More ramblings

Link

Interesting. Many have held held the Reno AG as a completely immoral leader during her tenure, and cited her role in going after Waco and Ruby Ridge. In this blog entry, this journalist notes that Lt. Gen. Boykin (remember him? the guy who said that in Somalia he was fighting Satan as Islam or some such thing) is in charge of Military Intelligence, and can be directly linked to the prison torture scandal. So, we have someone who has alienated the entire Muslim world now linked to this abuse of Muslim men. This is bad appearance, at the very best, and shows how Bush's "loyalty" ends up biting us. Had he fired Boykin for essentially calling the war a modern crusade against Islam (while in uniform), he would have some credibility now. But he doesn't.

But back to Reno. Evidently, Boykin served as a military advisor to Reno regarding tactics for going into Waco. And speaking of Waco, I am still thinking about my rant yesterday about the right wing media machine. Flipped through Fox this morning and they were up to old tricks. They introduced a conservative media critic (btw, this particular critic sticks in my mind, because I saw him absolutely outraged that the TV show Cybil had a discussion of the female anatomy. I saw that show and it was respectful and embracing of women, not pornographic or puerile, but this guy was outraged. Said something about how he didn't want his 17 year old daughter hearing about "labia" but also his 40 year old wife! That's right, he didn't want his 40 year old wife hearing about labia. I assume she knows, but this certainly speaks to a level of sexual repression that is hard to justify as healthy) to discuss the world response to recent events. The world, they shouted, had been outraged at photos of the prisoner abuse, but were strangely silent on the beheading of Berg. Hmm. Switched to CNN and they were talking about the world outrage over the beheading, and even the Iraqis who were outraged.

I predict, and this takes no Amazing Kreskin, that this media will absolutely savage Kerry every time they can. While excusing Bush's inarticulate expressions, they will question every word choice with Kerry. They will take every opportunity to repeat the Bush line on Kerry--that he is soft on defense and an ultra-liberal. they will also continue to argue that kerry is essentially un-American for opposing the war in Vietnam the way he did. And this brings me back to Reno and Waco and Ruby Ridge. I have asked this question before, but still no response. So here goes again. I can understand how people can frame the anti-war debate as being counter to American interests by encouraging the VC to keep fighting. What I don't understand is how conservative politicians could cuddle up to militia leaders (and many did not, remember. GHWB denounced the NRA for its attacks on federal employees as jack booted thugs) and carry their conservative "hate America" language without any reprisals. No one accused Rush of being Un American for being soft on right wing hate, nor did they go after the numerous elected officials who spoke favorably of militia concerns. You think they had some legitimate concerns about encroaching government? Fine, though that sounds really funny now that we have one of them as AG using his power as government to encroach to unprecedented levels. But why are they not un-American? Why is this only reserved for those on the left?

New Comments on Streak's Blog

Blogger Help : How do I add comments to my posts?: "Who Can Comment?

Only Registered Users: if not logged in already, visitors will be prompted to log into Blogger before leaving a comment. If they don't have an account, they can create one.

Anyone: anybody in the whole wide world can leave comments"

The new comments are pretty cool, in that they are linked directly to the post. That is the good news. The only bad news is that Blogger is changing some of the ways that comments can be added. Under my old comment provider, you could just put a little info in the fields and then your comment. Blogger allows annonymous comments, but if you want to log in, you have to create a Blogger account. That is easy (and free) but kind of a pain. The good news again, however, is that I can allow the annonymous comments. On many blogs, the problem of abusive or even spam comments is forcing these kinds of changes.

but please, comment. Feel free to do so annonymously, but I would love to see some kind of indication of who you are.

World War I and the Suppression of Dissent, Part 2 (FD 5/02): "As America entered the last year of World War I, 1918, ?patriotic? fervor seemed to swell. In May, the Sedition Act (see www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/ 1918/usspy.html for text) imposed ?a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both ...? upon anyone disposed to ?utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.?

In October 1918, Congress passed the Alien Act, by which ?any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become thereafter, a member of any anarchist organization? could be deported.

Libertarians of the day, including Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, and Oswald Garrison Villard spoke out in protest against such measures. But most voices still remained silent.

The various acts of 1917 and 1918 were used to destroy what was left of the left wing in America. Victor Berger, the first socialist elected to Congress, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for hindering the war effort. (While Berger was free on appeal, his constituency returned him to Congress.) The socialist labor leader Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for making an anti-war speech."

and over a thousand people were jailed under these bogus laws. Just a little reminder for those who lapse into the kind of arrogance that so permeates our administration about our system. We have absolutely violated our own principles, over and over. The question is if we will rise above and fix them. I am not sure that saying the guy in charge of such abuses is superb sends a very good signal.

Salon.com News | Breaking GOP ranks: "Yet as Bush made clear in his visit to the Pentagon Monday morning, he remains determined to keep Rummy on -- a determination that should be taken literally. For this president is, to quote the one book he appears to ever seriously consult, 'an Israelite without guile.' He could not bring himself to acknowledge a single personal mistake or error of judgment when pressed four times in his press conference last month. Nor could he bring himself to personally apologize to the Iraqi people for the torture and abuse revelations when he went on Arab television, supposedly with the express purpose of doing so. All this pales compared with the magnitude of error and miscalculation he would have to admit, however tacitly, if he dropped Rumsfeld now."

Democracy under fire

This morning I am as depressed as I have ever been about democracy. Watching the President tell the Arab world that he is shocked and horrified by the prison abuses, then turn and nudge Rumsfeld and tell him he is doing a "superb job," I am wondering what is going on in this world. Inhofe's ridiculous and shameful outburst yesterday only further dampens my mood. Of course, why should I be surprised? Bush thinks he is doing a superb job too. Invading a country without cause, setting our relationship with the Arab world back a few hundred years, and enriching already rich friends. Hell, of course. Superb!

I read David Brock's chapter in Salon (found here) and was further discouraged. I know, he has some credibility issues. That is odd, isn't it, since his credibility issue comes from having once been the darling of the right. But now, the right uses that against him. Anyway, it should also be noted that his book chapter really doesn't raise new allegations. We have known for some time that the media participated in a savaging of Al Gore in 2000--repeating lies and half truths as if they came from Al's own mouth. He didn't say he invented the internet, but by the time the right wingers were done with him, mainstream media people were asking if Gore was dilusional. I bought into it too, not enough to vote for Nader or Bush, but would apologize for Gore.

And the machine keeps working. I was told recently that Clinton's trashing of the White House was shocking, yet several reports showed that was more lies. Now, I hear that Kerry is so far to the left that he is out of the mainstream of America. Why? Because he is from Massachusetts? Or because the machine keeps repeating that Kerry is too liberal.

Meanwhile, the machine keeps patting George on the back when he pronounces something correctly. Last night, Tim Russert charged that Kerry had to say what he would do differently in Iraq--forgetting that the same question needs to be addressed to Bush. And he is one of the well-intentioned guys who believes in objectivity. On Fox, they make no such claim. Their goal is to promote the GOP, so it should come as no shock that on their morning show today, they were excoriating CBS for airing the photos. Even Rumsfeld was mad about the cameras. You see how this works? The real problem is not the abuses, it was the airing of the abuse photos! The photos caused that beheading, not the abuses. If we had only a responsible press, the world wouldn't have known about the abuses. You remember learning that, right? If you don't get caught, it is ok? In Sunday School, weren't you taught that sins were only sins when you were found out? And that your first question should be to question those who revealed your activity?

True journalists would be concerned about the story of abuse, and how our government covered it up. Fake journalists blame the media for creating a fake scandal and ignore those in charge. "Balance," they cry, and then introduce James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma.

Brock notes the importance of an informed populace in an effective democracy. Watching the news makes me wonder if that isn't a complete pipe dream. The aforementioned Fox makes no claims at actually educating the people. They enjoy prodding the "liberal" media for balance, while doing nothing of the sort. Remember, the Wash Post and NY Times may be liberal, but they don't see their mission to defend the democratic party. If Democrats screw up, they go after them. When has Fox gone after a Republican? Meanwhile Sinclare Broadcasting censors Nightline because they think it is political.

How can democracy work in this mess? How can people make informed decisions when they are fed lies about their candidates. Kerry speaks French, remember that? And he is unamerican because he pretended to throw his medals away. GWB is a compassionate conservative and dedicated Christian. No matter how his actions belie any of that.

Watching the news last night and even the Daily Show, I was struck by a strong desire to relocate. I am so ashamed of my country today. I am so embarrassed by this so-called democracy. Friends of mine chide me for this--say that the Republic will survive and that being so critical of Bush is just irrational. I am not convinced. I don't think the Inhofe's of this world recognize just how bad this is for us. We have created more recruitment videos than Osama could have ever dreamed of. Yet, the guy who oversaw all of this is doing a "superb" job. Right. Up is down. Black is white.

At this point, I am not sure I will ever vote again. I don't see the point. I am close to checking out of the entire process and leaving you all to your Fox, Rush, and Bush world. "Where clean air is a pipe-dream and truth is what we tell you."

Makes us Proud

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As others condemned the reported abuse of Iraqi
prisoners, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe on Tuesday expressed outrage at the
worldwide outrage over the treatment by American soldiers of those he
called "terrorists" and "murderers."

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged
by the outrage than we are by the treatment," the Oklahoma Republican
said at a U.S. Senate hearing probing the scandal.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations,"
Inhofe said. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners,
they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them
probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned
about the treatment of those individuals."

Coalition military intelligence officers estimated that about 70
percent to 90 percent of the thousands of prisoners detained in Iraq
had been "arrested by mistake," according to a report by Red Cross
given to the Bush administration last year and leaked this week.

The report also said the mistreatment of prisoners apparently
tolerated by U.S. and other coalition forces in Iraq involved
widespread abuse that was "in some cases tantamount to torture."

This from Reuters. Let me just say that Oklahoma has had more than its fair share of bad press. The Dust Bowl effected much of Texas, Eastern Colorado and Kansas, but is most closely associated with Oklahoma. Oklahoma lives with a perpetual inferiority (undeserved, I think) complex for a variety of reasons with jokes about hicks, trailer parks and then tornados. But through it all, Oklahoma has tried to rise above that bad press. During the OK bombing, locals responded in a way that made the national media look stupid. Then Representative Coburn said that showing Schindlers List on television was bad because of the sex and nudity. That doesn't help. Now we have Inhofe--himself a national disgrace, but even he tops himself. Despite the knowledge that many most of the prisoners are not terrorists or murderers, he says that they are. He is appealing to the baser side of American politics--the side who really doesn't care if we execute innocent people here and certainly don't care if we kill or abuse prisoners over there. Because this side of America has no sympathy, no compassion for anyone other than themselves--despite their professed Christianity--and have no clue about how much damage this does to our image as a civilized and moral people.

Seeing The Forest - a Weblog of Politics: "'Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush's robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.

[. . .] 'After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock,' said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

'Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world,' he added.

[. . .] 'After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service,' Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. 'Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American.

[. . .] A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rusmfeld would be seen as Washington's quiet approval of the abuse. 'This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq (news - web sites) in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.

'I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world.'"

From Seetheforest, a great point. How much credibility does Bush's "apology" have when the people who are "responsible," who had the "watch," are reinforced and told they are doing a good job?

Unfortunately, I think that Bush may be getting some pressure from his right wing (hard to believe there are people farther right, huh?) to move on from this. These people think that the Arabs are to blame for this, that our apology sounds like weakness, and ultimately, Like Rush, think that the atrocities were nothing to worry about. In their mind, we should be killing more Arabs to scare them into not suppporting terrorism. I don't think they understand the problem of ruling out of fear alone. At some point, people stop respecting you, and start finding ways to undermine you. And those are often your former friends who start resenting your arrogance. Weren't any of these people bullied? Or were they the bullies? I was bullied. I know what it feels like. And this administration acts like bullies.

New look to Streak's Blog

Blogger has updated their blogging tool (was actually mentioned on NPR this morning) and so Streak is using some of the new features. Couple of bugs still to be worked out. For example, the new tool allows me to email directly to my blog, which is very cool, but those posts don't have the comment option. Blogger has this listed in their Known Issues page and says it will be fixed soon. Speaking of comments, in switching to a different template, I lost the previous comments (sorry, Cold in Laramie) and now have the Blogger comments. I think they will work better in the long run, but will have to see. The comments now will be attached to the message, so if you send a link of one of my postings, the comments should be included on that same page.

Speaking of linking, this new feature is pretty cool. If I want to send a link to one of my favorite postings, say one of the President Jesus episodes, I can do it this way and you don't have to look through the archive page to find the one I referenced.

Anyway, please weigh in with your comments. I think this new look is cool, but who knows?

Conservatives on Bush

The centerpiece of President Bush (news - web sites)'s foreign policy
-- the effort to transform Iraq (news - web sites) into a peaceful
democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast
photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side,
conservatives and former administration officials say the White House
policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political
expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.

Conservatives have become unusually restive. Last Tuesday, columnist
George F. Will sharply criticized the administration's Iraq policy,
writing: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot
be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."
Two days earlier, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq
war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see
that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in
Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."

The complaints about Bush's Iraq policy are relatively new, but they
are in some ways similar to long-standing criticism about Bush's
domestic policies. In a book released earlier this year, former Bush
Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill described Bush as "a blind man in a
room full of deaf people" and said policymakers put politics before
sound policy judgments.

Echoing a criticism leveled by former Bush aide John J. DiIulio Jr.,
who famously described "Mayberry Machiavellis" running the White House,
O'Neill said "the biggest difference" between his time in government in
the 1970s and in the Bush administration "is that our group was mostly
about evidence and analysis, and Karl [Rove], Dick [Cheney], [Bush
communications strategist] Karen [Hughes] and the gang seemed to be
mostly about politics."

Rumsfeld is the designated fall guy: "'These events occurred on my watch,' he said. 'As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them.'"

I have a lot of problems with this guy as Sec Def, but will concede that this statement was nice to hear. Contrast that with this:

"One of the timeless truisms in the Harry Truman legacy was the presidential credo: "The buck stops here."

While there is plenty of blame to go around for the horrific handling of the Iraqi prisoners in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, President Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for what happened on his watch.

Under questioning recently, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to say whether the president took responsibility for the disgraceful acts against prisoners in Iraq, though Bush has apologized for the degradation of the Iraqi prisoners, saying their treatment was "a stain on our country's honor and our country's uniform.""

Nothing is ever really Bush's fault, and evidently, nothing happens on his watch. In fact, he compounds this arrogance by then saying that Rummy is doing a "supurb" job. Really? I guess only if you are also doing a superb job. I have said this before, but the character issue here is huge for me. People who have no ability to take responsibility for the things they do wrong bother me, and we have a President who is incapable of it. Friends of mine dismiss it as either a function of the partisanship, or just a character flaw (though not a moral issue). But even George Will is starting to be critical of this administration:

"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush)."

The Misunderestimated Man - How Bush chose stupidity. By Jacob Weisberg: "The most obvious expression of Bush's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 57, he knows nothing about policy or history. After years of working as his dad's spear-chucker in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy. Though he sometimes carries books for show, he either does not read them or doesn't absorb anything from them. Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many of his intimates do not bother to dispute it even in public."

This is the best, and most damning, paragraph in a good piece on Bush's intelligence. Weisberg arguest that Bush has shown the ability to work hard in the past, but has actually chosen stupidity and mental laziness.

I think he nails a lot of the problems with this president, and points out (again) that the political ramifications of this kind of president is somehow to excuse Bush of his own responsibility. And, for those few times that he approaches articulate, (approaches is probably strong) he gets rewarded. Hell, if he pronounces or even remembers a name correctly, he gets bonus points. If John Kerry speaks out of turn at all, he gets hammered.

Yahoo! News - Bush Praises Rumsfeld on War on Terror: "Blinking into the cameras, Rumsfeld stood ramrod straight to Bush's left with his hands clasped behind his back. Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), who had over the weekend called Rumsfeld the best secretary of defense ever, also was there. "

Bush said that Rumsfeld was doing a superb job. Cheney says best Sec Def ever. Rumsfeld himself took responsibility for the prison abuse, said it happened on his watch. Anyone else see a problem?

Streak the Wonder Dog

For those who have wanted a picture of the blogger himself, here it is. He isn't pictured blogging, naturally, because it is nap time.

streak Originally uploaded by streak541.

{if 0}

Posted by streak541 from Flickr.

{/if}

Yahoo! News - Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy: "Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion,' he said. 'Had someone like Colin Powell (news - web sites) been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice.' "

Exactly what many have been saying. Why would Bush be so adamant about going in? Why would he also ignore an exit strategy? Perhaps because he felt that God was directing him and if so, then God would take care of the details?

EditorandPublisher.com - Information Authority for the Newspaper Industry: "Rall said in the cartoon that Tillman -- who gave up a $3.6-million National Football League contract to join the military and then died last month -- 'falsely believed Bush's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan had something to do with 9/11. Actually, he was a cog in a low-rent occupation Army that shot more innocent civilians than terrorists to prop up puppet rulers and exploit gas and oil resources. So when Tillman got killed by the Afghan resistance, one word naturally came to mind: 'Uh -- idiot' [says one person in the cartoon's final panel]. 'Sad' [says another]. 'Hero!' [says an editor].'"

Yeah, I really hate this. Nothing is gained by this approach, and the criticism that Bush and his administration deserves, gets lost in the stupidity of badmouthing a guy who died for his country. Say what you will about the cause, but the guy put his life on the line for his country. That has to be recognized. Was he a hero? I don't know. I have had an interesting ongoing discussion with a former military man who raises the question of why our heroes are all victims. Jessica Lynch, now Tillman--either captured or dead, while acts of heroism happen every day--people putting their lives on the line and saving themselves and their mission. I think there is also kind of a kneejerk move to annoint someone hero. I remember when that pilot was shot down over Bosnia and escaped. He was branded a hero. Maybe we really don't know what a hero is, so anyone who shows up, the media and American people turn and shout "there's one!"

There is another interesting thread here, though, and that is the ferocity of the response. People suggesting he relocate to France, or hoping he dies--all part of the outpouring of emotion. And why? Why is it when 99.9% of America is behind something that the .01% who might not be is vilified? Barbara Lee casts the one vote against giving Bush carte blanche and she gets death threats. Everyone else voted for it--why denounce the one who didn't? A female basketball player turns her back on the pledge. Every other female college player is supportive or at least not opposing--why focus on the one? Is our discussion of dissent and free speech and individuality that shallow that we really want unanimity and complete conformity? That strikes me as scary. Unfortunately, I see little from this White House to suggest a better approach.

One of the things that many morons don't understand, is that the opposite of love is not hate--it is apathy. You want to show your utter disdain for someone's speech--just ignore it.

Don't Put Slavery in the Flag: "More broadly, the spinners say that the Civil War was about states’ rights, or taxes, or tariffs or the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, it was about all those things. But at bottom the South seceded, not over some abstract notion of states’ rights, but over the right of the Southern states to practice human slavery. As Gov. James S. Gilmore III of Virginia put it in his proclamation commemorating the Civil War, “Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war.” Mississippi didn’t go to war for lower tariffs or for constitutional theory; it went to war to protect white Mississippians’ right to buy and sell black Mississippians."

Right. Take slavery out of the mix, and we have strident speeches, but few southern young men are cleaning their guns to fight over constitutional theory.

This essay cuts right through the ridiculous racism of the confederate flag controversy.

Boing Boing: When booty calls: Free sex for Iraq-bound soldiers?

I am speechless.

Yahoo! News - For a Conservative, Life Is Sweet in Sugar Land, Tex.: "'You find communities like this all over the place,' DeLay says of Sugar Land. 'This is what the future is about.'"

This frightens me. It is a good look at a pretty sheltered part of Texas, the part that produces the Tom "Hammer" Delay, who by the way, makes a big deal about his Christian faith while seeming to actually live none of it. If this is the future, then I am really worried.

Yahoo! News - Louisiana May Ban Low-Slung Pants
: "BATON ROUGE, La. - People who wear low-slung pants that expose skin or 'intimate clothing' would face a fine of up to $500 and possible jail time under a bill filed by a Jefferson Parish lawmaker."

Yet another example of Janet's impact. The backlash is continuing. Is this the way conservatives really want to govern? Interestingly enough (and I will have to find the cite later) but some bloggers have speculated that the FCC backlash will result in more clarified freedom rather than less. Why? Because the previous approach was essentially the equivalent of hand-slapping broadcasters, and while it may have not served that effective to stop "obscenity," the companies preferred to go along rather than object. Now that the fines are much larger, and the threat of license forfeiture exists, many corporations will choose to challenge these laws in court. And many of them may not hold up to First Ammendment scrutiny.

Of course, that just means more Constitutional ammendments: flag burning, right to legislate against the "f" word, right to jail liberal bloggers, etc.......

Clash Point: "Put an end to preaching by cheesy, whiny, quiche eating, preening Nancy Boys . . . right now!  It freaks us meat eaters out.  Get it?  Hire a pastor who throws off a good John Wayne vibe instead of that Boy George feeling.  Know what I mean?  And cheer on “Pastor Wayne” to serve up the solid meat of the scripture . . . the stuff that prods the congregation to biblical maturity rather than prolonging their infancy."

I love this! "Nancy Boys?" Oh, you remember those images of Jesus being compassionate and playing with the kids? That is all got to go! We need a Jesus who kicks ass and takes names. Nevermind how simplistic this is about men, nor about how historically myopic this moron is, but what kind of a jerk wants a Preacher swaggering about church like some John Wayne caricature. Oh wait, John Wayne WAS a caracature. A man who avoided service while acting as America's prototypical soldier. A man who went through two divorces, cheated on at least one, helped his third wife have an abortion. There is your model for preacher, right there!

You really have to be kidding. No, seriously!
"A judicial watchdog panel will hold a hearing May 24 into allegations a South Gate judge asked a rape victim to dinner after sentencing her attacker to life in prison, the panel said Tuesday"

Holy Jebus. Can you believe this guy?

Six O' Clock News from the album Failer by Kathleen Edwards

As a public service, let me call your attention to an album I have been listening to a lot lately. This one has been out for a year or so, but is just fabulous. I am glad to hear that she is working on a new album. Great voice, great lyrics, what more do you want?
[Posted with ecto]

I am testing this blogging tool. If I like it after 2 weeks, I will have to pay for it, but it looks kind of cool. They also provide a windows version.

The Washington Monthly

Watched the President tonight. See comments in this blog entry to the effect of Bush being "resolute and tough." The guy refuses to acknowledge an error, and then talks about how he can't even think of his worst mistake after 9-11. This is a charcter issue for me. I don't trust someone who can't or won't take responsibility for his mistakes.

Here is the thing. He could have done exactly what Richard Clarke did. He could have said that it was his responsibility ultimately that these people died. He wasn't to blame, mind you. The terrorists were, and he is right about that. But he was charged with protecting the American people and he failed. If he got bad intelligence, it is still his fault for not making them better or replacing them. He is ultimately responsible. The buck used to stop at the President's desk. I understand those who sneered at Clinton for his dissembling, but if those same people can't see this President for what he is, they aren't paying attention. He has no character. He has no leadership. He can't even acknowledge a mistake.

WORST PRESIDENT EVER

On Sunday I watched Phil Mickelson finally win his first major. I have been a fan for years. Though I am usually not interested in the hundreds of PGA events, I watch the majors (especially the first three) with great interest. Along with other golf fans, I have watched Phil choke or just be in the wrong place at the wrong time more times than I can remember. So, when Ernie Els got his first eagle to take the lead, I thought it was over. Ernie is a winner, I told my wife, and knows how to close out a tournament like this. Phil can't get past his own demons.

But then a strange thing happened. I watched as Phil started smiling more and more as the round went on. The pressure was mounting--the tournament win edging away, and this guy was smiling! He was enjoying this!

So, later, when Phil put on his green jacket and smiled the smile of a winner, I realized how much I respected him for this. I know, I know. Golf is a trivial pursuit compared to others that people spend lives on. And with or without this win, Phil is living well. He isn't hurting for money and wouldn't have been with a second-place finish. Compared to people all over the world, this was a very trivial non-event. But it had meaning for me. I liked that damn smile. This was a guy who had jokes told about him, who others referred to as a choker, who didn't get respect even though he won year in and year out.

I am sure that had to hurt at some times. It had to suck when an unknown like Justin Leonard won the British, or Ben Curtis (who?) won a major so early in their career. It seemed to happen so easily for others, yet here was a guy who won other tournaments every year and couldn't get the major.

I guess I relate to that. I earned my doctorate after numerous years of battling in grad school--battling with overly-critical advisors, or inner demons who told me my stuff didn't matter. I battled hard, and finally finished, only to struggle again on the job market. All around me I saw other people finish their dissertation with less effort (it seemed) and often receive acclaim--acclaim that eluded me. Some of them were the Tiger Woods--just damn good. Those never bothered me, and most of them were more help to me than any kind of hindrance. But some of them were the Ben Curtis's of the world. They weren't smarter than me(nor dumber), just better positioned, or with better advisors, or just lucky. Hard not to feel good for them for succeeding--but hard not to feel bad about my own situation. The analogy doesn't quite work, because Phil is on Tiger's level, while I am nowhere near the top of my profession. But I somehow feel a connection there.

That connection, I think is that Phil seemed to have found a way to stop allowing those critics, or other people's success define him.
Somehow, while not just denying the monkey, he found a way to fight his way on, undeterred by major failure and keep enjoying what he was doing. After a while, I think it would have been easy to get testy with reporters who kept asking how it felt not to win, or how it felt to be the best player never to win...... At a certain point, I would have wanted to use a 7-iron in a manner not prescribed by the manufacturer! But he kept coming back and kept competing. And smiling. I really felt as he walked up to the ball in the fairway on the 18th fairway, that he would be sad if he lost, but not devastated.

I can learn from this. Adversity doesn't have to be such a negative thing--and I often forget that. We often want success or happiness or whatever, but usually want it to be easy. But that isn't always the best way to get something. I will keep pushing for my major--regardless of the shanks in the trees, the swing that comes and goes and the rejection letters in the mailbox. And if I decide to stop playing that particular game, it will be my choice and will not be because I have given up.

Maybe I can even learn to smile.

Actors Whip Easter Bunny at Church Show
: "A church trying to teach about the crucifixion of Jesus performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs, upsetting several parents and young children.

People who attended Saturday's performance at Glassport's memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, 'There is no Easter bunny,' and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified.

Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. 'He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped,' Salzmann said."

Why are you whipping the bunny? Though someone undoubtedly thought this was a good idea, cooler heads should have prevailed. I remember attending a Christmas Eve service once where the focus was on the brutal savagery of the crucifixion. While Mel would have loved it, it bugged me. It was out of context and really robbed some in the congregation of that Christmas feeling.

Taking on the Easter bunny in this manner seems to completely deny the grace and acceptance of Christianity. While I know that Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, I don't recall him being humorless or trying to frighten children. This comes out of some misunderstandings, I believe, about how people conceptualize their faith. I think these people think that if you belive in the bunny that you can't believe in Jesus. I think that is wrong. I am reminded of a great scene in Lone Star when Otis is explaining to his son about where African Americans hang out in town--"either at His Holiness Church, or Big O's. Most people choose both. It isn't like there is a line between the good poeple and the bad people." Life and faith are more complex than a simplistic black and white fundamentalism.

So, for Easter, on behalf of the rest of us, please leave the bunny alone.

Witnessing Tools: "These designs are all focused on helping people share their faith. Pay special attention to the 25 card witnessing packs we prayerful designed for all Passion outreach programs. Each card is only 24 cents retail and provides a great way to share the Gospel.

The lapel pins and pocket reminders are 100% lead free pewter and feature either a beautiful rendition of the Cross from the movie or the ancient Aramaic word for Passion meaning the burden Christ suffered. Each comes with a witnessing card that features three scriptures and a Salvation prayer."

Oh man, I missed these earlier, or they have just been added to the site. But they are lead-free, so that is good. Consume, and witness. Witness and consume. All the same thing. Pretty soon, people can just do their christian duty by going to the mall.

Church, Inc., naked version

Then other issues that the church feels strongly about come in to play. The increasing commodification of sexuality (always a problem) has just increased and now well beyond just the issue of prostitution. The church seems puzzled when market forces drive pornography into the mainstream. "That is wrong," the church says, angrily, but never wonders about the basic underlying economic forces--those same forces that the church has endorsed as being all-seeing and wise when it came to environmental destruction or the suburban lifestyle. In fact, the only criticism I hear coming from the church on the issue of capitalism relates to sex. Either there are too many sexual images on TV or in the movies. But I have yet to hear the church be angry about a growing disparity between the rich and poor.

That is what makes this particular ad campaign rather brilliant. It combines two conflicting issues for the church: sex and piety. Here, on the very symbol of sacrifice is the symbol of sexuality, and it will freak people out. It is certainly inappropriate and not a good idea for an ad campaign. At least in my book. But neither is selling Official Pewter Pendant Nails (which includes Witnessing tools: "Our mission is to reach the world with the message of hope by creating jewelry and gifts of exceptional quality, which will inspire people to express and share their faith." See? Consuming is a spiritual act.) which "come in two sizes and feature Isaiah 53:5 inscribed on the side." Isn't it? I guess it could be worse, it could be people sporting t-shirts that say "I watched my personal Lord and Savior's crucifixion and all I got was this t-shirt." That would be clearly wrong, correct? Wouldn't it?

Hell, I just don't know anymore.

DVD player to edit movies / Technology allows viewer to bypass offensive content

I have watched this kind of trend with some amusement--religious conservatives trying to remove objectionable material from dvds or editing out such material. Seems like a continuation of the "breast heard around the world," even though some of this has been in the in the works for some time.

On one hand, I am unbelievably sympathetic. I don't have children, but I can't imagine raising kids in a world with 24 hour porn and the bombardment of images on tv and elsewhere. I can respect the desire to protect children from some of this, though sometimes wonder about what people choose to protect their children from--breasts and sexuality v. environmental or documented health hazards. I sometimes think that parents have decided that any sexuality is bad and they must keep their children unaware of that, while not sweating the fast food or other ingested horrors.

Anyway, I do acknowledge that many parents would be glad to have some ability to watch a film with their kids in the room without fear. And that this world feels a little over-sexualized. I remember watching some advertisement (pre-Janet) and marveling in the sexual imagery, all the while feeling a little sick about it. The sexual imagery was fine, and I have no problem with that, but the marketing and commercialization added with the ubiquitous nature of the material started to bother me. I also wondered (as I am sure many did) where these trends would go? Was total nudity or sexual representation on tv just around the corner? Probably not, but I understand the concern. And then we have Bob Dylan on a Victoria's Secret ad. That ain't right.

So now we have the backlash of the breasts. Since Janet we have Clear Channel developing a conscience and Howard Stern gaining friends in weird places (and enemies). ER takes out a breast (of an older woman in a decidedly non-sexual setting) out of fear of offending, and Janet herself is on a permanent (it seems) 5 second delay. It must be weird walking around like that! :) John Ashcroft's AG office has pushed for cuts in some anti-terrorism funding, but has an office devoted to stopping porn.

Like I said above, I have sympathy for the parents. I also hate the increased sexualization of the kids--the image of Jon Benet Ramsey flirting around at age 4 or 5 is sickening. Britney's continued slutification of young singers is also bothersome.

But the reaction bugs me all the same. First, it seems backward and decidedly pre-modern to obsess about nudity like this. Second, and most important to me, it is all about the priority. We can file an investigation on Janet's breast within 24 hours, but it takes six months to investigate the outing of a CIA operative. We can clean up Clear Channel's radio waves (and by clean up, we mean getting rid of the potty mouths, we certainly don't mean getting rid of the hate-spewing pundits) but we can't address the issue of a shrinking number of corporations who control our access to information. We can obsess about porn, but not address poverty, environmental issues, decreasing civil liberties, growing hatred of Americans overseas, etc.

It just all seems so damn out of wack.

Church Inc., cont.

How does this apply to a semi-naked woman on a cross? Good question. My argument is that the church has for so long endorsed profit and market capitalism, that it no longer has any standing to criticize its excesses. I have argued this for sometime, but this is a good example. This is not an anti-market screed by any counts. I respect that the market is amazingly innovative and excels at certain things. I want market forces driving innovations in medicine, automobiles, technology, etc. But the market is not some magic force that just does things right. It also does amazingly cruel things, rolls over people, eats workers and the environment up. It requires well-intentioned and moral people to make decisions, because of course, the market is an economic system, not moral and sentient beings.

But the church has sat back while a good many other things have been commodified and packaged and marketed, seemingly with either apathy or approval. Since the ultimate goal of profit has ceased to be a question, or accumulation of wealth, or materialism, then the means only have to be legal. So, when cities privatize their water systems, no one steps forward and wonders whether something so important for the public good is now a for-profit enterprise. We already do that with life and death in our medical insurance system.

I remember noting that recent ad campaigns that took historical events and turned them into ad campaigns. MLK speaking at the mall--a historic and noteworthy event--became an add for telecommunications. I remember asking what would come next? Jesus on the cross being used in an ad campaign for pain relief? I remember telling a friend, that if it is all for sale, then there is nothing stopping a corporation from appropriating those images and symbols that people find as most sacred. Why not? How do you justify opposing the commodification of children, sexuality, whatever? If profit is ultimately all justifying, then the only question is legality, not morality, or taste, or respect. If you have stood by while MLK's speech on the mall is turned into a commercial, then you have no standing to object when the crucifixion becomes one too.

The Dogs That Didn't Bark - Why Colin Powell and George Tenet aren't bashing Richard Clarke. By Fred Kaplan: "Tenet is not the only quiet dog. One of the hounds that the White House did unleash--”Secretary of State Powell”--not only declined to growl, but practically purred like a kitten. Interviewed on Jim Lehrer's NewsHour, Powell said: 'I know Mr. Clarke. I have known him for many, many years. He's a very smart guy. He served his nation very, very well. He's an expert in these matters.' His book 'is not the complete story,' but, Powell added, 'I'm not attributing any bad motives to it.'"

Very interesting little subplot. Two of the people who could have bashed Clarke haven't. Powell and Tenet. Powell's statement is very convincing, and I suspect, right on. I am sure that Clarke has a very one-sided view on this entire affair, and there are other ones. But it does go against the administration's spin and attack machine.

Church, Inc., continued

Thinking more about the connection between the church and commerce. A friend of mine wrote me the other day and suggested that most Christians "generally galled/nauseated at the commercial marketing which has accompanied" the Passion. I don't know about that. What I read suggested that Christian Bookstores were doing a brisk business on this kind of item and I am skeptical that non-Christians are flocking to the store to buy this kind of stuff. So, I am not sure that "most" Christians are anything but apathetic about it.

The most recent item to cross my blog was this controversy over an ad campaign in Liverpool where a company used a topless girl hanging on a cross as a part of their ad campaign. The campaign was clearly inspired by the Passion mania. My comments initially were something like, "I told you so," and I think that still stands. I can hear my friend asking, "how is this the Church's fault? After all, as the article shows, many church leaders are mad about this and refer to it as blasphemous." Yeah. I know.

The problem is that the church has no standing here. Kind of reminds me of the story of the famous German pastor, Martin Niemöller, who supposedly commented that when the Nazis first rounded up the communists, he did nothing because he wasn't a communist, then they came for the Jews, trade unionists, Catholics, etc., but he didn't speak up because he wasn't any of those things. Then the Nazis came for him and there was no one left to speak up. Of course, what we are speaking about here is not as grim as Nazi Germany, nor should anyone think I am correlating the horror of that with the triviality of this ad. But the principle remains that you should speak up for principle whether it is about you or not. And that is what the church has not been terribly good at. It has not been as active to speak out on religious freedom issues when those under attack are from other faiths, and has not stood up for respect for other images and icons.

More later.

President Bush Discusses Iraq, 911 Commission with Reporters: "THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. We're working toward that day. We're, obviously, constantly in touch with Jerry Bremer on the transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is over there now. The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. I mean, in other words, it's one thing to decide to transfer. We're now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. But, no, the date remains firm."

Does this mean what I think it means? That we are going to transfer power to someone. We have no idea who that person or entity will be, but we are going to do it.

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Opinion: Letters: "I think it is about time we stopped playing nice with Iraqi 'insurgents' and showed them we have fangs. Turning a heavy artillery battalion on Fallujah followed by running an armored regiment over the rubble and napalming anything left would be a good start."

I have read more letters with this sentiment than I care to. I completely understand the reaction to Fallujah. It is completely human to want to destroy those who would do something like this. But I have two questions: is that response a moral and Christian response? and second, will that response have the desired effect?

War In Iraq

This is good. Disturbing. Heartbreaking.

AP Wire | 04/03/2004 | Postal Service unveils John Wayne stamp: "He was a cowboy, a Green Beret, a jet pilot and a detective during his long acting career."

What about "guy who avoided service in WWII while pretending to be America's favorite soldier?"

ic Liverpool - 'Blasphemy' outrage as Cathedral used in ad: "AN ADVERTISING campaign featuring a 'crucified' semi-naked model with Liverpool RC Metropolitan Cathedral in the background has sparked anger amongst the city's religious leaders."

I hate to say I told you so, but....I told you so. Once you turn the crucifixion into just another idea and image and then profit from it, how can you then decide what other people can do with it? It is all for sale.

the american street: Republican Jesus weighs in on the blogtopia's* most recent controversy

funny, and in line with my Pres Jebus sketch.

Yahoo! News - Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism: "On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address 'the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday' -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals."

Doesn't this kind of support Clarke's claims?

Yahoo! News - Bush Scores Points By Defining Kerry

I remember when repubs complained about Clinton's fundraising. Now, they watch as their president does more fundraising than anyone in history, has used his office to campaign more than anyone in history, and say nothing.

I am frustrated with the polls, I will admit. We shall see how they go. I tend to think that the polls will be slow in reflecting change in public opinion, but it is hard to tell. I am pretty partisan about this. I have no idea how anyone can take Bush and his people seriously. I don't get how you can watch them flip-flop back and forth and still buy the spin that it is Kerry that flip-flops. I can't see how people can still see Bush as a compassionate conservative who's faith is a big part of his life, all while the administration goes out of his way to savage the reputation and personal life of anyone who disagrees with them. Understandable? Yes. Christian? No. Make no mistake about it, this administration is as ruthless and devoted to maintaining power as anyone. Support him if you like his policies, but please don't look me in the face and tell me that he is more moral, or compassionate in anyway.

Church Inc., cont. Part 4

So, what would I ask from the church? I would ask for the church to stress morality beyond the church setting. I would suggest that looking at public policy through basic moral lense is a requirement of the church. My friend has asked if I am asking for political pronouncements from the pulpit, and the answer to that is no. I find the overt politicization of the church as annoying as the marketing. I find the Pat Robertson approach to be so unbelievably crass as to boggle the mind. But I would contend that the church can and should address public policy questions in a non-partisan manner. They already do that with regards to abortion, but arguing that regardless of party, that the rights of the unborn should be protected. They often do that with regards to gays. I think they are often wrong on both counts, but they are addressing a public policy issue. Why not on poverty or the environment? The church should be asking their members if they are supporting a tax policy that is immoral?

If they support a tax policy that rewards wealth and punishes the working class, then they need to show me how that is justified by their faith. If they support political movements that demonize the poor, they need to reassess. I think there are ways for the church to moderate the strong conservative extremism without becoming overtly political. And what about the environment? I think there are numerous ways that the church can become active without being political here as well. They could change their consumption at the church, make an effort to reduce energy usage, long lasting light bulbs, prefer sound efficient buildings to large edifices, encourage members to pursue conservation when possible. None of these require a political angle. All of them seem important. I have heard of only liberal churches even caring about these issues. The conservative church has endorsed (at least tacitly) republican policies that are harsh on the environment and elevate the rich above the poor. But if the church themselves is mostly about consumption, then this should be no surprise.

President Jesus Returns

The White House's recent attack on Richard Clarke has spurred me to ask about the role that Bush's Christian faith plays in his decision making process. He once famously noted that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, because he "changed" his life. My understanding of that is that that means you can't openly espouse actions or beliefs that are completely counter to Christ. I have asked my friends who support him to explain this, to me, but their silence has spurred a new episode of President Jesus.

So, without further ado:
[Our scene opens with President Jesus taking the podium to lead his 12th press conference (still a record low since the TV era began).]
President Jesus: Welcome. I will now take your questions.

Helen Thomas: Mr. President, we have some quotes that we would like you to identify and comment on.

President Jesus: Helen? How did you get to ask a question? Where are my friends from Fox News? I thought we had banished any press with brains? Oh well, someone screwed up, but it wasn't me. Go ahead. I hope Condi prepped me on these quotes, because you all know I don't like to read.

Helen Thomas: "Blessed are the peacemakers"

President Jesus: "What is that? A Dixie Chick lyric? [shoulders shrug in laughter] Look, peace is fine and good, but I am a War president. Peace is for the French."

Helen Thomas: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

President Jesus: "I don't know about that. I like the poor and want them to have jobs [hand shoots out in emphasis as he smirks]. But on the other hand, I have often said that "Blessed are the Rich because they are my very close friends and Cabinet members."

Helen Thomas: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

President Jesus: "What is that? Some Middle Eastern "religion?" We don't have camels. In Texas where I have executed people and laughed at them, we have horses and no horse is going through any needle. Sounds like communism and class warfare to me. I like the rich people. They are my friends. They are me."

Helen Thomas: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

President Jesus: That is just weird. I hate the evil doers and want to bring them to justice. And let me say, it isn't just the evil doers that attack me, but my former friends. Former Disciple O'Neill and Former Disciple Advisor Clarke are saying mean things about me right now. I have sworn to make them persona au gratin (that there is some French for you) in this town and never able to work here. I think that is a reasonable thing to do. I don't know who said what you just quoted, but that is not policy in this White House. And what is that "ye" stuff? Where I come from (Texas) we speak proper American and nobody I know would reckon to would use a word like that one there."

Helen Thomas: "Thank you, Mr. President Jesus. Blessed are the Meek."

President Jesus: "Yeah, right Helen. The Meek get run over or executed. Well, at least if they are black or hispanic and poor. That is supposed to say "Blessed are the Strong and Powerful with money and access to oil and energy corporations." And let me say very plainly. I curse Richard Clarke, John Dillulio, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson (and his CIA operative Wife), Rand Beers (gave up beer) for daring to disagree with me in public. This is America, and our system is predicated on following Compassionate Conservative leadership as it bombs the rest of the world. I think that is a quote from the Declaration, actually. I dunno. You guys can look it up. I don't like to read."

That is all. This is more than I wanted to disclose. Remember, we are Compassionate, strong on defense and terror, and unlike that flip-flopper John "Kennedy", I mean Kerry, when I say something, I stick to it.

[President leaves the press conference.] Karen Hughes appears at the front and repeats several times: President Jesus is compassionate and right. Any perceived contradictions are in fact not. President Jesus is compassionate and right.....

As if from above: this further suggestion that the Church/marketing is blurring.
USATODAY.com - Promoting 'The Passion': "Churches are encouraging group ticket sales, and stores are stocked with film-related products, such as licensed cross-nail pendants, crosses, coffee mugs, coffee-table books and artwork.

'When you have star talent like this, you want to maximize opening weekend,' says Mitch Litvak, president of The L.A. Office, an entertainment marketing firm. Studios typically spend $20 million to $30 million on marketing if they want a blockbuster opening, he says.

In this case, the film's backers are turning to the country's 120 million churchgoers. The moviemakers are providing churches with free marketing materials to help fill theater seats -- and pews. Among the items are posters and postcards for direct mailing with the line: 'Best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years.' One promotional tool points preachers to www.sermoncentral.com for free sermon ideas that promote the movie while preaching the Gospel.

The licensing and distribution of merchandise also play a key role, especially for retailers serving a growing market for religious goods.

'By having religious-themed articles in the marketplace, it does draw people's attention to (the movie),' says Charles Riotto, president of the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association. 'If it's done tastefully, it could be a good marketing ploy.'

About 2,000 Christian specialty stores are selling Passion articles, and distribution is expected to reach an additional 1,000 by month's end, says Dwight Robinson, director of marketing for Bob Siemon Designs. The company is the lead licensee for Passion and a distributor of jewelry and other goods."

Here is the real weird part: I get all of this from the very site selling the pendants. They are proud to market this way. (emphasis added)

Church, Inc., continued: part 3

I Thought the church was about non-material things?

Is that still true? Let's look at the recent Passion of the Christ controversy. I personally (as I have written elsewhere) that Mel Gibson was very effective at manipulating certain assumptions in the evangelical world: the sense that Hollywood and the media were against them; the concern that liberals didn't want their message to get out, etc. As a result, the church found itself pursuing things that they used to decry. For one, the money made off the film was used as a justification for its rightness, as if more money means more right. Funny, if that is true, then the Passion is to be compared with Michael Jackson, the success of the Da Vinci Code, or any of the lightweight films that Disney turns out with poor writing and Happy Meal toys. Are they sure they want to compare it that way? And speaking of Happy Meals, it turns out that Mel has licensed commemorative items to go with this film. So we have the situation where people might go to see this deeply-felt spiritual experience, and then go pop down another 12-16 dollars for an Official Pewter Nail Pendant to show their allegiance to the film: just as if they had purchased an action figure to accompany the Lord of the Rings. Is that all this is?

If you visit a Bible Bookstore, you will see just more of this stuff. At my local one, I have seen everything from conspiracy theory videos to a wide assortment of knickknacks with a Christian theme. If you want to read a conservative take on the family, you have your choice. If you want to read a scholarly book on the family, Christian history, or theology, you will have to look elsewhere. Oh, and if you want a Bible for every day of the week, you are in the right place. Everything is for sale, remember. You can buy a bible for men, for women, for teens, for..... A lot of money is being made every year selling assorted stuff to Christians. I have often wondered if the answer to the question, "What would Jesus do," is to evidently buy a lot of cheap crap! I thought church was supposed to be something different. I thought that Christianity was supposed to be about other-worldly things. But evidently, it is just a different kind of Wal Mart.

Then we have the Lord's Gym. Apparently, with no sense of irony, a Florida Christian has decided to market directly to people's faith. It is just another marketing schtick. Don't go work out at Golds Gym with the G-string Barbies, but pay your money to work out at a place who's logo is Jesus working out. So what is wrong with this? Isn't it an option for Christians to work out at a family friendly gym? Sure. I am not sure that it requires the Lord's endorsement. You can have a family oriented gym that requires moderate dress, but not necessarily market it this way. What is next? The Lord's Bar and Grill? With Passion of the Christ Chili Fries? Or maybe the Sermon on the Mount Fish Sandwich? Instead of Happy Hour, maybe a Praying hour with 1/2 off well-drinks and beers?

Why not? Why not indeed? Why not if what the Passion and Lord's Gym and Bible Superstores have shown us is that Christian faith is just another commodity to be bought and sold. I have asked friends of mine about the Passion marketing, and they all find it annoying, but not outlandish. I keep wondering what will produce that kind of reaction. Evidently if the site uses Christ in a mocking way, that elicits some frustration, but other than that, they seem quite ok with their Lord and Savior being marketed like Ronald McDonald. What would cause them to rise up? I don't know.

I do know that I will hold the church with suspicion as long as they seem to allow this to go on without criticism.

From Atrios.

The New Republic Online: Strike Out: "On a recent morning in early March, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened to protect the American flag from burning, stomping, shredding, and the notion that, as Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch put it, 'urinating or defecating on the flag is some form of speech.' The Committee's Republican majority had carefully assembled the audience for this hearing. The room was filled with dozens of aging veterans, wearing medals and dark red VFW hats. Also in attendance was a hero of perhaps even greater red-state status: nascar driver John Andretti, who would testify that 'those who desecrate the flag have total disregard for our military.' 


In other words, the hearing had all the trappings of a perfect, election-year GOP stunt. But then things got a little more complicated. Committee Democrats, such as Richard Durbin of Illinois, noted that Republicans had voted down a Senate amendment increasing veterans' health spending the previous night. 'Giving a veteran a flag is not a substitute for giving our vets the quality health care they were promised,' Durbin said, causing brows to furrow under those VFW caps. Committee Republicans were furious. GOP Senator Larry Craig of Idaho nearly sputtered with rage as he defensively rambled about shortened lines at a veterans' clinic in Boise and vowed that veterans' spending would eventually be 'plussed-up' in the budget process. The cultural issue had become an economic one; Democrats had found a soft spot."


good for Durban. Pontificating on protecting the flag is ridiculous when you undermine everything the flag stands for!

MSNBC - Rice to testify in public, under oath: "WASHINGTON - In a reversal, the White House said Tuesday it has agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11, 2001 commission. In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to testify before the entire commission, not just the two co-chairmen, according to a letter obtained by NBC News. Their testimony will, however, remain private."

Reversal. In the previous administration or when talking about John Kerry, this is called flip-flopping.

MSNBC - Rice to testify in public, under oath: "Clarke said he expected the White House’s fierce attempt to discredit him and his book, “Against All Enemies.” “The word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally” he said. “One line that somebody overheard was, ‘He’s not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life.’”"

Christian morals at work again, naturally.

Church, Inc., continued


So, why am I mad at this church, my friend asks?

I think this is a good question, and he is probably at least partially correct that my frustrations come out of rather complex psychological issues with my family, other churches, my study of history, and my political liberalism. As a historian, I believe that most evangelical churches have little or no understanding of their past. They have been heavily influenced by their historical and cultural contexts (as have all churches) while they usually believe they are somehow transcending time and culture. I certainly criticize the church from my political liberalism and want them to do more about the environment, poverty, gender and other social justice issues. (We have a strong disagreement about environment--my friend claims that more evangelicals are active environmentally, while I think that most conservative evangelicals are rather dismissive of environmental problems).

But he has a good point. In many ways, moderate churches like his are good public citizens, and usually do more for their community than they do in damage. I won't necessarily deny that, but would suggest some possibilities for my reaction and cynicism regarding churches. First, I think that most of the problems I am concerned about (especially poverty and the environment) are directly connected to our consumption based economy and culture. I certainly won't dismiss market capitalism (though I have issues with it) and will agree that it is the most dynamic and vibrant economic system known to man. But it also has many unintended consequences and problems with it. If, for example, environmental costs are not factored into the market, capitalism has no way of addressing those costs. Likewise, one of the negative sides of capitalism is the reliance on a steady supply of poor labor. Both problems require citizens to make good choices in the public policy level. They have to have active churches, and, in my opinion, the humility to recognize that an active and compassionate government will be necessary to ensure environmental and social justice.

And here is my rub. While I recognize that many churches like my friend's are active feeding the poor, I believe a large part of their financial outlay goes to conversion efforts--and that may be a good thing (may not) but it may not address the social ills. But say that the churches do address poverty (like I said, I see little effort from the church to address environmental concerns: more on this later) with soup kitchens etc? In my mind, that doesn't address the economic policies that often (while not causing) allow people to fall to the level of needing a soup kitchen. What are those churches doing about the working poor who may not be going to charitable organizations?

But the bigger question for me, is what does the church have to say about the underlying issues of consumption and materialism? On the surface, churches say they are not about consumption. They decry the crass wealth (or used to) of the rock stars and professional athletes. I heard growing up that our goals should not be the accumulation of wealth, but to have a close relationship with Jesus. To be fair, I don't really understand that concept either, but will leave that for another discussion. But the point was that Christians were supposed to be far more interested in the Kingdom of God than they were in the material wealth of this existence.

Yahoo! News - Peace Corps Lacks Money to Expand
: "WASHINGTON - The Peace Corps is trying to carry out President Bush (news - web sites)'s goal of doubling the number of volunteers it sends abroad by 2007, but it lacks the money to do it."

I am torn here. On one hand I would like to believe that Bush himself thinks that this kind of program is good. I am well aware of his own giving gifts to children of inmates last Christmas and am sure that he certainly sees himself as a good Christian man (despite his tendency to completely savage his opponents in very unChristian ways). And the Peace Corps can be a way to fulfill that kind of mission overseas.

But when you completely gut the budget with tax cuts and military spending (much of it necessary) then you put yourself in the situation where you can voice support for all sorts of things, but won't be able to fund them. That is what paranoid leftists believe that the neo-cons want to do--starve the beast by driving up huge deficits.

Church, Inc.

I grew up in a church-going family. Some would call it a fundamentalist upbringing, and technically, that might be correct. There is no doubt that the bible was very important in my family. In high school, I continued to attend church and youth group, and many of those friends continued into college. I met my future wife there and have some long standing friendships from those relationships. But after that came marriage, grad school and some changes in how I saw the world. Many of those changes, to be fair, were in the mix before I ever left the church. Early on, I had started challenging some of those assumptions--especially regarding gender roles and the literalism of the bible.

All of that is a long story and boring to most. But for many of my friends from that older life, my transformation into someone who is not only politically far more liberal than the young kid who voted for Reagan with his first vote (which puts me one up on Rush Limbaugh who wasn't even registered to vote), but who also turned far more liberal theologically. I became far more concerned with social justice aspects of Christianity. I became far less interested in the conversion efforts and more concerned about how the church dealt with poverty, the environment, gender issues, and yes, homosexuality.

One of my buddies (and we have been friends for a lot of years) has wondered for sometime why I am so angered at the church. He understands that I find the Pat Robertsons and the fundamentalist wing of the faith annoying, and he certainly doesn't identify with them either. He goes to a suburban church that is not intensely political--it has distanced itself from the SBC (most fundamentalist and conservative aspect of the Southern Baptists, and has avoided the heavy political preaching on the 10 commandments and gay marriage. Their church contributes undoubtedly to good charities and soup kitchens, to overseas missions, to local programs. So, he asks, why do I still have a problem with churches like his?

More on this later.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: March 21, 2004 - March 27, 2004 Archives: "(Bear in mind that top White House aides have told the press that the president personally initiated and is directing this campaign against Clarke. Not outside rabble-rousers, not nefarious aides operating on their own account, but the president himself. This is all his doing, according to his own staffers.)"

I wish Josh had some cites here. I would like to know for sure that staffers are saying this. I don't find it that hard to believe, but still.

If true, then it is bad. Sorry, but this doesn't sound like leadership. I have argued elsewhere that the President could have shown great leadership after 9-11 by doing a Truman and stating that whatever the problems were, the buck stopped with him. He ultimately was responsible--not in the way that the conspiracy people would say--he didn't intend it to happen or just twiddle his thumbs, but a real leader would have taken responsibility. Same with the Niger story that ended up in the outing to Valerie Plame. When faced with the fact that his SOTU speech included false information, what did our leader do? He could have taken responsibility for that too. He could have said that regardless of the reasons, he was ultimately responsible for the material. Instead, he blamed Tenet. He said that the CIA had cleared it.

That ain't leadership. And he isn't a leader.

FOXNews.com:

Hah. I have been kind of joking about Jesus being for sale, but little did I know.....

Stephen Prothero has to be thrilled every time something like this comes up. Just proves his point.

"'I'm a Christian, but that's not everything that drew me here. I just like the wholesomeness of the place. Believe me, I enjoy looking at pretty women in tight Lycra as much as the next guy, but that can take away from the focus of a workout. All I know is that I work out just as hard here as I do at other gyms, but when I leave here, I feel much better about myself.'

Huh? You feel better because you haven't looked at a woman in a sexual way, or because you are working out for the lord, something you can't do (obviously) at the Y?

Sorchy says the most popular items seen on the backs of those sweating in his gym are Christian-themed T-shirts.
There's 'a small level of competition behind who can have the best Christian shirt,' he said, adding that the Lord's Gym shirt, which reads: 'His pain, your gain. Bench press this!' is the most popular Christian selling T-shirt of all time.

That's right. The crucifixion was just another form of workout! Cross training for masochists, perhaps. What a moron.

Some might accuse Lord's Gym of using the Lord for commercial reasons; the gym's logo depicts a buff Jesus doing a push-up with a cross on his back inscribed 'The Sins of the World.' But Sorchy stands by his business.
'We are simply offering a vehicle for those who don't want to be in a secular gym where they would have that meat-market mentality,' he said"

He added: the profits are just a side benefit? I only make money to spend, and consume er, I mean worship. Pass.

Urban Outfitters Dumps 'Jesus Dress Up' Magnet Sets -- 03/24/2004

Why? Thought it was all for sale? What is wrong with making money off Christ here?

Richard Clarke KOs the Bushies - The ex-terrorism official dazzles at the 9/11 commission hearings. By Fred Kaplan: "And so now here's Clarke, in an official, nationally broadcast forum, announcing: I failed, I'm sorry, please forgive me. Which, as one member of the panel noted, is more than any official in the Bush administration has said to any victims of the far more devastating 9/11 attacks."

Exactly. The Bush administration has, to my mind, never demonstrated anything beyond arrogance. No sense they might have been wrong at any time. Perhaps that is the nature of politics now, but it stinks.

Evidently, Richard Clarke more than stood his ground against attacks on his credibility. The next few days will be very interesting.

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth - Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism. By Fred Kaplan: "Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, 'The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more.' And: 'The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded.' (For more about Beers, including his association with Clarke and whether there's anything pertinent about his current position as a volunteer national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, click here.)"

The most chilling paragraph in a very good essay on the entire Clarke allegations. The White House has tried to attack him, but in an amazingly contradictory way. Rice says that Bush relied heavily on Clarke, while Cheney says that Clarke was out of the loop. Scott McClellan said that the proof that Bush never met with Clarke in the way that he said, is that Bush wasn't in the Situation Room right after 9-11. Incompetent. Incompetent.

Yahoo! News - The Book on Richard Clarke: "Most acquaintances do not regard him as a partisan. Clarke was viewed as a hawk and 'true believer' by many within the Clinton administration, and Clarke himself says he is an independent who is registered as a Republican.

'You can't accuse him of being passive or too liberal on foreign policy,' said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA (news - web sites) official who worked with Clarke in the Reagan years. 'He's very abrasive and aggressive and pushes his point of view very hard.'

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan noted yesterday that Clarke is a close friend of former counterterrorism official Rand Beers, who is an adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign, and teaches a course with him."

How typical of this admin's approach spin. Not only do they always blame the messenger, but they are now suggesting that because Clarke is a friend of a Democrat, then he must be a liberal sympathizer. By that logic, wouldn't that make the Kerry advisor a potential republican?

then this:

"McClellan dismissed Clarke's criticisms yesterday and said he "conveniently" released his book in the middle of the campaign season. "If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long?" McClellan said. "Why wait until the election?"

This administration has balls, I will admit that. This same group who delayed the GOP convention to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary is accusing Clarke of having suspicious timing!

Yahoo! News - Boondocks

One of my favorite comic strips nails Bush on his re-election bid. Saw a bumper sticker, btw, the other day that said "re-defeat Bush!"

Open Season on Terrorism Author (washingtonpost.com): "'Thus, what's really disturbing about Clarke's brief . . . is not that Bush could have stopped it. Rather, it is that Bush and his administration dropped the intense focus that the Clinton White House had given Al Qaeda, and that, as soon as the attacks occurred, the Bushies immediately pressed for evidence of a non-existent link with Iraq . . ."


Exactly. It is the height of spin to make this book an allegation that Bush is responsible for 9-11. Clarke is arguing instead that Bush is running for reelection on a false claim--that he has been strong on this war on terror.

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Tennessee county rescinds anti-gay motion: "DAYTON, Tenn. ” In the same tense, humid courtroom where Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan battled over the teaching of evolution 79 years ago, eight county commissioners yesterday quickly rescinded an anti-gay motion that drew more national attention--and some ridicule” to Dayton."

Well, I thought this was better. And it really is. But then...

"After the vote, which lasted less than five minutes, a gavel came down and commissioners hurried away from the courthouse, leaving a crowd of about 60 milling around in the warm spring evening.

Some celebrated. Several shouted, "Coward!"

"This is the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah," said Jean Sinclair, 75, who was chatting with friends in a drugstore. "Every nation that's started this — Babylon, Middle Persia, Rome — they all fell into this sinful way."

Nice

Hearing on Immigration Leads to Scuffle in Md. (washingtonpost.com): "A contentious General Assembly hearing on illegal immigration led to a scuffle and shouting match yesterday between two Republican lawmakers and advocates for immigrant rights."

Yahoo! News - Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals



Holy Jebus. These people are nuts.

WSBTV.com - Education - Christians Try To Censor Georgia School's Reading List: "Among the books the Crusaders for Christ want banned are 'Of Mice and Men' by John Steinbeck, 'The Martian Chronicles' by Ray Bradbury and 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee. "

Just when you think that the religious right can't embarrass themselves anymore, something like this. Are you kidding me? To Kill a Mockingbird? One of those truly amazing books that has touched all of us. People trying to ban this should be ashamed of themselves.

CBS News | Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link? | March 21, 2004 20:46:16: "'Frankly,' he said, 'I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.' "

I saw this tonight. As L said tonight--the interview was pretty damning on its own, but when added to the Paul O'Neill, and the John Dilulio stories, it starts to take on more meaning. This administration is running on one thing: that they handled 9-11 with leadership. If that isn't true, then what do they bring to the table? Nothing much, that is what.

The evidence keeps mounting that this administration is arrogant to a shocking level. Spanish people are stupid for rejecting the Bush administration's approach on Terrorism. Those who dissent here at home are guilty of appeasing terrorism. And here we have former insider after former insider--all from closer and closer to the President. These aren't low level staffers, but instead are people close to the center of power.

Orcinus: "A church picnic in Philadelphia, designed to help George W. Bush promote his faith-based policies. I was working at the time for a local nonprofit that had helped set it up, but I had some serious misgivings about the president's performance up to that point, and being a part of the whole operation had left me feeling a bit like a pseudo-person. So when I had the chance to shake Bush's hand, I said, 'Mr. President, I'm very disappointed in your work so far. I hope you only serve four years.'

His smiling response was swift: 'Who cares what you think?'"

This sums up my perception of our president. He indeed does not care what we think. The "aw shucks" Bubba speak is cover--both for his shocking lack of intellectual curiousity, but also for the fact that he does not care about common people. As this blogger points out, this should be on T-Shirts and buttons going into next fall's campaign. George W. Bush--Who Cares what you think?

American Idol: "The Passion of the Christ: the latest American idol.


And just like the ten commandments, it is another front in this cultural war. If you are not for the movie you hate God and you are a threat to America."

This is a good essay on the 10 Commandments and the culture war.

Lean Left: Can't the Bush Administration At Least Try?: "From a fire station to a Madrid bar brimming with bullfighting paraphernalia, Spaniards said Friday they were offended by a senior Pentagon official's remark that bullfighting shows they are a brave people and they shouldn't run in the face of terrorism.

They saw the comment by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as narrow-minded and promoting a stereotype.

'This is an ignorant comment,' snapped Madrid firefighter Juan Carlos Yunquera, sitting on a bench outside his firehouse. 'For a top official, it shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.'


...snip...


In an interview on PBS television Thursday, Wolfowitz said Zapatero's withdrawal plan didn't seem very Spanish.

'The Spaniards are courageous people. I mean, we know it from their whole culture of bullfighting,' Wolfowitz said. 'I don't think they run in the face of an enemy. They haven't run in the face of the Basque terrorists. I hope they don't run in the face of these people.'"

As many in the blog world have noted, the Bush administration has shown a tremendous arrogance about democracy--it is democratic to endorse their actions, but when the people reject Bush, that isn't good democracy. Well, get used to it, because if you actually get democracy in the Middle East, who do you think they will support?

On another note, it is clear that this Spanish vote is, while very understandable, unfortunate. I have no doubt that the terrorists will see this as a victory. We are in there now, and have to stay. If Bush would recognize that instead of posturing like John Wayne on Barry Bonds fun pills, then he might be able to get more people behind him. Arrogance is indeed an ugly thing.

Salon.com | The new Pentagon papers: "I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. "

Very much in the vein of the LA Times report about US intel, except this from someone who worked inside. The Neocons hijacked this process from the very beginning with the assistance and leadership of the VP. Will that come to light? Will Americans start to recognize that an amazingly small cadre of ideologues who really don't believe in the same America that the rest of us do (right and left) are the ones in charge. If they do, it will kill the Republican party, and while they allowed it to happen, they aren't really the problem. There are many good and thoughtful people in the GOP, but they actually believe in conservatism, as opposed to the neocons.

Los Angeles Times: Spy Unit Skirted CIA on Iraq: "Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet said he was unaware until recently that the Pentagon unit had presented its findings to the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. It is not clear whether Cheney or Rice were present for the briefing, which was mentioned in a Defense Department letter released by the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. "

snip

"It was under questioning from Levin that Tenet acknowledged that he did not know until within the last few weeks that a special Pentagon intelligence analysis unit had briefed the White House on ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"I did not know that at the time, and I think I first learned about this at [a congressional] hearing last week," Tenet said. A U.S. intelligence official said Tenet first learned of the White House briefing Feb. 24 during a closed hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Pentagon unit was created by Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The unit was a handful of intelligence analysts, Feith has said, and was established to examine state sponsorship of terrorism, but is principally known for its efforts to assemble evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda.

It has been reported previously that the so-called Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group presented its findings to the CIA in August 2002. But in a letter to Warner released Tuesday for the first time, Feith said the group's briefing "was also given to National Security Council and Office of Vice President staff members."

This is a timely revelation, that I must add, has been talked about for sometime--that there have been additional intelligence avenues used by this administration. The intelligence community may not be the most effective, but it seems clear that the admin didn't actually use them, but relied on one of their own making. That should be front and center in this investigation.