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

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

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

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

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

[Lackey] That might be the Salvation Army.

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

Hell if I know

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

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

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

the government

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

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

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

Tivo, Bush and Parliament

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

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

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

Both of them

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

102-0223_IMG Originally uploaded by streak541.

{if 0}

Posted by streak541 from Flickr.

{/if}

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

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

Streak's friend

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

102-0217_IMG Originally uploaded by streak541.

{if 0}

Posted by streak541 from Flickr.

{/if}

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

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

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


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

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

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

Good Question. Why would you do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

Finally, a paper that actually reports.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Well done. Well done, indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb

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

President Jesus returns. Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporter: Sin?

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

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

President Jesus: Who, now?

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

President Jesus: Doesn't ring a bell.

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

President Jesus: What wife?

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

President Jesus: Who now?

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

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

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

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

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

LarkNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMEDY CENTRAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also liked this one:

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

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

Ted Rall online

Good cartoon.

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

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

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

On another note, it is just sick.

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

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

Quiz for Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take your time.

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

Damn! Well said, well said.

The Washington Monthly

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

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

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

CBN News - John Kerry's French Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, this guy is a tool.

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

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

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

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

"It should be Pentecost on the Church calendar, but all over America on Sunday, churches will be ignoring the Spirit's commission to go and be the Church (i.e., evangelize, feed, clothe, give, love) in favor of our annual dance with civil religion. This Sunday churches will sing patriotic songs; they will have men and women in uniform stand; they will honor veterans; they will parade American flags down the aisle in some sort of perverse processional; and they will talk about the sacrifices freedom requires. I know of one church in Oklahoma that will be showing Toby Keith's 'American Soldier' video. That is too sad to make fun of."

Damn straight. I am so tired of the melding of patriotism and Christianity until people cannot separate between the two. Read the rest of it here: the parish: Services are Beginning on Idolatry Sunday

Salon.com News | "The truth has a force of its own":

More from the Kerry interview

Salon: "As you know, the Republican line on you is that you're a 'flip-flopper.' Do you think the White House really views you that way, or is this just an intellectually dishonest political exercise?

John Kerry: Of course it is. It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's shallow beyond belief. It's exactly what they said about Bill Clinton, it's exactly what they said about Al Gore, it's exactly what they said about John McCain. It is the standard operating approach of Republicans who have nothing to say for themselves, so all they do is try to brand somebody else.

Salon: Well, it's not exactly what they did to McCain. Nobody's accused you of having an illegitimate love child.

John Kerry:Not yet. I'm waiting for those. That's probably August or September.

I'll tell you what. What's really so craven about it is that they pick something that they implement badly and screw up, like Iraq or No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act. And when you point out that they screwed it up, they say that you're 'flip-flopping.'

But they, on the other hand, break a promise to have no deficit, break a promise not to invade Social Security, break a promise to fund No Child Left Behind, break a promise to introduce the four-pollutant bill and move forward on the environment, break a promise to deal with the real health issues and prescription drugs, break a promise of humility in American foreign policy. I mean, you start running down the list -- I've never seen a grander array of flip-flops. This is the biggest 'say one thing, do another' administration in modern history."

Salon.com News | "The truth has a force of its own":

Salon:Would there have been a war in Iraq if you had been president?

John Kerry:I can't tell you that. If Saddam Hussein hadn't disarmed and all the world had decided that he was not living up to the standards, who knows? You can't answer that hypothetical. But I can tell you this. I would never have rushed the process in a way that undoes the meaning of going to war 'as a last resort.'

Salon:And that's what you thought you were authorizing -- war as a last resort?

John Kerry:Absolutely. You know, we got a set of promises: We're going to build an international coalition, we're going to exhaust the remedies of the U.N., respect that process and go to war as a last resort. Well, we didn't.

And not only [did we] not go to war as a last resort, they didn't even make the plans for winning the peace. They disregarded them. They disregarded [U.S. Army General Eric] Shinseki's advice, disregarded Colin Powell's advice, disregarded the State Department's plan. The arrogance of this administration has cost Americans billions of dollars and too many lives."

This is an interesting interview, because it shows Kerry as a thoughtful and measured person. The media, despite all we have heard about the liberal bias, has essentially decided that Kerry is a waffler and Bush is a truth-teller. It is so interesting to see the outlets and mouthlets demean Gore in the same manner they did Howard Dean, while Bush continues to say weird and irresponsible things. The GOP accuses Democrats of being unpatriotic, suggests that voting for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda, and the media does nothing.

Wrong or right, I will support John Kerry because he is the kind of president I can live with. He is thoughtful and measured. Give me intelligent and thoughtful anyday.

Out Of Gas

good ad that takes on bush's oil policies.

Pandagon: What The Fuckety Fuck Fuck?

someone else doing my Friday rant for me. And this is some really great ranting.

the parish: Sacerdotal is a Cool Word: "Sacerdotal is a Cool Word


Streak (blog) posted a comment recently I thought I'd respond to here since it ties in with my current soap box issue: professional clergy and the hastening death of the institutional church"

Just in case my many readers think Streak only blogs about our President and the horrible job he is doing, this is proof that we think on other things. :)

I noted the other day that I have started reading the Parish blog on a regular basis. Well, he is talking about a pretty interesting topic lately--namely what the professional clergy and institutional church have wrought. I posted a comment, and will continue my conversation with him there, but he was nice enough to not only plug Streak's Blog, but also to engage my comment. The only unfortunate part was that my original comment has a sentence in it that is damn near incomprehensible, but the Parish was able to understand my mangled prose.

Political courage?

2006 Cuts In Domestic Spending On Table (washingtonpost.com): "But the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006."

How does this qualify? Support these programs to get elected then cut them once you are elected? Hmm. If this were a different president, this might be called manipulative at best, or possibly even waffling or even flip-flopping. Nice that the sacrifices are starting to show up, especially when they are for Head Start and programs for infants and children. Maybe we could call this the No Rich Child Left Behind?

Not even on the list, btw, is that Bush is planning on cutting Homeland Security too. Leadership, is what this is!

USNews.com: Why Sen. Chuck Hagel is one of the most restive Republicans (5/31/04): "Bush 'talked for an hour and did not take a single question,' says Hagel. 'He didn't listen, and I think this president needs to listen more. If he had taken questions he would have heard some things that might have been helpful.'"

I think that is Bush's big problem. He doesn't listen.

the parish

This is another new blog. For those interested in religion and culture, this is a must read. Read it!

Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.

One of the blogs I have started reading regularly. Great wit.

Jesus Politics: Let's Get Jesus Back: "Moyers, a Baptist layman, said one of the reasons for the deteriorating conditions for the poor is that, 'over the last few years, prophetic Christianity has lost its voice.' He said that was partially because 'the Religious Right drowned out everyone else and they hijacked Jesus … . He was made a militarist, a hedonist and a lobbyist.'


'Let's get Jesus back,' Moyers said, to loud applause from the attendees. 'Jesus drove the money-changers from the Temple. We have to drive them from the temples of democracy.'"

Nice to hear others saying it. Jesus has become a capitalist and a nationalist as well, and I am tired of it.

MoveOn PAC: "Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh told the Washington Post that he was tortured and ordered to denounce Islam and after his leg was broken one of his torturers started hitting it while ordering him to curse Islam and then, ' they ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive.' Others reported that they were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol.

In my religious tradition, I have been taught that 'ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.'"

More from Gore. Jebus. These guys are so bad.

BTW, thanks to Anglican for the tip to this speech.

MoveOn PAC: "President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is 'the central front in the war on terror.' It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, 'This war may last the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict ' has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition.' The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."

Read Gore's entire speech. He says it pretty well. Worst President Ever!!!!

Trent Lott on torture

TheJacksonChannel.com - News - Sen. Lott Sounds Off On Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Photos: "'Frankly, to save some American troops' lives or a unit that could be in danger, I think you should get really rough with them,' Lott said. 'Some of those people should probably not be in prisons in the first place.'

When asked about the photo showing a prisoner being threatened with a dog, Lott was unmoved.

'Nothing wrong with holding a dog up there unless it ate him,' Lott said. '(They just) scared him with the dog.'

Lott was reminded that at least one prisoner had died at the hands of his captors after a beating.

'This is not Sunday school,' he said. 'This is interrogation. This is rough stuff.'"

From Political Animal and Kevin Drum, but this is really amazing. Kevin worries that there are four phases to the torture story. " Phase 1: horrible, just horrible. Phase 2: yes, it's bad, but keep in mind that it's not as bad as Saddam. Phase 3: give it a rest, OK?" Then stage four is torturer as hero. What have we come to? The nature of this war is up for debate as is the ability of our President. But if you start justifying torture, what kind of society have you become? What then separates us from the people we fight?

Can't Buy Me Love, Sojourners Magazine/June 2004

This article is well worth the read. Dionne is arguing that the very language of the marketplace has so permeated our discussions that we run the risk of incorporating the free market values for everything--including things that it is ill-suited to address. This seems to me a continuation (or better articulation) of my previous argument that the Church, by so accepting market capitalism, had lost the ability to act morally and prophetically.

A few highlights: Dionne makes the point that many of have made--that criticism of capitalism seems threatening even as capitalism has no real challenge any longer. to challenge it seems to present a rejection of core American values instead of embracing those very values.

Even to make arguments critical of the market of the sort I just offered is seen as risky. After all, has not the market proven itself to be an efficient creator of wealth and a shrewd allocator of resources? Doesn’t the death of communism prove that capitalism is the only system that works?

The paradox is that it’s precisely because the market has triumphed that it is now in such need of serious criticism. Because no one with any likelihood of taking power wants to upend capitalism, criticisms of the system are as safe as ever—and also more urgent. What needs to be opposed is not the market itself, but claims that the market can do things that it can’t.

As the thoughtful moderate writer Matthew Miller has pointed out, even though the economy grew by 40 percent in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the persistence of deep social problems proved that economic growth is not an elixir. "How can it be," Miller went on, "when even after this boom, we have 40 million people without health insurance, 15 million family members of full-time workers in poverty, and schools that are as desperate as ever?"

The other point he makes very well is that once you have basically endorsed the "all is fair in capitalism" kind of value system, then your discussion of morality is distorted.

The public domain of "moral" talk is narrowed, usually to the personal and the sexual. But morality speaks to the social as well as the personal. The social, in turn, affects the personal.

This speaks to part of my deep frustration with the Christian church and Bush v. Clinton. Clinton's sins were intensely personal and intensely sexual. Yeah, I know, R, he committed perjury. And that is a very serious crime. But when Christians across the nation discussed his sins, they were more about Lewinsky than his "what is is" statement. Contrast those with Bush's sins. His personal sin is one of the past--he quit drinking. But his social and economic sins are much broader and by themselves, effected far more people--investors, land holders, etc. As I have argued elsewhere, his campaign's actions in SC are arguably as immoral as we have seen in any recent time. To play on a region's racism, while at the same time slandering someone is despicable. But if our measuring stick for morality is limited to the sexual and the personal, that is easily written off as just politics.

Anyway, this is well worth the read.

Daily Kos || Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

Interesting. The White House said that Bush fell off his bike because it had been raining a lot lately and the topsoil was loose. I read that and didn't think anything of it. After all, I don't want to focus on non-issues like spelling potato or pronouncing nuclear (too much, anyway), but this blogger raises an interesting question. According to his sources, the precipitation from Crawford, Texas for that time was pretty little. It rained almost 3 inches on May 13, and a touch on the 14th, but then no rain for the next 8 days until the President tumbled off his bike. Why lie about this? It is slightly embarrassing, but Kerry fell of his bike earlier too. It happens. Why lie?

Almost makes this administration look pathological about the lying. They lie even when they don't have to.

News and Information | News: "Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it earlier, and I…I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don’t really know to put this, so I’ll be blunt. We broke it.

Please don’t be mad. I know we were supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we were handed. So, sorry.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the news lately, but it just kinda got away from us. Somewhere between the gold rush of easy internet profits and an arrogant sense of endless empire, we heard kind of a pinging noise, and uh, then the damn thing just died on us. So I apologize."

Jon Stewart's commencement address at William and Mary. Just like his show--funny, insightful, and at times, surprising. You have to read it all, but here are some of the better lines.

Following up the line above about breaking the world:

"But here’s the good news. You fix this thing, you’re the next greatest generation, people. You do this—and I believe you can—you win this war on terror, and Tom Brokaw’s kissing your ass from here to Tikrit, let me tell ya. And even if you don’t, you’re not gonna have much trouble surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a naked guy pile of enemy prisoners and don’t give the thumbs up you’ve outdid us."

Then this about his honorary doctorate--a line I especially appreciated

I am honored to be here and to receive this honorary doctorate. When I think back to the people that have been in this position before me from Benjamin Franklin to Queen Noor of Jordan, I can’t help but wonder what has happened to this place. Seriously, it saddens me. As a person, I am honored to get it; as an alumnus, I have to say I believe we can do better. And I believe we should. But it has always been a dream of mine to receive a doctorate and to know that today, without putting in any effort, I will. It’s incredibly gratifying. Thank you. That’s very nice of you, I appreciate it.

I’m sure my fellow doctoral graduates—who have spent so long toiling in academia, sinking into debt, sacrificing God knows how many years of what, in truth, is a piece of parchment that in truth has been so devalued by our instant gratification culture as to have been rendered meaningless—will join in congratulating me. Thank you."

And if all of those aren't enough, he finished with this about 9-11:

"I was in New York on 9-11 when the towers came down. I lived 14 blocks from the twin towers. And when they came down, I thought that the world had ended. And I remember walking around in a daze for weeks. And Mayor Giuliani had said to the city, “You’ve got to get back to normal. We’ve got to show that things can change and get back to what they were.”

And one day I was coming out of my building, and on my stoop, was a man who was crouched over, and he appeared to be in deep thought. And as I got closer to him I realized, he was playing with himself. And that’s when I thought, “You know what, we’re gonna be OK.”

Yahoo! News - Fast Arctic Thaw Portends Global Warming-Report

Just curious, when are people going to care about this? When will you start voting the reality? Instead, people keep voting Republican which seems to translate into "nothing is happening, nothing to see here." Let's address this.

Respectful of Otters: "I suspect that the real issue in Texas is that Unitarian-Universalism is a non-creedal religion, with no uniform or required set of religious beliefs. Plenty of UUs believe in 'god, gods, or a higher power,' the Texas comptroller's standard, but we don't expect the person sitting next to us to believe the same thing. Our unifying quality is not what we believe, but how we try to live. It's a religion which requires a high tolerance for ambiguity, which is not a particular strong point of the Texas state government. It doesn't surprise me that, to their eyes, a non-authoritarian religion doesn't look like a religion at all."

I link to this story for two reasons--one to call attention to this interesting blog (love the title and blogger identification "I'm a psychologist working in HIV research and treatment in the inner city. Don't talk to me about "compassionate conservatism.") and also to call attention to the insanity of this Texas decision that the Unitarians aren't a religion. Every person of faith should be concerned by this. What is to stop the government from turning on your brand of faith?

"Bart gets hit by a Car

I should be able to run over as many kids as I want!
-- In court, Mr. Burns justifies his actions, ``Bart Gets Hit by a Car''

I love this episode. Truly great Simpsons. Burns hits Bart with his car, and then the Simpsons attempt to sue Burns for a fortune. Burns utters the above quote in court, claiming that he is such an important person that he is different than others.

Unfortunately, humor aside, this reminds me of the Inhofe response to the prison torture and abuse. We should, in this defense, be able to do whatever we want to Iraqis or other Arabs because we are different than the rest of the world. We invade countries on our say-so, we opt out of global treaties we don't like--in a word, we don't play well with others.

Yahoo! News - Hastert Lectures McCain on War, Sacrifice
: "Then, more seriously, he said: 'If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda (two Washington area military hospitals). There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure that they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong not only militarily but economically. We want to be able to have the flexibility to do it. That's my reply to John McCain.'"

This is unbelievable. Dennis Hastert got out of military service. John McCain spent time as a POW! I would suggest that Hastert needs to shut up.

Salon.com News | America's laziest fascist: "'These are tough interrogations?' Savage asked. 'My father put me through tougher interrogations when I was 16!' He portrayed now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison guard Lynndie England as a poster girl for the war on terrorism -- an embodiment of the idea that kicking Muslim ass can be fun. 'Let's hear it for Laurie [sic] England!' he cheered. 'The leash chick! Hey man, she had a great time over there!' He couldn't understand why liberals were so outraged. After all, he said, the acts of sexual humiliation and degradation that took place in Abu Ghraib were no more perverted than typical homosexual behavior. Try to follow his tortured logic: Savage was saying he didn't mind the Abu Ghraib abuses because they were good clean fun, like gay sex, which he openly abhors."

this from the guy kicked off MSNBC (after he replaced Donahue) for telling someone to "get AIDs and die." I love him saying that his father put him through tougher interrogations. Does that mean that his own father sexually humiliated and molested him?

"Though he has long billed himself as the original "compassionate conservative," his brand of conservatism does not share George W. Bush's pretense of caring about Muslim hearts and minds, much less lives. It appears that for Savage, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with spreading democracy or respecting human rights. It is about asserting American power by any means necessary, and screw what anyone else thinks. Predictably, and sadly, this notion went over well with the audience. When Savage blurted out, "Does anyone in this crowd give a shit about the Iraqis?" he was answered with a deafening "NO!""

That's right! We only invaded their country to help them, right?

This article raises another issue, that of the FCC's backlash on obscenity. Evidently that only refers to sex, because you can't tell me that calling for the death of Arabs, encouraging the use of nuclear weapons on one of their cities, or deciding to kill them by the thousands isn't obscene, then I really don't understand the word. I would prefer seeing Janet's breast. Really.

CBN News - "Misunderestimated": A Battle Ahead for George W. Bush :

"Robertson: But why do they hate Bush so badly?

SAMMON: That's a great question. I actually asked the President that, because he granted me a number of interviews for this book. And so did Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, and Karl Rove, et cetera. I think the best answer came from Condi [Rice]. She said, 'They hate him because he's achieving things.' I mean, it was one thing to sort of resent the President when he got into office, the liberals said, oh, he stole the election, but he's such a lightweight, we'll be able to get rid of him in four years. But once 9-11 happened, and the President started to wage wars, and win wars, and cut taxes, and really reshape the geo-political landscape, the liberals started to resent that, because he was actually having successes. And so instead of just, you know, tolerating the guy, they actually began to hate him. And it's manifesting itself now, as it's time to see whether he's going to get another four-year term.

So see how this works? Terrorists hate us because of our freedom, and liberals hate Bush because he is so good.

ROBERTSON: You compared him to some of the great presidents of our history, John Adams, et cetera.


SAMMON: Well, there was an eminent democratic historian, from Yale University of all places, who actually said that George W. Bush is one of three presidents, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who have instituted 'grand strategies,' is the way he put it, in our U.S. foreign policy.

He is talking about John Lewis Gaddis, who is a top historian, who did argue that Bush was visionary. That doesn't make it right, of course, and historians are often bad at predicting the future. Of course, had he lambasted Bush, he would be pilloried.

And all three of those were in response to surprise attacks against U.S. soil. The burning of the White House in 1814 by the British, Pearl Harbor, and then, of course, 9-11. And in response to 9-11, that's when Bush fundamentally changed our foreign policy to one of pre-emption, as opposed to one of containment, which we had been doing. And so even the democratic historians are crediting him with being one of the three most influential presidents in our history already."

See how one democratic historian becomes "the democratic historians?" Talk about a misleading sentence. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised since Sammon is a Fox reporter, but this is unbelievable.

AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth

This blog alerted me to this story.

Yeah, this is great stuff. Reading the CWA's assessment of the prison scandal is an education. Evidently, you see, the problem is not leadership, or aggressive intelligence gathering, or an administration who continually believes that the rules don't apply to them. Nope. It turns out that Fallwell and Robertson were right. The problems are the feminists who want women in the military; the liberals who support any tax; of course Homosexuals and their Agenda. This was a wonderful insanity, btw, when they pointed to the idea that kissing gays in San Francisco might enrage the Muslims. Of course, the General Boykin inference that Mustlims worship Satan is omitted. Hmm.

Morons. Link is here

Patridiot Watch - A Look At Today's News

From Patridiot Watch, this from Zell Miller:

Senator Zell Miller: "The two times I think I have been most humiliated in my life was standing in a big room, naked as a jaybird with about fifty others and they were checking us out, now that was humiliating. It was humiliating showering with sixty others in a public shower. It didn't kill us did it? No one ever died from humiliation."

Yikes. This, of course, from the Rush Limbaugh approach to the prison abuse scandal--to say that it isn't any worse than snapping each other with towels. Are you kidding me? Is this guy for real?

People can disagree about the nature of this presidency. We can talk about whether Bush is in Charge; whether the war on terror is on track, etc. But arguing that somehowthe prison abuse/torture is somehow benign? That is just moronic.

MSNBC - The Roots of Torture: "as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers—and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation—methods that the Red Cross concluded were 'tantamount to torture.'"

Once again, Powell is the voice of reason who is consistently ignored. Those Republicans who support this administration pointing to Powell as proof of his moderation should acknowledge that the administration uses him as cover, but doesn't really listen to him. Someday, we will have a clear record of how bad this fine American has been treated here.

Yahoo! News - U.S. missed chances to stop abuses: "From red flags raised months ago by prison guards at other facilities in Iraq to letters from lawmakers and non-government groups, the Pentagon and the Bush administration received a variety of complaints many months before the abuses began last fall."

This doesn't bode well. People in charge had warnings. They had chances to stop this. They had a head's up. They ignored it. Hard to act "shocked and upset" right?

Man fights citation for carrying anti-Bush sign

From Fark. This seems more and more common. We find that the Bush administration has "free speech" zones and there seems to be a growing sense of repression. I hope I am wrong. Maybe it is the "war footing."

Beetle Ghraib

Ouch! Beetle Bailey in modern Army

TCS: Tech Central Station - The War of Images: "Right now the Middle American psyche is being overwhelmed with reasons to hate the entire Arab world; and yet the Bush administration insists that we are in Iraq to help the Arabs. Unfortunately, the administration seems to be completely unaware of how sick and tired of Arabs the average American has become, unaware because it is politically incorrect to express such sentiments of outright hostility: but what is politically incorrect to express is all too often the motive force behind those sudden and spontaneous movements of the popular psyche that only seemed to come from nowhere because they came from a place unfamiliar to most pundits and paid prophets, namely, the gut level feelings of the average guy.

Many Americans simply wish the Arabs would go away; others wish to blow them away -- and wish to blow them away not because they see this step as inevitable and tragic, but because they rejoice at the prospect of getting them back for what they have done to us. Most normal Americans today just don't care any more about the Arabs and their welfare, or about their humiliation, or about their historical grievances, simply because all the images that come to us from their world horrify and appall us, including the disturbing images of Americans doing things that no normal American would ever dream of doing to other people back at home, if only because they would never be given the opportunity.

This is how most normal Americans now feel, but they dare not express it in public. But make no mistake, this feeling will be expressed -- somehow, somewhere: a fact of which our leaders and the world must be made aware before it occurs."

I am afraid that this writer is right, and I think it is awful. The growing resentment of the Arab world is justified with regard to 9-11, but not with Iraq. What is it with American arrogance that they can invade and bomb the hell out of a country and then be angry when that country is not real fond of them. I put this squarely on the Administration and its continued insistence that we would be welcomed and loved. Jon Stewart has noted several times recently that our own history would be very different had the French come in, defeated the British, wrote our constitution and then finally left. Would we have the same sense of pride and patriotism? Why do we continually expect people to respond to our moral goodness after we bomb them? Why do we turn to the world and essentially say that if you don't love us, we will bomb you until you do?

Why Liberals Hate Bush

This question has been posed to me several times recently. My first response was that this was begging a question, but think that it is probably accurate. The hatred, it should be noted, is more directed at the policy side rather than the personal. But the question does bother me. My good friend from Wisconsin suggested that Bush had successfully developed a persona (call it Dubya) and used that persona as a political tool. Dubya is "plain-spoken" and a "regular Merican" from West Texas, while the Real Bush is pampered rich kid with access to power and capital that most people could never have. The persona is effective in gathering support from people who really don't benefit from Real Bush's policies, but who share Dubya's dislike of elitists.

But the question is still problematic. "Hating Bush" sounds personal; sounds irrational. It effectively assumes that Liberals wouldn't support this person even if his policies were liberal. So, "why do you hate Bush?" feels like a diversion away from substantive reasons to dislike and disagree with this administration. Do I hate this man personally? I don't know. I do feel a sense of rage when I watch him speak. I watched Bill Kristol on the Daily Show last night, and besides offering the most lukewarm support for Bush, he elicited a great comment from Jon Stewart. Stewart said, (something like)"You know, I want to help, I want to be a positive force, but I get the feeling that Bush doesn't want my help, and doesn't 'care what I think." I think that nails it. Bush rules with an iron fist and a closed mind. He not only doesn't (in my opinion) govern with respect to long term consequences, but he also doesn't care a bit about those who are not in his camp. As far as I can tell, his only response to liberals like me is "who cares what you think?"

But the question remains. Do I hate Bush? Personally? Probably not. I don't find him an interesting person and I don't find him either personally inspiring or engaging. But I do hate his policies and his governing style. I don't think that is irrational, nor do I think it is inappropriate. I think maybe the question should be phrased slightly different: "Why do so many liberals hate this administration's policies? Why is the country so split and so divided under his watch?"

Salon.com | One minute from abnormal: "In the carefully rendered world where Hughes lives, the weapons of mass destruction are not missing; they have only to be discovered. Terrorists hate freedom and liberty and equality, instead of hating Americans. A man who won a Silver Star for shedding blood for his country needs to explain himself, while a young lieutenant who skipped out on an officer's commission and a coveted pilot's slot has 'served honorably.' On Planet Hughes, life is returning to normal in Iraq, the horrors are diminishing and the casualties of Americans and Iraqis are not that significant. It's a happy place where presidents never make mistakes and there is never anything to be sorry about. One can almost see her in the back of the room, her mouth rounded with expression and secretly moving in unison with the president as he speaks the words 'Donald Rumsfeld is a superb secretary of defense.'"

Oh man, this is an interesting look at Karen Hughes. It raises something kind of interesting about the cult of personality surrounding Bush. I don't remember similar fans of his dad, or even of Clinton. I can't imagine someone supporting Kerry with such mindless support.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Dancing Alone: "I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq ? from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence ? because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West."

Yet another former supporter who is now suggesting that the emperor is very naked and very incompetent. This all sounds so much like John Dilulio's assessment that this administration was all about politics. I remember conservatives hated the fact that Bill Clinton seemed to be always in campaign mode, but this administration has only stopped campaigning to invade Iraq.

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control."

This is from a pretty strong supporter of Bush.