Finally went to the doctor this morning and he was very helpful. Said that even though I hadn't had the tingling or numbness often associated with sciatica, it is indeed some kind of constriction on the sciatic nerve. Better, he said, that having a problem with the IT band or a torn muscle. (For the record, this was my yoga teacher's first thought).
So I am home with some meds and hoping to be in a better mood soon.
August 20, 2008
August 19, 2008
Well, one conservative likes Corsi
Beyond Mary Matalin, that is. Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin thinks that Corsi is an intelligent and credentialed writer, and the criticisms of Obama Nation (say that fast) are just because they worship Obama.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Tuesday rainy morning
The leg is a little improved this morning, though still achey in the morning. And it is still raining. And yes, that is a good thing. Steady continuous rain is something that our friends in North Carolina, I am sure, would welcome. It does make for a gloomy morning, though. And our friend Anglican reports more leaky roof problems. So we have a good thought for him and his wife. And his landlord.
Speaking of Anglican, he has a very thoughtful post this morning about the difficulties of our conversations about politics and religion. It is one thing to debate, as I am with one of our friends, tax policy. It is another to debate whether Obama is a muslim, or possibly, as Jill Stanek is trying to argue lately, in favor of infanticide. Where is the common ground there?
As I have argued elsewhere, there are people on both sides of the debate who have no interest in common ground and have no interest in a dialogue. I fear very much that those people, while on the periphery of the Democratic party, are central to the Republicans, and I further fear that Rick Warren is just another one of those Christianist leaders.
Consider the DMN RELIGION Blog's quote of the day:
The strange bedfellows part sure has worked. Christian evangelicals tacitly supporting torture, and cheering on a disastrous war.
Speaking of Anglican, he has a very thoughtful post this morning about the difficulties of our conversations about politics and religion. It is one thing to debate, as I am with one of our friends, tax policy. It is another to debate whether Obama is a muslim, or possibly, as Jill Stanek is trying to argue lately, in favor of infanticide. Where is the common ground there?
As I have argued elsewhere, there are people on both sides of the debate who have no interest in common ground and have no interest in a dialogue. I fear very much that those people, while on the periphery of the Democratic party, are central to the Republicans, and I further fear that Rick Warren is just another one of those Christianist leaders.
Consider the DMN RELIGION Blog's quote of the day:
"'I've gotten a lot of questions the last few weeks asking if Obama is the antichrist. I tell everyone that I don't think the antichrist will come out of politics, especially American politics.'How do we have a reasonable discussion when people are asking of one of the candidates is the symbol of evil? How does that conversation occur? How has intwining the far right into politics (where compromise and negotiation are the watchword) made us any better?
-- Jerry B. Jenkins, co-author of the 'Left Behind' apocalyptic novels (quoted by Christian News Wire)"
The strange bedfellows part sure has worked. Christian evangelicals tacitly supporting torture, and cheering on a disastrous war.
August 18, 2008
Rick Warren not an honest broker
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan: "If you didn't think that a pastor has any business being the first to interview two presidential candidates in his church, you'll be even more alarmed that Saakashvili was apparently on the phone with Warren yesterday. And he relayed this information on Sean Hannity's radio show. Yes, we need much more religion in politics, don't we? The secularism is suffocating."Speaking to Hannity is just one bit of proof.
More on the Cross in the dirt
And I think Sullivan nails it
Many readers have noted that versions of this story - attributed to Solzhenitsyn by Chuck Colson - have been a staple of evangelical sermons for a very long time. They aren't always attributed to Solzhenitsyn, but this sermon, preached by Father Luke Veronis, is a classic of the genre. It's a trope, a kind of urban legend in evangelical circles - and, of course, rooted in deep spiritual truth. Used in a sermon as a way to talk about Christ's redeeming power is one thing. Actually saying it happened to you in a specific place and time is another.
And of course, none of this would be salient were it not for the obvious motive for coopting the story. McCain has never been a very devout man. He doesn't come across that way in his first account of the story; and he doesn't come across that way now. But as the Christianists took over the GOP, he must have understood that this was a problem - especially against Bush in 2000. So in 1999, the story, already poignant and true in its particulars, changes into a much more grandiloquent and sectarian affair, echoing deep evangelical themes and tropes.
And it would not be salient if McCain hadn't deployed the anecdote in his own words - with a misleading image - in a campaign ad, and used it again in front of an evangelical audience Saturday night. And it would not be salient if religious fanatics had not a strangle-hold on the Republican party, seeking doctrinal assurances and echoes of their own type of faith in political candidates.
It is just one of those days
I think I pulled one of my hamstring muscles last week. My yoga teacher tells me that there are three on each leg. Or something. Whatever it is, it stretches from my, uh, upper thigh, to my knee along the outside of the leg. Gradually getting better (I think) but painful and annoying. Add to that, the rain (which I like, and appreciate, mind you) which darkens my mood, and you have one annoyed blogger.
The news doesn't help my mood either. We have had a rousing discussion here at the blog where Anglican posted that list of things we shouldn't do from Leviticus (in addition to homosexuality, of course). My favorite is the one about the neighbor working on the Sabbath. "Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?"
Heh.
Ok, a few items and then I have to move on to other stuff. Hat tip to FP from the comments, pointing us to this story: Waterboarding an attraction at amusement park. Turns out it is a protest of waterboarding at Coney Island, and from what it sounds like, fairly effective. Hope Dick Cheney doesn't hear about it.
Our discussion in the open thread was about Rick Warren's recent hosting of Obama and McCain at his Saddlebackmonstrosity church where the kingmaker wannabe Preacher asked different questions to the candidates each candidate the same questions in an honest attempt to help McCain talk about religion in American political life.
Yeah, but it turns out for all the questions he asked (none on torture, btw h/t Tony) the only one he cared about was those on abortion. Because any of us who are pro-choice are the same as holocaust deniers, and there is no way in hell that Preacher Rick is voting for a holocaust denier. Just last week, evidently, he said he would never vote for an adulterer either. But that was evidently only in the case of John Edwards, and he never asked McCain about that either. What is more, Pastor Rick asserted this:
And finally, I even hesitate to post this, but it seems like a very interesting story, if true. John McCain, as you know, spent time in a POW camp duringGeorge Bush's drinking and drug years Vietnam. He talks about it every chance he gets is loathe to discuss his experience because, you know, he doesn't want to politicize being a POW.
Well, evidently, he has a story about a VN guard who very subtly drew a cross in the dirt to let McCain know that he was a Christian. Only problem is that the story only started showing up in his memoirs in 1999, and it wasn't that McCain didn't talk about his POW experience before that. Oh, and it also sounds exactly like a story about Solzhenitsen.
The news doesn't help my mood either. We have had a rousing discussion here at the blog where Anglican posted that list of things we shouldn't do from Leviticus (in addition to homosexuality, of course). My favorite is the one about the neighbor working on the Sabbath. "Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?"
Heh.
Ok, a few items and then I have to move on to other stuff. Hat tip to FP from the comments, pointing us to this story: Waterboarding an attraction at amusement park. Turns out it is a protest of waterboarding at Coney Island, and from what it sounds like, fairly effective. Hope Dick Cheney doesn't hear about it.
Our discussion in the open thread was about Rick Warren's recent hosting of Obama and McCain at his Saddleback
Yeah, but it turns out for all the questions he asked (none on torture, btw h/t Tony) the only one he cared about was those on abortion. Because any of us who are pro-choice are the same as holocaust deniers, and there is no way in hell that Preacher Rick is voting for a holocaust denier. Just last week, evidently, he said he would never vote for an adulterer either. But that was evidently only in the case of John Edwards, and he never asked McCain about that either. What is more, Pastor Rick asserted this:
Warren also told Gilgoff that Democrats' efforts to talk about faith alone fall flat: "just because a person can say 'God' and 'Jesus' and 'salvation' and whatever doesn't mean they have a worldview. And people want to know what do they believe, not just their personal faith.Because, you see, only conservatives are true Christians. Duh.
And finally, I even hesitate to post this, but it seems like a very interesting story, if true. John McCain, as you know, spent time in a POW camp during
Well, evidently, he has a story about a VN guard who very subtly drew a cross in the dirt to let McCain know that he was a Christian. Only problem is that the story only started showing up in his memoirs in 1999, and it wasn't that McCain didn't talk about his POW experience before that. Oh, and it also sounds exactly like a story about Solzhenitsen.
August 17, 2008
The nature of evil
I need to get some work done this afternoon, so this will be brief. I did not watch the Saddleback conference last night (can't watch McCain right now) but have read about it. I caught this different response on the nature of evil and it caught my eye. If you notice, McCain wants to continue the definition of evil as external enemies. For him, as for Bush, evil is Al Qaeda and suicide bombers. Obama, on the other hand, notes those external evils (though his reference was to Darfur, not the obvious Al Qaeda) but also notes the internal evils, "sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children."
Exactly right. Bacevich noted this the other night, saying that most Americans define their problems as external, and refuse to face those within us. This strikes me as a huge theological difference as well, and shame on those Christian conservatives who cheer McCain's simplification of evil as Bin Laden or his followers.
But McCain's explanation, much like Bush's entire collection of answers over the years, is simplistic, and therefore greedily accepted by people who don't want to consider the deeper issues. Obama, on the other hand suggests that evil is everywhere, and also in us.
I imagine the Joel Osteen lobotomy club will eat this up. But we will be better off if we can address a more complex world with a more complex understanding. We have just had 8 years of simplistic answers, and we are clearly worse off than we were before.
Exactly right. Bacevich noted this the other night, saying that most Americans define their problems as external, and refuse to face those within us. This strikes me as a huge theological difference as well, and shame on those Christian conservatives who cheer McCain's simplification of evil as Bin Laden or his followers.
But McCain's explanation, much like Bush's entire collection of answers over the years, is simplistic, and therefore greedily accepted by people who don't want to consider the deeper issues. Obama, on the other hand suggests that evil is everywhere, and also in us.
I imagine the Joel Osteen lobotomy club will eat this up. But we will be better off if we can address a more complex world with a more complex understanding. We have just had 8 years of simplistic answers, and we are clearly worse off than we were before.
More Andrew Bacevich
Since I watched that interview yesterday, I have continued to mull over his take. I disagree with some of his analysis on the political side. For example, I think he is far too harsh on the Democrats for not being able to end the war after the 2006 election, but there is little doubt that he correctly notes that Pelosi and Reid seem more concerned with protecting their majorities than doing the right thing.
But his analysis on the problems with this Global War on Terror just keep resonating, and of course, remind me that even the conservative Rand Corporation believes that the military is the wrong tool to use against terrorism. Bacevich compared Al Qaeda to a "criminal conspiracy" (a violent one, obviously) and argued that the best way to battle this very real threat was to use intelligence and police forces wisely.
He also has some suggestions for where we are now as a nation after 8 years of Bush and Cheney. From the the Boston Globe, this op ed on "What Bush hath wrought":
Hard to argue with him on any of those, I think. He also notes that McCain, while different than Bush in many ways, is the one most fundamentally wedded to Bush's approach to foreign policy.
Bacevich makes a very strong point that history has taught us that military power can be useful for sure, but it has very clear limits. Bush and Cheney seem to have missed that altogether, and when you add that to a public who believes that our military is invincible, it becomes and intoxicating and addictive thing to call for military force.
Bacevich seems like a pretty credible source on this, btw. He served in the military for some 20 years and retired as a Colonel. One of Sully's readers recalls how he retired when he was passed over for General after an incident in Kuwait. Bacevich, according to this reader, took full responsibility for what occurred under his watch.
But his analysis on the problems with this Global War on Terror just keep resonating, and of course, remind me that even the conservative Rand Corporation believes that the military is the wrong tool to use against terrorism. Bacevich compared Al Qaeda to a "criminal conspiracy" (a violent one, obviously) and argued that the best way to battle this very real threat was to use intelligence and police forces wisely.
He also has some suggestions for where we are now as a nation after 8 years of Bush and Cheney. From the the Boston Globe, this op ed on "What Bush hath wrought":
Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:
Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;
Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;
Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;
Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";
Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances
Hard to argue with him on any of those, I think. He also notes that McCain, while different than Bush in many ways, is the one most fundamentally wedded to Bush's approach to foreign policy.
"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.
By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course."
Bacevich makes a very strong point that history has taught us that military power can be useful for sure, but it has very clear limits. Bush and Cheney seem to have missed that altogether, and when you add that to a public who believes that our military is invincible, it becomes and intoxicating and addictive thing to call for military force.
Bacevich seems like a pretty credible source on this, btw. He served in the military for some 20 years and retired as a Colonel. One of Sully's readers recalls how he retired when he was passed over for General after an incident in Kuwait. Bacevich, according to this reader, took full responsibility for what occurred under his watch.
At any rate, when you talk about Bacevich, not only has he lost his son to this stupid war we both supported, but he is just a decent, honest, honorable, good man. At a time when no one ever takes responsibility, he is a man who believes in it, and walked the walk.Contrast that with this administration, (and one can argue--the previous administration as well) where nothing is ever their fault.
August 16, 2008
Our Obama Yard Sign--continued
As I noted, some ignorant knob stole our Obama sign the other night.
Saw a neighbor down the street and said the same thing happened to him a few weeks ago. Evidently, some people think that is reasonable discourse. I recall wanting to jump on a few W signs in 04, but of course, I did not. That isn't how democracy is supposed to function.
But when the Republicans get their models from Karl Rove and now John McCain, there is no wonder. The same neighbor noted that one of his relatives had read the new Corsi hatchet book on Obama and thought it was good. My friend told his relative that it was based on documented lies. His relative said, "everyone has their opinion on Hussein Obama."
How do you talk to that kind of ignorance?
Saw a neighbor down the street and said the same thing happened to him a few weeks ago. Evidently, some people think that is reasonable discourse. I recall wanting to jump on a few W signs in 04, but of course, I did not. That isn't how democracy is supposed to function.
But when the Republicans get their models from Karl Rove and now John McCain, there is no wonder. The same neighbor noted that one of his relatives had read the new Corsi hatchet book on Obama and thought it was good. My friend told his relative that it was based on documented lies. His relative said, "everyone has their opinion on Hussein Obama."
How do you talk to that kind of ignorance?
Andrew Bacevich
On Bill Moyers Journal talking about his new book and his deep concern with our political, economic, and military disfunction in this country. His discussion is thoughtful, equally tough on Republicans and Democrats, and at the heart--suggests that Americans are unwilling to acknowledge who they really are.
You can read an excerpt from the book and watch the video interview here. I think it is worth the time. And there is more at the American Empire Project blog.
Couple of thoughts right after viewing. One, he is the first in sometime to give Jimmy Carter credit for recognizing the problems of a self-indulgent and consumer based economy. In future years, we may recognize the brilliance of that more than we do now, and we might also recognize the destructive nature of the Reagan approach of "you can have more and more and more, and it won't cost you anything." Two, he challenges our fundamental arrogance that believes we can win any military venture we enter. I think that is so very important, because I genuinely believe that the American people, even after seeing the limits of our power in Iraq, still believe that we are invincible. When you couple that with an Imperial Presidency (and he includes all the most recent presidents in that), you get the extension of military power as if that is our best effort.
And finally, he challenges something that made me practically applaud--the ridiculous and completely vapid way that most Americans talk about "supporting the troops." As he notes, a bumper sticker hardly makes up for the fact that we, collectively, outsource our military power, and then turn away. Add that to Bush's call for us to go shopping after 9-11, and you see the level of great disfunction.
Very thoughtful argument, and I hope it gets more attention.
You can read an excerpt from the book and watch the video interview here. I think it is worth the time. And there is more at the American Empire Project blog.
Couple of thoughts right after viewing. One, he is the first in sometime to give Jimmy Carter credit for recognizing the problems of a self-indulgent and consumer based economy. In future years, we may recognize the brilliance of that more than we do now, and we might also recognize the destructive nature of the Reagan approach of "you can have more and more and more, and it won't cost you anything." Two, he challenges our fundamental arrogance that believes we can win any military venture we enter. I think that is so very important, because I genuinely believe that the American people, even after seeing the limits of our power in Iraq, still believe that we are invincible. When you couple that with an Imperial Presidency (and he includes all the most recent presidents in that), you get the extension of military power as if that is our best effort.
And finally, he challenges something that made me practically applaud--the ridiculous and completely vapid way that most Americans talk about "supporting the troops." As he notes, a bumper sticker hardly makes up for the fact that we, collectively, outsource our military power, and then turn away. Add that to Bush's call for us to go shopping after 9-11, and you see the level of great disfunction.
Very thoughtful argument, and I hope it gets more attention.
August 15, 2008
Children as proxy?
Watched the women's all-around last night. It was high drama and some fantastic athleticism, and even some fun cheering for the USA. But while discussing gold medalist Nastia Liukin, the commentator said that she had been aiming for this gold medal her entire life, and that her father had taught her that the silver medal was bad. Turns out her father was a Soviet gymnast:
"Twenty years ago, in another heated battle between teammates, Valeri Liukin, competing for Russia, lost the 1988 men's all-around Olympic title in Seoul to Vladimir Artyomov. 'She fixed my mistake,' said her father. 'I was second, half a tenth behind Vladimir, and she fixed that. I am very proud,' he said, too emotional to continue. Liukin senior might have ended up lost for words Friday, but his daughter's gold was the perfect ending."I wonder what would have happened had she not won. And I also wonder what you do when you achieve your life's dream at 18. What do you do next?
Friday roundup
Bush To Russia: Stop The "Bullying And Intimidation":
*****
As Tony notes this morning, we have another candidate for a, well, delusional candidate
Yeah, John McCain said that. I guess our invasion of Iraq just doesn't count in his brain. Why not just come out and say, "when we do something, it is fine." Grownup Republicans? You really don't think that kind of "do as I say, not as I do" will actually be a sustainable foreign policy, do you?
*****
Perhaps not. After 8 years of harming our military to the breaking point--and continuing to threaten military action in Iran, Georgia, (who want's next?), etc., perhaps those actually doing the fighting are getting sick of neo-con led foreign policy.
As it turns out, by the way, the military isn't the only shocking place where Obama gets support.
*****
Speaking of Christian conservatives, as Tony also noted this morning, and of course, our lovely Anonymous commentator noted yesterday, Victoria Osteen received a unanimous verdict of not-guilty of slapping a flight attendant. Fine. But I know full well they will attribute this verdict to God's intervention, just as our commentator credited their obscene (that's right, obscene) wealth to God's desire. Their theology makes me ill. When greed is actually masked as "listening to God"--it lends itself to a Gilded Age theology, which you see front and center with the Osteens. I know this is not Christianity, but as in the grownup Republican issue, I would like to see the Christians who believe in sacrifice, sin, and even those who think that greed is not good--to stand up. And by the way, while you are up, please tell James Dobson the same thing, and remind him and Bush that torture is not a Christian act.
****
Speaking of torture, one of Sully's readers just finished the Dark Side:
"'Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century,' the president said."Just too rich--our President lecturing other countries on "bullying foreign policy." Seriously? Does this guy even know about his own Presidency?
*****
As Tony notes this morning, we have another candidate for a, well, delusional candidate
"In the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations."
Yeah, John McCain said that. I guess our invasion of Iraq just doesn't count in his brain. Why not just come out and say, "when we do something, it is fine." Grownup Republicans? You really don't think that kind of "do as I say, not as I do" will actually be a sustainable foreign policy, do you?
*****
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.But I thought the military were all grateful for the Republican support and were staunchly Republican. After all, Democrats are "soft" on the military issue of your choice, and don't like people in the military. Even when the candidates are from the military.
Perhaps not. After 8 years of harming our military to the breaking point--and continuing to threaten military action in Iran, Georgia, (who want's next?), etc., perhaps those actually doing the fighting are getting sick of neo-con led foreign policy.
As it turns out, by the way, the military isn't the only shocking place where Obama gets support.
But a recent poll taken by the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation reveals that Obama has more support among hunters and fishers than previous Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry. A Christian research firm says that Obama enjoys more support than McCain among all Christian subgroups excepting Evangelicals. The Washington Post also polled working class whites and found that they support Obama over McCain too.All sub groups except evangelicals. I swear. I will never figure those guys out. They supported Bush after the torture stuff came out too. What the hell?
*****
Speaking of Christian conservatives, as Tony also noted this morning, and of course, our lovely Anonymous commentator noted yesterday, Victoria Osteen received a unanimous verdict of not-guilty of slapping a flight attendant. Fine. But I know full well they will attribute this verdict to God's intervention, just as our commentator credited their obscene (that's right, obscene) wealth to God's desire. Their theology makes me ill. When greed is actually masked as "listening to God"--it lends itself to a Gilded Age theology, which you see front and center with the Osteens. I know this is not Christianity, but as in the grownup Republican issue, I would like to see the Christians who believe in sacrifice, sin, and even those who think that greed is not good--to stand up. And by the way, while you are up, please tell James Dobson the same thing, and remind him and Bush that torture is not a Christian act.
****
Speaking of torture, one of Sully's readers just finished the Dark Side:
the second half of it more or less since 12 pm this afternoon. Last night, sitting in one of those cafes they stick on the sides of Barnes and Nobles, I almost broke down crying. Instead, I went to the poetry section and quietly read aloud a couple of Hektor's speeches in the Iliad -- something oddly reassuring about them to me.
Scattered throughout my copy of the book are prayers for forgiveness. That was all I kept thinking as I read. Normally, I'm angry about this. With this account, I only felt a deep, tremendous sadness.
August 14, 2008
Swiftboating Obama
Jerome Corsi, famous in 2004 for writing one the book attacking John Kerry's service in VN, is back at it with a book that says again that Obama is a closet Muslim. A book, evidently, that Mary Matalin calls " a piece of scholarship, and a good one at that."
Joe Klein is not very happy about it and notes that at one time, John McCain could be counted on to stand up against such sludge. John Kerry defended McCain when conservatives attacked the Senator's war record in 2000. But McCain isn't just being silent on the Coris stuff. He is sending out Joe Lieberman to follow the Mark Penn advice to paint Obama as an alien.
Klein calls out McCain:
It is really amazing, and says a lot about John McCain that he was outraged when this sleaze was used against him, and rightfully so, but has decided to dip into that well. Bush and Rove's attacks (which Bush told McCain were "just politics") were so over the top bad and sleazy that they make hard core political hacks queasy. Telling South Carolina white Republicans that John McCain might be unfaithful to his wife, and with a black woman? That is a level of cynicism and poison that is hard to fathom. Rove, of course, should always be remembered as someone who not only did that to McCain in SC, but also spread rumors that McCain had cracked under interrogation and betrayed his country, that Ann Richards was a lesbian, and that an Alabama Judge with a background helping children was a pedophile. There is a special spot in hell for that kind of person.
Klein says that Democrats don't normally make these kinds of attacks, that these are the realm of Bush Republicans. But I know that there are Democrats who are willing to stoop that low. Mark Penn comes to mind. According to internal Clinton camp emails, he wanted to paint Obama as foreigner and alien, and just subtly suggest that he wasn't one of us. Very Rovian. (Hillary Clinton, to her credit, pushed back--either out of conviction or pure politics. I have no idea which.)
No, it isn't that Democrats are somehow more moral than Republicans. I know far too many Republicans (and too many Democrats) to ever suggest that. But there is something wrong here, and I am not sure how to explain it. It is almost that many conservatives are so convinced of their morality, that they are completely blind to this kind of tactic when it happens to the opposition candidate. Democrats, perhaps, are more cynical and expect this kind of stuff. I don't know. This reminds me of the contradiction and paradox of Bush running as the most visible Christian politician since Jimmy Carter and yet overseeing the most unChristian policies one could imagine. He takes credit for being a Jesus supporter, but governs more like Rome (if Rome was highly incompetent, of course). And the Republican Christians focus on his Jesus part, and miss the fact that in that famous time, Bush would have been enabling the Roman attacks on Christ, and Karl Rove would have spread rumors that Jesus was gay.
It is a world that does not make sense and is not sustainable. Republicans may have to make a choice--be the party of morality and conviction, or be the party of brutality and scorched-earth tactics. There was hope as Bush's star faded, that Republicans might move away from this kind of politics. McCain's recent swing toward the awful suggests that hope was premature.
Grownup Republicans? The choice is yours.
Joe Klein is not very happy about it and notes that at one time, John McCain could be counted on to stand up against such sludge. John Kerry defended McCain when conservatives attacked the Senator's war record in 2000. But McCain isn't just being silent on the Coris stuff. He is sending out Joe Lieberman to follow the Mark Penn advice to paint Obama as an alien.
Klein calls out McCain:
"But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the 'putting America first' front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce."
It is really amazing, and says a lot about John McCain that he was outraged when this sleaze was used against him, and rightfully so, but has decided to dip into that well. Bush and Rove's attacks (which Bush told McCain were "just politics") were so over the top bad and sleazy that they make hard core political hacks queasy. Telling South Carolina white Republicans that John McCain might be unfaithful to his wife, and with a black woman? That is a level of cynicism and poison that is hard to fathom. Rove, of course, should always be remembered as someone who not only did that to McCain in SC, but also spread rumors that McCain had cracked under interrogation and betrayed his country, that Ann Richards was a lesbian, and that an Alabama Judge with a background helping children was a pedophile. There is a special spot in hell for that kind of person.
Klein says that Democrats don't normally make these kinds of attacks, that these are the realm of Bush Republicans. But I know that there are Democrats who are willing to stoop that low. Mark Penn comes to mind. According to internal Clinton camp emails, he wanted to paint Obama as foreigner and alien, and just subtly suggest that he wasn't one of us. Very Rovian. (Hillary Clinton, to her credit, pushed back--either out of conviction or pure politics. I have no idea which.)
No, it isn't that Democrats are somehow more moral than Republicans. I know far too many Republicans (and too many Democrats) to ever suggest that. But there is something wrong here, and I am not sure how to explain it. It is almost that many conservatives are so convinced of their morality, that they are completely blind to this kind of tactic when it happens to the opposition candidate. Democrats, perhaps, are more cynical and expect this kind of stuff. I don't know. This reminds me of the contradiction and paradox of Bush running as the most visible Christian politician since Jimmy Carter and yet overseeing the most unChristian policies one could imagine. He takes credit for being a Jesus supporter, but governs more like Rome (if Rome was highly incompetent, of course). And the Republican Christians focus on his Jesus part, and miss the fact that in that famous time, Bush would have been enabling the Roman attacks on Christ, and Karl Rove would have spread rumors that Jesus was gay.
It is a world that does not make sense and is not sustainable. Republicans may have to make a choice--be the party of morality and conviction, or be the party of brutality and scorched-earth tactics. There was hope as Bush's star faded, that Republicans might move away from this kind of politics. McCain's recent swing toward the awful suggests that hope was premature.
Grownup Republicans? The choice is yours.
August 13, 2008
Arkansas Democratic Chair Bill Gwatney killed
To take this into the main postings instead of the comments. The Chair of the Arkansas Democratic party was killed by a gunman earlier today. (H/t to Leighton for alerting us to this tragedy.) We previously reported that some said the shooter (who was killed also, btw) was possibly a former employee of the deceased chairman, but this update casts doubt on that:
Our hearts go out to the Gwatney family.
"The Little Rock police said, however, at an afternoon news conference that the shooter, whom they did not identify, was NOT a Gwatney employee and, so far as they knew, never had been, contrary to some early reports mentioned here earlier in the day."
Our hearts go out to the Gwatney family.
Interesting court ruling
RELIGION Blog | The Dallas Morning News: "When considering applicants from Christian high schools, the University of California system does not have to recognize courses that reject evolution or declare the Bible infallible, a federal judge has ruled."
The court held that this was not because of a religious view, but because the course didn't meet the university's legitimate academic standard.
More McCain madness
Part of what McCain clipped from the Wikipedia article on Georgia was the assertion that Georgia was "one of the first nations on Earth to convert to Christianity" to which Melissa Rogers responds: "You say that like it's a good thing . . ."
I don't think that is where most (even conservative) evangelicals are, but then again, I thought most conservative evangelicals would abandon Bush over torture.
Actually more disturbing to me this week has been McCain's bellicosity toward Russia and his assertion of Presidential authority in promising American assistance. I read this morning that McCain has been in constant contact with the President of Georgia and is stepping all over even our administration's message. Not that they will rein him in, of course.
And most disturbing (besides the fact that McCain idiot friend Joe Lieberman now says that Obama is unpatriotic) is that McCain and his people think threatening more wars--lots more wars--will win votes.
First of all, a nation cannot "convert" to Christianity -- only individuals can choose to follow Jesus Christ. Second, while some nations do establish an official religion, I find it disturbing that an American presidential candidate would seem to describe that as a good thing.Yes, do tell us all the times that establishing a state sponsored religion has worked out for the state and the religion. Do tell. And please, Senator McCain, this doesn't have to do with the fact that you think you need the evangelical vote, does it? And you believe that the evangelical vote also wants to claim Christianity as our official religion?
I don't think that is where most (even conservative) evangelicals are, but then again, I thought most conservative evangelicals would abandon Bush over torture.
Actually more disturbing to me this week has been McCain's bellicosity toward Russia and his assertion of Presidential authority in promising American assistance. I read this morning that McCain has been in constant contact with the President of Georgia and is stepping all over even our administration's message. Not that they will rein him in, of course.
And most disturbing (besides the fact that McCain idiot friend Joe Lieberman now says that Obama is unpatriotic) is that McCain and his people think threatening more wars--lots more wars--will win votes.
August 12, 2008
Argh
First, John McCain assures Georgia that we are "all Georgians" today. Of course, when Obama dared to speak to a German audience in relatively vague terms about where we might go on fighting terror, McCain called him presumptuous and acting like he had already won the election. But in this case, McCain speaks literally for all of us, and also comes very near to promising military support for the Georgian state. Are you kidding me? First it was "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and now this saber rattling with Russia. How many wars do these people want to fight?
Top it off with the former Democratic vice presidential candidate (and suspected McCain VP candidate) saying that Obama does not put America first and I feel the screaming coming on. A hot button issue for me, as everyone here knows, but I am so tired of just how casually conservatives can doubt a liberal's patriotism. And evidently, John McCain agrees
Of course, when Lieberman was the VP candidate for Gore (Gore must lay awake nights thinking, what did I do?) he was a horrible campaigner and refused to fight at all for Gore. What a horrible person.
Speaking of horrible people, the odious Michelle Bachmann says that we don't need environmental controls because "Jesus already saved the earth."
Seriously. Two things. 1, either the Republican party gets rid of these neo-con warmongers or we will spend the next several generations fighting their wars. You don't think they will stop with the next war, do you? Someone else wants to fight us, and John McCain is there ready to offer up more American lives (in an Army we don't have, btw) for their next war.
And 2) if conservative Christians don't rescue their faith from the likes of dipshits like Michelle Bachman and the Osteen's, you will have a faith of pure Capitalism and Greed, merged with one that disbelieves in Gravity, and is firmly convinced that Jesus Christ is an American Republican who loves war.
Top it off with the former Democratic vice presidential candidate (and suspected McCain VP candidate) saying that Obama does not put America first and I feel the screaming coming on. A hot button issue for me, as everyone here knows, but I am so tired of just how casually conservatives can doubt a liberal's patriotism. And evidently, John McCain agrees
Just moments ago, the McCain campaign emailed out the same Lieberman quote to its full press list -- putting its official stamp of approval on Lieberman's assertion.The Republican party (and Lieberman might as well join the GOP now) has left the stable of just being the "party of the stupid" and now is the "party of the horrible." I am sorry, but John McCain may have served his country with honor during Vietnam, but his campaign against Obama is dishonorable and disgraceful.
This is effectively an abandonment of the campaign's quasi-official position, which used to be that the McCain camp saw questioning Obama's patriotism as off limits. Last month, senior McCain adviser Charlie Black said explicitly that "we don't want to talk about his patriotism and character. We concede that he's a patriot and person of good character."
Of course, when Lieberman was the VP candidate for Gore (Gore must lay awake nights thinking, what did I do?) he was a horrible campaigner and refused to fight at all for Gore. What a horrible person.
Speaking of horrible people, the odious Michelle Bachmann says that we don't need environmental controls because "Jesus already saved the earth."
Seriously. Two things. 1, either the Republican party gets rid of these neo-con warmongers or we will spend the next several generations fighting their wars. You don't think they will stop with the next war, do you? Someone else wants to fight us, and John McCain is there ready to offer up more American lives (in an Army we don't have, btw) for their next war.
And 2) if conservative Christians don't rescue their faith from the likes of dipshits like Michelle Bachman and the Osteen's, you will have a faith of pure Capitalism and Greed, merged with one that disbelieves in Gravity, and is firmly convinced that Jesus Christ is an American Republican who loves war.
Joel and Victoria Osteen, just the latest
Barbara Ehrenreich succinctly nails the problem with the Prosperity gospel, and this kind of misuse of prayer:
These people drive me nuts, and I know that I am not alone here. This is not Christianity, and it is a shame that they represent the faith to so many people. We all know that most Christians are not like this, and make a positive contribution to their community and their world.
"Consider the ways the Lord works in the life of the Osteens, as recounted in Joel's book Your Best Life Now, which has sold four million copies and is graced by a back cover photo of the smiling couple. Acting through Victoria, who kept 'speaking words of faith and victory' on the subject, Joel was led to build the family 'an elegant home.' On other occasions, God intervened to save Joel from a speeding ticket and to get him not only a good parking spot but 'the premier spot in that parking lot.' Why God did not swoop down with a sponge and clean up the offending stain on the armrest remains a mystery, because Osteen's deity is less the Master of the Universe than an obliging factotum.
Plenty of Christians have already made the point that the positive thinking of Christianity Light is demeaning to God, and I leave them to pursue this critique. More importantly, from a secular point of view, it's dismissive of other humans, and not only flight attendants. If a person is speeding, shouldn't he get a ticket to deter him from endangering others? And if Osteen gets the premier parking spot, what about all the other people consigned to the remote fringes of the lot? Christianity, at best, is about a sacrificial love for others, not about getting to the head of the line."
These people drive me nuts, and I know that I am not alone here. This is not Christianity, and it is a shame that they represent the faith to so many people. We all know that most Christians are not like this, and make a positive contribution to their community and their world.
Focus on the Family pulls video seeking prayers for rain at Obama speech
But they only meant it to be mildly humorous. You know, asserting that God prefers Republicans and that Obama is our enemy.
Birthday Wishes for Ubub
Today is friend of the blog, and a personal friend of SOF and myself (as well as Anglican) UBUB's birthday. I won't say how old he is (for national security reasons) but Ubub has been one of my very best friends now for many years. I can't say enough good about him, and I know that SOF and Anglican will agree. On the other hand, once the Birthday wishes are over, we can get to the ritual "airing of the grievances." :)
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday!
August 11, 2008
Bush people silent on this Hamdan verdict
Maybe, argues Jonathan Diamond, because they realize this verdict was a strong rebuke of their administration of the war on terror. Even with the court stacked against the defense, and an administration bent on a kangaroo verdict, all they could get for OBL's driver was a few more months in prison. Even the presiding judge wished Hamdan well.
"I don't hold much hope that this lesson will be taken by the current administration, whose moral bank account is woefully overdrawn. I would not be surprised if Bush/Cheney harmed our international standing even more by ignoring the jury and holding Hamdan indefinitely."
Suskind's big claim
Perhaps not that the VP ordered a forged letter, but that White House knew Saddam didn't have WMD:
If true, this war becomes not well-intentioned blunder ("we had bad intel") but horrific crime. If true.
"The former head of Britain's MI6, Sir Roger Dearlove, confirms to Suskind on the record that both Bush and Blair received late-breaking but excellent first-hand intelligence that Saddam was bluffing on WMDs. A James Bond character, British spy Michael Shipster, secured a real line of information from an Iraqi intelligence chief. Blair had tasked MI6 with getting to the bottom of the WMD question. Suskind's original source, a high-level American intelligence agent, puts it this nway:
'We knew,' he says.
'Knew what?'
That there were no weapons in Iraq.'
'Sure,' I say, 'people suspected. Define knew.'"
If true, this war becomes not well-intentioned blunder ("we had bad intel") but horrific crime. If true.
August 9, 2008
The Past
Yes, I am watching some of the games. Blame SOF. And some of it is quite interesting. The human interest stories just drive me crazy, but the competition is fun. Watching some of the rowing this afternoon, I had to laugh when the analyst described one of the teams compared to 4 years ago. She said, "well, there is no Penske and no Hurtz (making the names up)" as if those names meant anything to me at all. I suspect that is what some of my friends feel like watching football and hearing references to Elway and Marino.
-----
Thomas Wolfe famously said that you can't go home again. I haven't read the book, but that quote has come up over the years--I think first from a good therapist. The allure of the nostalgic past is something I have written about in my work, and I am not immune from that call.
It has come to mind again this week. I have a membership on one of the social networking sites. I use it rarely, but was thinking the other day how has illustrated these weird connections to the past, present and other worlds of my life. Recently, I was added to the friend's list of a former high school colleague. That is 25 years ago. Yikes.
Then the other day, our old BSU sent out a request for people to join a group online, and I thought--how would I even start? SOF said it well last night when she noted that that old life is like a completely different country. I am certainly a different person. Almost hard to see the Streak of now in those old pictures. Who was that guy? I would need a translator and guide to negotiate that connection.
I have run into people from the past before, and rarely positively. Often, they are (or seem to me) to be very much as they were, while I have changed so much. When they see me, they just see the impish kid from Fort Collins. When I saw that invite from the BSU, it was "world's colliding" and I had no idea how to manage that. So I didn't.
Those close to me have watched me mature over the last 25 years, or have met me more in my current incarnation. I don't even know how to explain that transition who last knew me when I was 19 or 21. I am physically different (though not a lot) but emotionally, spiritually, and philosophically I am a completely different person. I can usually speak that language of 25 years ago, but am no longer fluent or comfortable. And those times when I have attempted to introduce the man to those who knew the boy--well, it hasn't gone well.
I am ok with that. I am happier and more relaxed with who I am in my 40s than I was in my 30s and sure as hell when I was in my 20s. But I must say I rarely seek out people from my past. Maybe that is for the best. I am happy in this country.
-----
Thomas Wolfe famously said that you can't go home again. I haven't read the book, but that quote has come up over the years--I think first from a good therapist. The allure of the nostalgic past is something I have written about in my work, and I am not immune from that call.
It has come to mind again this week. I have a membership on one of the social networking sites. I use it rarely, but was thinking the other day how has illustrated these weird connections to the past, present and other worlds of my life. Recently, I was added to the friend's list of a former high school colleague. That is 25 years ago. Yikes.
Then the other day, our old BSU sent out a request for people to join a group online, and I thought--how would I even start? SOF said it well last night when she noted that that old life is like a completely different country. I am certainly a different person. Almost hard to see the Streak of now in those old pictures. Who was that guy? I would need a translator and guide to negotiate that connection.
I have run into people from the past before, and rarely positively. Often, they are (or seem to me) to be very much as they were, while I have changed so much. When they see me, they just see the impish kid from Fort Collins. When I saw that invite from the BSU, it was "world's colliding" and I had no idea how to manage that. So I didn't.
Those close to me have watched me mature over the last 25 years, or have met me more in my current incarnation. I don't even know how to explain that transition who last knew me when I was 19 or 21. I am physically different (though not a lot) but emotionally, spiritually, and philosophically I am a completely different person. I can usually speak that language of 25 years ago, but am no longer fluent or comfortable. And those times when I have attempted to introduce the man to those who knew the boy--well, it hasn't gone well.
I am ok with that. I am happier and more relaxed with who I am in my 40s than I was in my 30s and sure as hell when I was in my 20s. But I must say I rarely seek out people from my past. Maybe that is for the best. I am happy in this country.
Political side
As I noted in the previous comment thread, I thought the last person who wanted to see the Edwards' affair scandal right now was John McCain, and it looks like Josh Marshall agrees.
Suskind may be mostly right?
Several conservative and liberal voices have expressed healthy skepticism about Suskind's allegation that the White House ordered a forged document to support their claims about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I shared some of that skepticism.
Well, a couple of items this morning. First, the author has posted a transcript of his interview with the CIA's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations that tend to support Suskind's claims.
And if that wasn't enough, from a very odd source an allegation that Suskind was both right and wrong about the letter. The American Conservative says that Suskind was right that the VP ordered the letter, but not through Tenet and the CIA. Instead, he tagged Doug Feith with the job.
Well, a couple of items this morning. First, the author has posted a transcript of his interview with the CIA's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations that tend to support Suskind's claims.
And if that wasn't enough, from a very odd source an allegation that Suskind was both right and wrong about the letter. The American Conservative says that Suskind was right that the VP ordered the letter, but not through Tenet and the CIA. Instead, he tagged Doug Feith with the job.
August 8, 2008
Oh damn
I know this is not new now, but I think everyone has now heard that John Edwards admited to having an affair. This is obviously not good. Not only did he cheat on his ill wife, but he lied about it during the campaign.
It is always frustrating when someone you admire or support does something so stupid and so wrong. And I don't begrudge the media for following this story--well, not completely. I am not condoning adultery, by the way, but I have never quite figured out when that became the unforgivable sin for a politician. As Cenk Uygur asks,how does his affair make John Edwards any less capable at pursuing good public policy?. And more importantly for our current discussion, why is this affair a career killer for Edwards, but the GOP is running someone who is now married to the "other woman." McCain not only cheated on his first wife (with several other women) but he dumped her after she had a very bad car accident.
I remember the bullshit from the Clinton years--"if he will cheat on his wife, how can we trust him to not cheat on us?" And "he lied to his wife and therefore is untrustworthy." At the time, I suggested that HW Bush had not cheated on Barbara, but had certainly lied to us about Iran Contra. His son has taken that ridiculous metric to another level. I have no reason to think that Bush has been anything but faithful to Laura--but he certainly has not been faithful to us. His supposed fidelity to his wife didn't stop him from lying us into war, turning us into a torture nation, and gutting our Constitution. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And, I suspect, most Republicans will respond that way about McCain. "It was many years ago, and has nothing to do with his potential as a President." Evidently, fidelity is only required of Democrats.
I am sorry for the Edwards family and the harm he has caused to his wife and children. But I remain disgusted by the double standard that will spur countless hours of OUTRAGE on cable news over the weekend.
McCain might be a little quiet, however....
It is always frustrating when someone you admire or support does something so stupid and so wrong. And I don't begrudge the media for following this story--well, not completely. I am not condoning adultery, by the way, but I have never quite figured out when that became the unforgivable sin for a politician. As Cenk Uygur asks,
I remember the bullshit from the Clinton years--"if he will cheat on his wife, how can we trust him to not cheat on us?" And "he lied to his wife and therefore is untrustworthy." At the time, I suggested that HW Bush had not cheated on Barbara, but had certainly lied to us about Iran Contra. His son has taken that ridiculous metric to another level. I have no reason to think that Bush has been anything but faithful to Laura--but he certainly has not been faithful to us. His supposed fidelity to his wife didn't stop him from lying us into war, turning us into a torture nation, and gutting our Constitution. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And, I suspect, most Republicans will respond that way about McCain. "It was many years ago, and has nothing to do with his potential as a President." Evidently, fidelity is only required of Democrats.
I am sorry for the Edwards family and the harm he has caused to his wife and children. But I remain disgusted by the double standard that will spur countless hours of OUTRAGE on cable news over the weekend.
McCain might be a little quiet, however....
Know-nothing politics
I often find Krugman a bit shrill, and even think he loses a little of his argument in this piece, but he is on to something when he suggests that the GOP has become the party of the stupid:
But it isn't just drilling, it is abstinence only, attacks on science, and tax-cuts regardless of the situation. It is a party that has demonized government to the point where the logical extension of their platform is disaster. Hard to implement killing the government in an effective and efficient way.
And, as Krugman notes, the Patron Saint of the GOP's turn to "dumbness" is George W. Bush. They used to worship this man as some kind of idiot savant who didn't need "no fantsy booklarning" to govern. He just needed his "gut."
Eight years of Bush has made me far too sad to disagree.
"Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.That is certainly how it looks. This drilling policy is simply ridiculous--as a policy. Maybe we should drill in some of those areas (I don't think so) but it should be part of some kind of plan, not a political stunt.
What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”"
But it isn't just drilling, it is abstinence only, attacks on science, and tax-cuts regardless of the situation. It is a party that has demonized government to the point where the logical extension of their platform is disaster. Hard to implement killing the government in an effective and efficient way.
And, as Krugman notes, the Patron Saint of the GOP's turn to "dumbness" is George W. Bush. They used to worship this man as some kind of idiot savant who didn't need "no fantsy booklarning" to govern. He just needed his "gut."
“Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,” declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”And it has already started again this year. Obama is the "elitist" who likes "arugula" instead of regular food, while John McCain is "one of the people" who wears 500 dollar shoes while his wife says that the only way to travel around Arizona is in private plane--you know, like normal people. Meanwhile John McCain switches gears on drilling to utter "we should drill here, and drill now" after saying that it would do nothing for us. He thinks that the voters are too dumb to notice.
Eight years of Bush has made me far too sad to disagree.
August 7, 2008
August 6, 2008
A house guest
Our friend L took care of our menagerie while we were in Hawaii, and she brought with her a newly adopted kitten. As you will see, the little guy was injured by a car or something when he was very little and still doesn't have the full use of his left foreleg. She named him Trypod, appropriately enough.
Note, I tried to upload some video, but ran into some problems. So here is a little screen shot of the little guy. You can see his damaged limb.
L had to leave town and wondered if we could take care of the little guy for a few days. He was familiar with the house and our animals, so we quickly said yes. But we didn't anticipate just how much we would like the little guy, and how inspiring he has been for us. As SOF said, when you look at him with that little injured paw, it makes you sad. But Trypod isn't sad. He is fine--something I realized when the three (and a half) legged kitten launched off the table on top of Abbie, and then chased the 28 pound dog around the living room. I just wish I had video of that.
Abbie, by the way, loves this kitten and plays with him in a really fun and gentle way. The rest of the animals are fine with the little guy (for the most part). We caught this picture of Calvin looking at the visitor.
We are going to have a tough time giving the little guy back to L. He seems to be teaching us something about acceptance and perseverance every day. Plus, he likes to crawl in our laps for naps.
Note, I tried to upload some video, but ran into some problems. So here is a little screen shot of the little guy. You can see his damaged limb.
L had to leave town and wondered if we could take care of the little guy for a few days. He was familiar with the house and our animals, so we quickly said yes. But we didn't anticipate just how much we would like the little guy, and how inspiring he has been for us. As SOF said, when you look at him with that little injured paw, it makes you sad. But Trypod isn't sad. He is fine--something I realized when the three (and a half) legged kitten launched off the table on top of Abbie, and then chased the 28 pound dog around the living room. I just wish I had video of that.
Abbie, by the way, loves this kitten and plays with him in a really fun and gentle way. The rest of the animals are fine with the little guy (for the most part). We caught this picture of Calvin looking at the visitor.
We are going to have a tough time giving the little guy back to L. He seems to be teaching us something about acceptance and perseverance every day. Plus, he likes to crawl in our laps for naps.
Joel Osteen and his Slapping Wife
Tony has a couple posts on the case of Victoria Osteen, accused of slapping a flight attendant for a stain on her first class seat.
I loathe the commercialized Christianity these two sell (and "sell" is the operative word), but as Tony noted, some of the prospective jurors suggest that they will never have a need for a future lobotomy. So awestruck of the Osteens, several said that they were inclined (heavily) to believe whatever the Preacher and his wife said.
I may be sick now.
I loathe the commercialized Christianity these two sell (and "sell" is the operative word), but as Tony noted, some of the prospective jurors suggest that they will never have a need for a future lobotomy. So awestruck of the Osteens, several said that they were inclined (heavily) to believe whatever the Preacher and his wife said.
"As a Christian, I wouldn't feel it would be my place to judge them," another prospective female juror said.
I may be sick now.
August 5, 2008
Silly Obama--expecting rational discussion to work in America?
As Dee Dee Myers notes, Americans shouldn't have to check the air in our tires:
"As one of President Bush's spokesman once said, ours is a blessed way of life. And if we want to drive on mushy tires, then dammit, we should be able to drive on mushy tires. Oh, and go shopping. That's the American way."
McCain's campaign
Has reduced itself to simply mocking Obama. Nothing else. Obama is too arrogant, too out of touch, too elitist. Whatever.
Interesting as the accusation used to be that Obama was simply a media creation with no substance beyond his beautiful speeches. Turns out that Obama has much more detail in his proposals than McCain. Don't tell the media. They are still saying that McCain is a "maverick" and that "some people say" that Obama "might be a muslim." Sigh.
The latest effort from Camp McCain has been to ridicule Obama's energy plan. Seems that the Illinois Senator suggested basic maintenance and conservation, including checking those tires to keep them properly inflated (reminds me....). Republicans from Newt to whoever else is on Fox have jumped all over Obama. Of course, they want to "drill now" to, uhm, er, possibly lower your gas prices in many years. Turns out that Obama's common sense approach is far from stupid, it is just more evidence that McCain has no real ideas.
Interesting as the accusation used to be that Obama was simply a media creation with no substance beyond his beautiful speeches. Turns out that Obama has much more detail in his proposals than McCain. Don't tell the media. They are still saying that McCain is a "maverick" and that "some people say" that Obama "might be a muslim." Sigh.
The latest effort from Camp McCain has been to ridicule Obama's energy plan. Seems that the Illinois Senator suggested basic maintenance and conservation, including checking those tires to keep them properly inflated (reminds me....). Republicans from Newt to whoever else is on Fox have jumped all over Obama. Of course, they want to "drill now" to, uhm, er, possibly lower your gas prices in many years. Turns out that Obama's common sense approach is far from stupid, it is just more evidence that McCain has no real ideas.
"But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right."
More on Suskind
As Tony noted, the White House response to Suskind was to call him a "gutter journalist" only interested in selling books. The big news, of course, is the allegation of the WH forging a letter, but there is potentially other problems for Bush and Cheney, namely that
Froomkin excerpts part of Suskind's prologue which has this description of our President:
"in early 2003 in secret meetings with British intelligence, Habbush revealed that Iraq in fact did not have weapons of mass destruction. That information was passed on to the CIA. Suskind claims the president wasn't interested in information that contradicted the case for war. After the president was told about Habbush, Suskind quotes Mr. Bush telling an aide, 'Why don't they ask them to give us something we can use to help us make our case?' Suskind writes that Mr. Bush later dismissed Habbush and cut off the channel of communication to the Iraqi intelligence chief. . . .
Froomkin excerpts part of Suskind's prologue which has this description of our President:
Suskind writes about the dilemma "that would come to define America's posture in the world: Bush's powerful confidence in his instinct. It might be called a compensatory strength, making up for other areas of deficit. He's not particularly reflective, doesn't think in large strategic terms, and he's never had much taste for the basic analytical rigors embraced by the modern professional class. What he does is size up people, swiftly -- he trusts his eyes, his ears, his touch -- and act. . . . [His] headlong, impatient energy fueled his rise. . . . It's how Bush -- like many bullies who've risen to great heights -- became the president. Once he landed in the Oval Office, however, he discovered that every relationship is altered, corrupted by the gravitational incongruities between the leader of the free world and everyone else. Everything you touch is velvety, deferential, and flattering. To fight this, presidents have been known to search furiously for the real, for the unfiltered, secretly eavesdropping on focus group sessions far from Washington, arranging Oval Office arguments between top aides -- a Gerald Ford trick -- or ordering policy advisers, as Nixon often did, to tell them something the advisers were sure they didn't want to hear. These men, even with their overweening confidence, embraced a unique kind of humility, recognizing they were in a bubble and fearing they would make historic mistakes.
"Bush, with his distaste for analysis and those who contradict him, didn't go down those paths, and he seemed unconcerned, unlike other presidents, that isolation would prompt errors in judgment. . . . [He was a] man who trusts only what he can touch placed in a realm where nothing he touches is authentic.
"It's a diabolical twist worthy of Sophocles or Shakespeare. Either would have written it as a tragedy. Because, over the years, the bullying presence of Bush -- making things personal without hesitation or limits -- became the face of America. . . . After eventful years and Bush's re-election, the nation and its leader became inseparable, as America, itself, was viewed as angry, reckless, petulant and insecure, spoiled and careless, with a false smile that concealed boiling hostility."
White house behind forgery?
Ron Suskind has a new book out this week that claims White House ordered the forgery of a letter linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. If true, this seems like a big deal to me.
Of course, I thought that torture might actually lead to impeachment, so what in the hell do I know?
Of course, I thought that torture might actually lead to impeachment, so what in the hell do I know?
August 4, 2008
The liberal media
And I think this is a great example of what we are talking about here. I was just about to post something like this the other day (seriously) but ran out of time/took a nap.
But seriously, as The BRAD BLOG notes, the death of the alleged anthrax killer has been covered without anyone noting the political bent of the attacks. Two of those letters were sent to prominent liberals (Daschle and Leahy in the Senate), a fact that most coverage of the recent suicide failed to mention.
And to be fair, there is a great possibility that this guy was as unhinged as the latest church shooter, and that his "political" was actually "crazy."
But here is the kicker. You tell me (honestly) if the victims had been conservative, and the alleged killer were percieved to be liberal--don't you think that would have led every broadcast and been in every headline? When the media repeats McCain talking points about Obama being too arrogant (because McCain is humble because he repeats "my friends" instead of "um?") don't you think even the so-called liberals in the media would have led off with, "some say that the attacks were politically motivated by liberal hatred of conservative blah blah?"
I think absolutely they all would have. The church shootings in Colorado were explained exactly that way. Columbine was explained that way. But the only time I can remember any discussion of right wing hatred was the OKC bombing. And even that became a defensive effort on the behalf of Limbaugh and his drones.
But now, with a clear opportunity to talk about the political bias of the alleged murderer, and the media omits the question?
But seriously, as The BRAD BLOG notes, the death of the alleged anthrax killer has been covered without anyone noting the political bent of the attacks. Two of those letters were sent to prominent liberals (Daschle and Leahy in the Senate), a fact that most coverage of the recent suicide failed to mention.
And to be fair, there is a great possibility that this guy was as unhinged as the latest church shooter, and that his "political" was actually "crazy."
But here is the kicker. You tell me (honestly) if the victims had been conservative, and the alleged killer were percieved to be liberal--don't you think that would have led every broadcast and been in every headline? When the media repeats McCain talking points about Obama being too arrogant (because McCain is humble because he repeats "my friends" instead of "um?") don't you think even the so-called liberals in the media would have led off with, "some say that the attacks were politically motivated by liberal hatred of conservative blah blah?"
I think absolutely they all would have. The church shootings in Colorado were explained exactly that way. Columbine was explained that way. But the only time I can remember any discussion of right wing hatred was the OKC bombing. And even that became a defensive effort on the behalf of Limbaugh and his drones.
But now, with a clear opportunity to talk about the political bias of the alleged murderer, and the media omits the question?
August 3, 2008
The campaign that might have been
From an Andrew Sullivan reader last January saying that a John McCain would be "rich in ideas and poor in rancor" because JMC represents "an integrity and heroism that simply cannot be denied."
Yeah, until that same Hero started using Britney Spears in ads against the candidate he supposedly respected. Ads, I might ad, that McCain is very proud of today.
Obama's response was spot on: "is this the best you can come up with?" Is this really what the country needs to worry about?
Yeah, until that same Hero started using Britney Spears in ads against the candidate he supposedly respected. Ads, I might ad, that McCain is very proud of today.
Obama's response was spot on: "is this the best you can come up with?" Is this really what the country needs to worry about?
David Gergen says that McCain is playing an old race card
And I agree. Watch it here.
And one more thing. I am so annoyed at the media in this country. They are so damn stupid. The very same people who turned the son of a President, who was also a Yale and Harvard graduate, who was also filthy stinking rich from birth--into a Washington outsider Bubba Texan regular guy--remember that? Well, those same geniuses are now telling us that John McCain, who married into money and buys 500 dollar shoes is "everyman," while Barack Obama, who worked for everything he has earned and has essentially fulfilled the American dream--he is an elitist snob.
And one more thing. I am so annoyed at the media in this country. They are so damn stupid. The very same people who turned the son of a President, who was also a Yale and Harvard graduate, who was also filthy stinking rich from birth--into a Washington outsider Bubba Texan regular guy--remember that? Well, those same geniuses are now telling us that John McCain, who married into money and buys 500 dollar shoes is "everyman," while Barack Obama, who worked for everything he has earned and has essentially fulfilled the American dream--he is an elitist snob.
Quote of the day
Or week. Whatever. This from a the coal industry:
Sometimes the material just writes itself.
"Bill Raney, president of the 93-year-old trade association, called Bush's visit 'one of the proudest moments' in the organization's history.
'He is the voice of reason inside the Beltway,' Raney said."
Sometimes the material just writes itself.
The Dark Side
First, a look at the Dark Side, or at least a review of Jane Mayer's book by that title on torture from the NYT by historian Alan Brinkley (I used to use his textbook). Worth the read, but a few graphs that jumped out at me.
First, talking about a group of staunch Republicans who tried to oppose the torture policy within the system, this story:
And this concluding paragraph putting this in some historical context.
First, talking about a group of staunch Republicans who tried to oppose the torture policy within the system, this story:
Matthew Waxman, a Defense Department lawyer overseeing detainee issues, who sought ways to stop what he believed to be illegal and dangerous policies. Waxman summoned a meeting of high-ranking military officers and Defense Department officials (including the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force), all of whom supported the restoration of Geneva Convention protections. Waxman was quickly hauled up before Addington and told that his efforts constituted “an abomination.” All of these lawyers, and others, soon left the government after being deceived, bullied, thwarted and marginalized by the Cheney loyalists.
And this concluding paragraph putting this in some historical context.
The Bush administration is not, of course, the first or only regime to violate civil liberties. John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all authorized or tolerated terrible violations of civil and human rights, all of them in response to great national and global crises. In some respects, the Bush administration is simply following a familiar path by responding to real dangers with illegal and deplorable methods. But Jane Mayer’s extraordinary and invaluable book suggests that it would be difficult to find any precedent in American history for the scale, brutality and illegality of the torture and degradation inflicted on detainees over the last six years; and that it would be even harder to imagine a set of policies more likely to increase the dangers facing the United States and the world.
August 1, 2008
More
Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings, notes the recent story of Walmart warning its managers of problems should the Democrats get power. The boxstore could be forced--gasp--to allow unions or even possibly pay a living wage.
Yes, by all means, let's make sure that Walmart has a free hand. What could go wrong?
****
More on the Bush policy of misgoverning America:
Yes, by all means, let's make sure that Walmart has a free hand. What could go wrong?
****
More on the Bush policy of misgoverning America:
His administration immediately abandoned the modern techniques of governing developed and used by both Democratic and Republican presidents in the years after the end of World War II. What distinguished the Bush presidency was the small, insulated White House clique that made critical policy choices without using either sound information or outside advice to guide decisions. Bad policies continued despite overriding evidence of failure and made disastrous outcomes a near certainty.Just another example of what we are talking about. Conservatives don't have to be against good governing, and the fact that so many right winger are shows how irresponsible they are. It is amazing that we have a major Party that essentially wishes for our government to fail in its basic tasks.
The Bush presidency will go down as providing by far the poorest quality of governance in the modern period of big government that began with Franklin Roosevelt. Sound management, however, is not associated with political party or orientation. Conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower ranks as far ahead of other postwar presidents in managerial capability as Bush is behind.
Couple more items
First, and related to my previous post, this quote from Thomas Frank's new book--The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule:
****
And second, for those who accuse me of hating Bush so much that I would not recognize a good thing when I see it, let me post this story that suggests that a recent report showing that
See what a government program can do? I sure hope that Bush's people don't realize what he did--screwing up like this and succeeding. /snark
"The best public servant is the worst one. A thoroughly first-rate man in public service is corrosive. He eats holes in our liberties. The better he is and the longer he stays the greater the danger. If he i an enthusiast—a birhgt-eyed madman who is frantic to make this the finiest government in the world—the black plague is a housepet by comparison."
****
And second, for those who accuse me of hating Bush so much that I would not recognize a good thing when I see it, let me post this story that suggests that a recent report showing that
"homelessness in the United States decreased by 30 percent between 2005 and 2007."might actually be the result of Bush policy. Seems he appointed a man named Philip Mangano who borrowed from the British to develop a very aggressive policy to get the chronic homeless into some kind of shelter immediately--thus relieving the shelter beds for those in need of short term help. Seems like a really good idea.
See what a government program can do? I sure hope that Bush's people don't realize what he did--screwing up like this and succeeding. /snark
My problem with the right--continued
Leighton posted a very thoughtful comment in our thread on right-wing rhetoric:
But it isn't just that we have prominent and vocal right wing commentators who routinely refer to me (as a liberal) as a bigger threat than terrorism, or suggest that we are traitors to our country, or should be killed--but the far right has articulated a policy of government that is, by definition, destructive. Eric Lotke borrows Rick Perlstein's description of this approach as E. coli conservatism:
The far right, however, says every governmental program is bad, and every tax is evil. How do you make that work? How do you find responsible governance in that mess?
And when you see the crumbling infrastructure (have we forgotten the Minnesota bridge) routine food safety problems, dangerous toys, the absolutely preventable mortgage crisis, etc., you don't have to be a leftist to think that there is a place for government regulation. Absolutely we should argue about those regulations and use them with caution, and absolutely some taxes are bad and some programs irresponsible.
But conservatives have created a dynamic where their goal for governance is completely destructive. I don't believe most conservatives want this anymore than they cheer for Ann Coulter (well, Dobson cheers her) or Michael Savage. Time for them to regain their party.
"So the core problem I see with right-wing hacks on Fox and talk radio (as distinguished from principled conservatives like the ones in my family) isn't their violent speech, though that is a problem; it's the hopelessness and fearmongering they sell, appealing to the worst parts of people for profit, even when there is no overt suggestion of violence."I couldn't agree more, and that is just one of the things that makes me sad about our state of political rhetoric.
But it isn't just that we have prominent and vocal right wing commentators who routinely refer to me (as a liberal) as a bigger threat than terrorism, or suggest that we are traitors to our country, or should be killed--but the far right has articulated a policy of government that is, by definition, destructive. Eric Lotke borrows Rick Perlstein's description of this approach as E. coli conservatism:
"Once in power, E. coli conservatives shrink government by hamstringing it. They weaken rules that protect people, slash the budgets of consumer agencies and appoint industry friends to oversight commissions. The result: Some government regulatory agencies that we trust to protect us have shrunk to insignificance or serve private industry rather than consumers."Here's the thing: I think that responsible liberalism and responsible conservatism both have negatives and positives, but both of them are workable, and both call for good and responsible governance.
The far right, however, says every governmental program is bad, and every tax is evil. How do you make that work? How do you find responsible governance in that mess?
And when you see the crumbling infrastructure (have we forgotten the Minnesota bridge) routine food safety problems, dangerous toys, the absolutely preventable mortgage crisis, etc., you don't have to be a leftist to think that there is a place for government regulation. Absolutely we should argue about those regulations and use them with caution, and absolutely some taxes are bad and some programs irresponsible.
But conservatives have created a dynamic where their goal for governance is completely destructive. I don't believe most conservatives want this anymore than they cheer for Ann Coulter (well, Dobson cheers her) or Michael Savage. Time for them to regain their party.
July 31, 2008
This is funny
You have all heard about the McCain latest juvenile attack on Obama that compares the Illinois Senator to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Well, evidently, the Hilton family are big McCain supporters and they don't appreciate the ad. Heh.
Everywhere I turn, I read sharp critiques of McCain's campaign. It started out with the man saying he would run a dignified campaign that was respectful of Obama. Then he is saying that Obama would win a political campaign even if it meant losing a war. Then he bashes Obama for not visiting the wounded troops (even as he shows a clip of Obama playing basketball with the troops) and we learn today that McCain had a clip ready that was going to bash Obama for visiting the troops if he went.
No wonder lifelong Republican and Ike's grandaughter, Susan Eisenhower is not only endorsing Obama, but says today that McCain's campaign shows that the Republican Party is out of ideas.
Everywhere I turn, I read sharp critiques of McCain's campaign. It started out with the man saying he would run a dignified campaign that was respectful of Obama. Then he is saying that Obama would win a political campaign even if it meant losing a war. Then he bashes Obama for not visiting the wounded troops (even as he shows a clip of Obama playing basketball with the troops) and we learn today that McCain had a clip ready that was going to bash Obama for visiting the troops if he went.
No wonder lifelong Republican and Ike's grandaughter, Susan Eisenhower is not only endorsing Obama, but says today that McCain's campaign shows that the Republican Party is out of ideas.
July 30, 2008
Right-Wing and the TN shooter
First and foremost, just like the Columbine and Va Tech (and every other shooting), let me be clear that the person responsible for the shooting is the shooter. I agree with those who say he is obviously mentally ill (perhaps not technically).
So, I post this with a bit of trepidation. For me, the issue is not really who is to blame for this shooting. As I said, that is obvious. But it does seem to me raise some of the issues of public responsibility and hate speech. I have suggested here that conservatives have let their right wing idiots into the mainstream much more than the left has. Ann Coulter routinely says something incredibly offensive about gays, minorities, or liberals, yet always lands on some show.
Many say that the political dialogue is poisoned on both ends, and to a certain degree, I think that is true. Certainly there are many on the left that make me wince when they speak. Hell, Pelosi does sometimes.
But it seems to me that the right advocates or jokes about violence toward the left much more casually than the left does. As the piece notes, I can not recall Olbermann calling for the death of right wingers. He mocks O'Reilly incessantly, and derides many on the right--but I don't recall him ever calling for them to die, or suggesting that he would like to kill them. The closest I can think of was when Bill Maher seemed to cheer an assassination attempt on Cheney, and he took a lot of grief for that.
I know that the left demonizes some conservatives--gun owners, Christian conservatives, militia members, etc. But I don't recall those liberals suggesting (even tongue in cheek) that those conservatives be killed.
Kim has a good list of quotes from the right, and look at worst, how often they have called for the death of liberals for being liberal, or at best, have equated us to those terrorists who are trying to kill Americans:
I am not suggesting censorship, mind you, though I wouldn't mind a little corporate responsibility. But mostly, I am suggesting that the middle of America start to recognize that this kind of hate speech has consequences.
So, I post this with a bit of trepidation. For me, the issue is not really who is to blame for this shooting. As I said, that is obvious. But it does seem to me raise some of the issues of public responsibility and hate speech. I have suggested here that conservatives have let their right wing idiots into the mainstream much more than the left has. Ann Coulter routinely says something incredibly offensive about gays, minorities, or liberals, yet always lands on some show.
Many say that the political dialogue is poisoned on both ends, and to a certain degree, I think that is true. Certainly there are many on the left that make me wince when they speak. Hell, Pelosi does sometimes.
But it seems to me that the right advocates or jokes about violence toward the left much more casually than the left does. As the piece notes, I can not recall Olbermann calling for the death of right wingers. He mocks O'Reilly incessantly, and derides many on the right--but I don't recall him ever calling for them to die, or suggesting that he would like to kill them. The closest I can think of was when Bill Maher seemed to cheer an assassination attempt on Cheney, and he took a lot of grief for that.
I know that the left demonizes some conservatives--gun owners, Christian conservatives, militia members, etc. But I don't recall those liberals suggesting (even tongue in cheek) that those conservatives be killed.
Kim has a good list of quotes from the right, and look at worst, how often they have called for the death of liberals for being liberal, or at best, have equated us to those terrorists who are trying to kill Americans:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean HannityOf those, only Savage has been punished to some degree for his hateful approach. Still on the radio, though (and most recently mocking autistic kids).
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage
"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh
"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." — Glenn Beck
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter
"I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O’Reilly
"The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh
"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ‘em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the [House] speaker." — Sean Hannity
I am not suggesting censorship, mind you, though I wouldn't mind a little corporate responsibility. But mostly, I am suggesting that the middle of America start to recognize that this kind of hate speech has consequences.
Reading the Bible through the eyes of America
Natalie always gives me something to think about, and this post on the Americanized Bible is no exception. At Tony's blog, he and I have been arguing with a Huckabee supporter who thinks a) that waterboarding is not torture, and b) that the state can and should do whatever is necessary to protect us--including torture. The gist of his argument seems to be that what we do to protect ourselves is, by definition, moral.
Natalie suggests another perspective, and challenges that American-centric viewpoint that seems to be filling the church--to say nothing of the push for the "masculine Jesus" and away from what Mark Driscoll calls the "limp-wristed hippie" image. You know, the Jesus who actually told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
Click over to read her entire post and check out the wonderful images she included.
Natalie suggests another perspective, and challenges that American-centric viewpoint that seems to be filling the church--to say nothing of the push for the "masculine Jesus" and away from what Mark Driscoll calls the "limp-wristed hippie" image. You know, the Jesus who actually told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
"Claiborne and Haw write that “the empire of violence and nationalism has crept into the church” (193). We are faced with the danger of reading the Bible “through the eyes of America rather than read[ing] America through the eyes of the Bible. We just want Jesus to be a good American” (194)."
Click over to read her entire post and check out the wonderful images she included.
July 29, 2008
Backyard chickens
I wonder what my neighbors would think of this. Hell, I wonder what Abbie the Wonder Dog would do?
A Torture Paper Trail
Eugene Robinson on the Bush legacy:
"I still find it hard to believe that George W. Bush, to his eternal shame and our nation's great discredit, made torture a matter of hair-splitting, legalistic debate at the highest levels of the U.S. government. But that's precisely what he did.
Three previously classified administration memos obtained last week by the American Civil Liberties Union add to our understanding of this disgraceful episode. The documents are attempts to justify the unjustifiable -- the use of brutal interrogation methods that international agreements define as torture -- and to keep those who ordered and carried out this dirty business from being prosecuted and jailed."
The American Lawn
Our neighbors to one side are both zoologists, and we have had more than a few conversations about water pollution and environmental responsibility. That, plus reading a book on America's obsession with the lawn, annual discussions about the "dead zone" of oxygen depleted water in the Gulf created in part by fertilizers has made me a pretty hand's off lawn manager. I don't water (unless it starts to turn completely brown) and have not applied either weed killer or fertilizer for many, many years. If I could get around to it, I would like to replace a lot of the grass with some kind of drought-resistant monkey grass to further reduce the mowing.
So, it makes me feel a little better when I read this about how much money, water, and chemicals go into our lawns:
So, it makes me feel a little better when I read this about how much money, water, and chemicals go into our lawns:
"Amount of lawn in the United States: 40.5 million acresMore.
Total amount of money spent on lawn care: $30 billion
Percent of residential water used outside: 30 to 60%
Amount of water used daily for residential irrigation: more than 7 billion gallons
Amount of fertilizers used on lawns annually: 3 million tons
Percent reduction of nitrogen fertilizer needed if clippings left on lawn: about 50%
Amount of synthetic pesticides used on lawns annually: over 30 thousand tons
Amount spent on pesticides in 2001 for home and garden use: almost $2.2 billion
Ratio of pesticide use per acre by the average homeowner versus the average farmer: 10 to 1"
Steinberg estimates that we spend $40 Billion a year on lawn care, that some 75,000 + Americans are injured using lawn mowers (roughly the same as injured by firearms).
Americans spill about 17 million gallons of gas each summer (or 50% more than was spilled in the Exxon Valdez).
Millions of birds die each year as a result of lawn-care pesticides.
July 28, 2008
More Monica
And I will bring this up every single time someone tells me that the Bush people were trying to protect us from the terrorists.
Seems that the prosecutor that Monica Goodling refused to hire because the candidate's wife was a Democrat--yeah, he was one of the most qualified counter-terrorism prosecutors around. But Monica refused to consider him (pages 53 and 54). But surely they hired someone just as good who happened to complete her little Bush-love test, right?
Sigh.
Seems that the prosecutor that Monica Goodling refused to hire because the candidate's wife was a Democrat--yeah, he was one of the most qualified counter-terrorism prosecutors around. But Monica refused to consider him (pages 53 and 54). But surely they hired someone just as good who happened to complete her little Bush-love test, right?
Similarly, Kelly told us that Goodling refused to allow EOUSA to hire the candidate because his wife was active in Democratic politics.May this be attached to every discussion about the Bush Justice department from now on.
--snip--
Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was asked to assume EOUSA’s counterterrorism portfolio. This replacement detailee had been an AUSA since September 2004, after having served as an assistant district attorney for 3 years. He had been detailed to EOUSA in 2006. He had no counterterrorism experience and had less than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position, since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.
In sum, we concluded that Goodling prevented EOUSA from selecting an experienced career AUSA to handle counterterrorism issues because of his and his wife’s political affiliation. As a result, a much less experienced, but politically acceptable, attorney was assigned this important responsibility. (emphasis mine)
Sigh.
Remember Monica Goodling?
Well, evidently she refused to hire a qualified prosecutor Because He Was Married to a Democrat. And there is more, from Kyle Sampson's specific intent to only hire Republicans to Monica Goodlings interviews with prospective employees with questions like:
These people tried very hard to ruin the Department of Justice and turn it into a GOP Pac.
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.
These people tried very hard to ruin the Department of Justice and turn it into a GOP Pac.
Interesting Obama interview
With the Jerusalem Post. Read the beginning where he compares Obama's approach to McCain and Bush--their comfort level with the region's issues and how many staffers they had in their interview. McCain brought Lieberman and (according to the writer) looked uncomfortable and ill-at ease several times. Bush brought a whole team to help him. Obama sat down with one aide--who's sole contribution seemed to be setting up the pictures.
With that in mind, read his interview and see how intelligent this man is.
With that in mind, read his interview and see how intelligent this man is.
July 27, 2008
Chuck Hagel on McCain's irresponsible attacks
The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME: "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, “You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic.”"Most conservatives I talk to don't seem to recognize just how casually they can question the patriotism of liberals. A friend of mine compared it to the assumption that conservatives are accused of being racists. I countered that whereas he had never had his patriotism challenged, I had been accused of racism. And sexism. The only parallel I can really imagine are those in the Christian community who decide that the people they disagree with are not just honorable people trying to understand God who have come to a different conclusion--they are actually not Christians.
Sunday morning roundup
Good morning, everyone. Hope your summer weekend is going well. I have some good coffee and SOF is making something delicious for our brunch--so I am doing very well.
This week, of course, saw Barack Obama tour the Middle East and speak in Germany. And by all accounts, he did very well. All the talk about the increased scrutiny giving him more opportunities to screw up proved to be false. Obama looked presidential, and from what I saw, gave a speech for the ages in front of 200,000+ Germans. To be fair, after the last 8 years, this inanimate carbon rod looks more presidential than this.
But the scrutiny given Obama's visit coupled with John McCain's unbelievably inept campaigning this week led to increased whining from the right that the "liberal media" loved Obama and was shafting McCain. One report showed that Obama received nearly twice the minutes of coverage as McCain. But the LA Times points out that more is not necessarily positive:
If you want an example, just look at CBS's decision to edit McCain's interview to clip out his mistakes.
I still believe that our media is driven by money and what is "easy." And Obama is scintillating and interesting, and very easy to cover. Add to that the corporate machines running our media, and their clear conservative bent, and you have an interesting "capitalistic" approach to media. But conservatives have repeated this lie (in addition to others) so often that even some liberals assume that the media is biased toward them. And, I think, many analysts believe it and so go out of their way to dispel the fear that they are too liberal.
*****
Speaking of McCain, he has a new ad out that challenges Obama's commitment to our troops. What a shock! A conservative saying that liberals don't support the troops. McCain used Obama's recent trip, and mischaracterized Obama's decision to not visit the troops in Germany as a snub. Even some conservatives cried foul, and many have noted that McCain seems to have thrown the clean campaign out the window. Perhaps it is to be expected. His entire campaign has been predicated on the idea that Obama was wrong on Iraq and he was right. Maliki's endorsement of Obama, and even our President's decision to suggest "time horizons" undercuts McCain's approach, and has left him stuttering about "we will win, we have won, we are winning," in a completely incoherent way. Chris Bodenner, at Sully's blog said it best:
All in.
This week, of course, saw Barack Obama tour the Middle East and speak in Germany. And by all accounts, he did very well. All the talk about the increased scrutiny giving him more opportunities to screw up proved to be false. Obama looked presidential, and from what I saw, gave a speech for the ages in front of 200,000+ Germans. To be fair, after the last 8 years, this inanimate carbon rod looks more presidential than this.
But the scrutiny given Obama's visit coupled with John McCain's unbelievably inept campaigning this week led to increased whining from the right that the "liberal media" loved Obama and was shafting McCain. One report showed that Obama received nearly twice the minutes of coverage as McCain. But the LA Times points out that more is not necessarily positive:
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative."
If you want an example, just look at CBS's decision to edit McCain's interview to clip out his mistakes.
I still believe that our media is driven by money and what is "easy." And Obama is scintillating and interesting, and very easy to cover. Add to that the corporate machines running our media, and their clear conservative bent, and you have an interesting "capitalistic" approach to media. But conservatives have repeated this lie (in addition to others) so often that even some liberals assume that the media is biased toward them. And, I think, many analysts believe it and so go out of their way to dispel the fear that they are too liberal.
*****
Speaking of McCain, he has a new ad out that challenges Obama's commitment to our troops. What a shock! A conservative saying that liberals don't support the troops. McCain used Obama's recent trip, and mischaracterized Obama's decision to not visit the troops in Germany as a snub. Even some conservatives cried foul, and many have noted that McCain seems to have thrown the clean campaign out the window. Perhaps it is to be expected. His entire campaign has been predicated on the idea that Obama was wrong on Iraq and he was right. Maliki's endorsement of Obama, and even our President's decision to suggest "time horizons" undercuts McCain's approach, and has left him stuttering about "we will win, we have won, we are winning," in a completely incoherent way. Chris Bodenner, at Sully's blog said it best:
I predict these nasty, petty, and desperate attacks will only grow as Obama soars into November. What else does McCain have to run on? It's the same approach Clinton took after Feb. 5: if I can't beat him, I'll drag him down to my level and hope he hits back, besmirching his image as a "new politician." It wasn't exactly a winning strategy.
All in.
July 26, 2008
The Olympic games
Over a lovely dinner last night with some friends, we discussed the relevancy of the Olympics. I am pretty sure I was outnumbered at the table last night. Of course, they were all wrong, so that makes it easier.
In all honesty, I really understand why so many true sports fans love the Olympics. They love seeing those sports that never get any attention elsewhere, and as several noted last night, for track and field, it is the pinnacle of the sport, and the only real goal of the top athletes in the sport.
But here are my problems with the Games.
1) The American coverage. I think the Simpsons said it the best when they had their own Olympics in Springfield where athletes received the "glorious gold, so-so silver, and shameful bronze." If I hear one more of our idiot reporters ask someone how bad they feel for getting the silver, I will puke. I will. Not only that, but they add drama to events that are naturally dramatic. Kind of like adding sugar to sweet tea. Disgusting and annoying.
2) American coverage, cont. I hate the national jingoism on display. Rarely do we see coverage of sports where Americans are not competitive. That may have made sense in the Cold War when we were fighting the dirty Commies in hockey, but it makes no sense when a good number of those athletes competing for other nations live and train in the US.
3) The lack of true national rivalry. Perhaps a contradiction with the last point, but I stand by it. When the Olympics were a way to compete with our enemies, the games had a sense of peaceful coexistence and healthy competition. Better to wave flags at each other's bob sled teams than shoot each other, as it were. But Al Qaeda is not likely to field a bob sled team.
4) The increased corporatization of the games. I remember when Bob Costas got in trouble during the Atlanta games for criticizing China's human rights policies. China complained to the corporate sponsors, and they reined Bob in--for saying the truth. The real rivalries are there, but we can't talk about them because our corporations are too busy selling out to China.
5) As a result, we get made-up rivalries, like the US and Australian swim teams. Really? I am supposed to care about that?
I will probably watch some of the games. I always end up doing so. But they often don't make me happy.
So, tell me. Why will you watch (or not watch) the Olympics? And if you are not going to watch, why do you hate America?
In all honesty, I really understand why so many true sports fans love the Olympics. They love seeing those sports that never get any attention elsewhere, and as several noted last night, for track and field, it is the pinnacle of the sport, and the only real goal of the top athletes in the sport.
But here are my problems with the Games.
1) The American coverage. I think the Simpsons said it the best when they had their own Olympics in Springfield where athletes received the "glorious gold, so-so silver, and shameful bronze." If I hear one more of our idiot reporters ask someone how bad they feel for getting the silver, I will puke. I will. Not only that, but they add drama to events that are naturally dramatic. Kind of like adding sugar to sweet tea. Disgusting and annoying.
2) American coverage, cont. I hate the national jingoism on display. Rarely do we see coverage of sports where Americans are not competitive. That may have made sense in the Cold War when we were fighting the dirty Commies in hockey, but it makes no sense when a good number of those athletes competing for other nations live and train in the US.
3) The lack of true national rivalry. Perhaps a contradiction with the last point, but I stand by it. When the Olympics were a way to compete with our enemies, the games had a sense of peaceful coexistence and healthy competition. Better to wave flags at each other's bob sled teams than shoot each other, as it were. But Al Qaeda is not likely to field a bob sled team.
4) The increased corporatization of the games. I remember when Bob Costas got in trouble during the Atlanta games for criticizing China's human rights policies. China complained to the corporate sponsors, and they reined Bob in--for saying the truth. The real rivalries are there, but we can't talk about them because our corporations are too busy selling out to China.
5) As a result, we get made-up rivalries, like the US and Australian swim teams. Really? I am supposed to care about that?
I will probably watch some of the games. I always end up doing so. But they often don't make me happy.
So, tell me. Why will you watch (or not watch) the Olympics? And if you are not going to watch, why do you hate America?
July 25, 2008
July 24, 2008
Lincoln Chafee on Bush's economic diagnosis
And he suggests that Bush's tax policy certainly didn't help:
Does he communicate so simplistically because he thinks that is the best way to communicate to people? Or does he want to appear "dumb" to appeal to American stupidity?
The president reversed his predecessors' good, conservative fiscal policies -- responsible stewardship of revenues and expenditures. So who's drunk?But my favorite little line:
"True to form, the president prefers simplistic jargon over communicating the complexity of any subject."Why is that? Does he really not understand the complexity of any subject? Seriously. He describes terrorist motivations as "they hate us for our freedom," and our approach to the world as "you are with us or against us."
Does he communicate so simplistically because he thinks that is the best way to communicate to people? Or does he want to appear "dumb" to appeal to American stupidity?
July 23, 2008
More on McCain's foreign policy
Following up in McCain's attack on Obama, several have taken note of McCain's recent error on foreign policy. It isn't quite the Iraq/Pakistan border, but while he dismissively attacks Obama for his stance on the surge, McCain gets the key chronology completely wrong.
Oh, and for those who still cling to the "liberal media" mythology, CBS evidently spliced the video tape to not show McCain's completely wrong answer.
Oh, and for those who still cling to the "liberal media" mythology, CBS evidently spliced the video tape to not show McCain's completely wrong answer.
McCain and Bush's war
While not completely fair, a video showing how supportive McCain has been for Bush and his war.
July 22, 2008
Wow
Joe Klein (not a big fan, btw) on McCain's suggestion that Obama would rather "lose a war in order to win a political campaign":
"This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad."
Bush--economic geniuser
The Houston Chronicle obtained a video of Bush speaking to a Republican fundraiser, where he says that Wall Street got drunk, and now has a hangover. Of course, no mistakes by the "decider," but as with everything, bad decisions made by other people.
And because I haven't posted it in a while....
And because I haven't posted it in a while....
More right wing nuttery
Obama is being sponsored by Al Qaeda. Ah, the lovely American Family Association. Hating liberals, gays, and now Muslims (and supposed Muslims) since the 1977.
Nice.
Nice.
Interesting
Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically:
A pretty seismic change, don't you think?
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.And this:
"Fifty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military, compared with 82 percent of white Catholics and 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation."
A pretty seismic change, don't you think?
How Obama Sees the World
Fareed Zakaria suggests that Obama is the real conservative on foreign policy in this race. More like HW Bush and miles away from the idealistic and ideologue-driven W foreign policy.
200 year old tips for a balanced life
And several of them are just as good now as they were then. A few of my favorites:
"1st. Live as well as you dare.
3rd. Amusing books.
5th. Be as busy as you can.
6th. See as much as you can of those friends who respect and like you.
7th. And of those acquaintances who amuse you.
8th. Make no secret of low spirits to you friends, but talk of them freely--they are always worse for dignified concealment.
11th. Don't expect too much from human life--a sorry business at the best.
13th. Do good, and endeavour to please everybody of every degree.
17th. Don't be too severe upon yourself, or underrate yourself, but do yourself justice.
18th. Keep good blazing fires.
19th. Be firm and constant in the exercise of rational religion.
Is it wrong of me to laugh at this?
When Republican presidential nominee is worried about the trouble on the Iraq-Pakistan Border?
July 21, 2008
Stay classy, Republicans. Stay classy
State Senator Kevin Bryant Posts Osama-Obama Photo.
"It was meant tongue in cheek," he said, adding, "I've got some questions about Senator Obama's ties to -- such as his comment that we should negotiate with Iran. Iran's a country that would like to destroy Israel, that bothers me. But is this picture appropriate? I don't know." He let out a loud laugh. "It's gotten a lot more attention than I would have expected."Sigh.
Does he think Obama is actually has terrorist ties? "I don't think he's tied to terrorists, no. I do think he's probably more sympathetic to nations that allow terrorism than I would prefer. And that's why I posted it. Am I saying that him and Osama work together? No, I'm not saying that at all."
And what religion does Bryant think Obama practices? "That's a good question. I don't know."
July 20, 2008
More on McCain and Obama's supposed FP weakness.
hilzoy says a few things I have also said:
"First the Bush administration started appeasing negotiating with Iran, as Obama had suggested; then McCain essentially adopted Obama's position on Afghanistan; then the Bush administration agreed to what they called a 'general time horizon'for withdrawing troops. (Wait: now it's 'Joint aspirational time horizons'!) McCain and Bush seemed to be adopting Obama's positions all over the place. For a risky, inexperienced novice, Obama seemed to have gotten a lot of things right. And for an experienced, serious old hand with a command of foreign policy, McCain seemed to be spending a lot of time playing catch-up. And every time Obama gets to say, in effect, 'Hi, John! What took you so long?', McCain's only winning message gets that much weaker."But nails the other problem for McCain--one I had missed--that it is incredibly problematic for McCain to suggest that al-Maliki doesn't adequately represent the country's wishes:
But saying something like that about the Iraqi government -- that it doesn't really speak for the Iraqi people, or isn't capable of making its own decisions about Iraqi territorial integrity -- would undercut McCain's claims about progress in Iraq. Again, McCain would have to choose: does he say that Iraq's government has made some real political progress, and is capable of making its own decisions? In that case, he should accept its wishes. Does he say that he can disregard its requests on matters of Iraqi sovereignty? In that case, he undercuts a lot of his claims that the surge has enabled real and lasting progress in Iraq.
Politics draws me in once again
In 1996, SOF and I volunteered at the county Democratic office. Those were easy times to be a Democrat with Clinton riding high. Gore did not inspire me in 2000 and I was frankly tired of the Clinton/Gore camp by then. I voted for him, of course, but did so tepidly. Little did I know that Bush would be such a giant cluster. But even with that, I didn't have the energy to volunteer in 04. Not sure why.
Well, today, we walked down to the Midway Market which is one of those cool little old style markets tucked back in the neighborhood. State Senator Andrew Rice spoke at a rally, and he was quite engaging and inspiring. I don't know if he can beat Inhofe (our idiot incumbent) but I believe he is worth getting behind. He told a couple of interesting stories, including some polling data that suggests that only 39% of Oklahomans want to definitely reelect Inhofe.
Well, today I signed up to volunteer. If anyone is interested in following suit, you can do that or contribute to his campaign here.
Because what we have right now isn't working.
Well, today, we walked down to the Midway Market which is one of those cool little old style markets tucked back in the neighborhood. State Senator Andrew Rice spoke at a rally, and he was quite engaging and inspiring. I don't know if he can beat Inhofe (our idiot incumbent) but I believe he is worth getting behind. He told a couple of interesting stories, including some polling data that suggests that only 39% of Oklahomans want to definitely reelect Inhofe.
Well, today I signed up to volunteer. If anyone is interested in following suit, you can do that or contribute to his campaign here.
Because what we have right now isn't working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)