir Tim was not happy when the Iraqis deigned to criticize Bush (who, in BP style, should be considered their Great White Stupid Father, I guess) and at that point decided that these Iraqis weren't smart enough to recognize how great Bush was. And he lost a lot of respect for these guys. I hope they can handle it!

Jesus Politics: The Baptist Press "Listens" to the Iraqi Soccer Team: "The Bad

This honor goes to the Iraqi soccer team. On one hand, the surprise performance of the Iraqis could be classified in the category above. But the minute some of the Iraqi teammates began criticizing President Bush, it changed my opinion of them completely.

“How will he meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?” midfielder Ahmed Manajid said about Bush. “He has committed so many crimes.”

Memo to the Iraqi soccer team: If it weren’t for Bush, you’d still be under the rule of a murderous tyrant. Maybe the war in Iraq hasn’t gone as smoothly as both Americans and Iraqis hoped. But it did result in the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his sons, and the Iraqi soccer players ought to be a little more grateful to Bush for changing their lives for the better."

Jesus Politics: Jerry Falwell: Vote for the Bush of your Choice: "As for his critics, Falwell said his vision for ministry, which is shaped by his relationship with God, allows him to focus on the goals set before him. Addressing his critics, he was unbowed.

'We're here to stay, we're going to bring this nation back and we couldn't care less what you think about it,' Falwell said to his opponents."

Two brilliant examples of what my last post was about. Falwell thinks that all Jesus cares about is abortion and gay people. Poverty? Well, not so much. And this great wisdom? It comes from his "personal relationship" with God. In that relationship, God whispers sweet-nothings into ole Jerr's ear, you see, and tells him that gay people are bad, and that God is pro-war and pro-Bush. Amazing thing, that ability to self-deceive.

From Jesus Politics, this disturbing bit of news. Pandagon also pointed to this, suggesting the insanity of how the Swiftboat TRuthees are distracting the nation (conveniently) so that Bush doesn't have to take responsibility for his policies on the poor.

It is unbelievable, however, that evangelical Christians can look me in the eye and say that they vote for Bush because he is a "good Christian man." Vote because you think his policies help (hard case, that) or because you don't like Kerry, but don't tell me he is in any shape or form emulating Christ. The only thing he does (besides reading Oswald Chambers every day) is talk about his faith. His campaign style is just as ruthless as any other person (perhaps more) and his political style is equally so. Very hard to imagine Christ acting this way, unless the Jesus you believe in mocked the dying and showed no concern for his enemies. (Wait, I am remembering something completely opposite of that.......)

Jesus Politics: Voting to Have More Children in Poverty: "WASHINGTON (CNN) - The number of Americans living in poverty jumped by 1.3 million last year as household incomes held steady, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years. The rate for adults 18-to-64 and 65 and older remained steady.

The bureau also said that the share of aggregate income for the lowest 20 percent of Americans fell to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent.

The report indicated that children and blacks were worse off than most, Reuters reported, noting the report would almost certainly fuel Democratic criticism of President Bush.

The number of poor rose to 35.9 million, up 1.3 million from 2002.

Health care coverage also dropped last year and incomes were essentially stagnant, the Census Bureau said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.

The number of uninsured people rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the bureau said."

Pandagon: Enough: "The truth that our media won't admit and our people don't want to hear is that this election should revolve around one refrain, repeated every time this ad airs, every time the job numbers drop and every time a soldier dies. And it goes: 'You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?'"

Damn. Pandagon does it again. I had a rant building, but this is so much better than mine.

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.