Heh

SOF chronicles the travails of our tentative fish population. Heh.

Oh, come on!

I have always liked Southwest Airlines, but trying to kick a woman off the plane for wearing a short skirt seems ridiculous. The woman is clearly attractive (nothing wrong with that), but also fully clothed. Not sure what she did wrong.

Yet even wearing the clothes that scandalized Southwest, she did not attract attention beyond some lingering glances.

My fashion advisers were baffled, saying they saw nothing you don't see on a college campus or in Pacific Beach.

“I was expecting to be shocked, and I was shocked the other way,” Pascual told me.

“It wasn't a big deal,” Garin said. “Her skirt was a bit short, which was only accented by her heels. If she had been wearing flip-flops it wouldn't have mattered.”

Good to know in these scary days that flight attendants are on the lookout for such behavior.

I am sorry, but

Baptist Press - D. James Kennedy dead at 76:

"Known for his distinctive baritone preaching voice and methodical delivery, Kennedy was a leading conservative in America's cultural battles and often used his broadcasts to touch on such issues as abortion, 'gay marriage' and evolution. In addition, he was well-known among evangelicals for his books and sermons about the nation's Christian founding fathers. "

I am sorry for his family, but Kennedy did an awful lot of harm to our separation of church and state as well as the politicization of our faith. Oh, and his statements on history have been particularly harmful, and he was an advocate for Christian dominionism. Again, I am sorry for his family, but I will not miss him.

the SBC and moral issues

Interesting post (H/t Jesus Politics) from Wade Burleson:

I have said publicly that I would not personally lead my church to hire a female pastor, would not be a member of a church where the senior pastor was female, and I have no problem personally with the BFM 2000* on this issue. However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural — and not Biblical.

The post then turns to how people used the Bible to justify slavery. Very interesting.

Bush on God?

I really don't know quite how to read anything about this man and not just bang my head against the wall that someone like this became our president. New book on him coming out and evidently, the Prez cries on the job.

"Draper says President Bush also admits that he cries. “I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president," Bush told Draper.

God's shoulder to cry on? Oh, and the same book suggests that Bush, in private, still contends that Iraq had WMD. He says one thing in public, but in private something else. He isn't honest, and he is completely deluded.

Oh, and he is one greedy bastard. His goal after being President? Make a contribution? Well, kind of. He wants to build an institute--and only this President could come up with this stupid name.

After he leaves office, President Bush is quoted as telling Draper that he wants to build what he calls a "Fantastic Freedom Institute" in Dallas. He describes it as being a place where young leaders can come, write and lecture.

But first, of course, Bush has to cash in on the job.

But first, Bush tells Draper, he wants to make some money to "replenish the ol' coffers,” noting he can make "ridiculous” money on the lecture circuit.

“I don't know what my dad gets. But it's more than 50, 75 [thousand] … Clinton's making a lot of money," the president is quoted as saying."

I have always felt sorry for Bush coming from poverty like he did. Seriously, how do any of you who voted for this guy in 2004 look at him and not just feel a little ill?

Racial America

I have been busy with school and reading a little on the side about Southern defenses for secession and the Civil War. I knew about them before, but had not really investigated the arguments behind it. Turns out there is a mini library of books with titles like "The South Was Right" or "The Real Lincoln." That last one is by an economist who has written other books, including one that there is a "war against capitalism." Damn straight, Comrade. We are out to rid the world of capitalism.

Sigh.

But back to the Southern apologia. The essence of the argument is two-fold, that secession was legal (and ergo Lincoln illegally forced the south back with the war) and that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. Slavery, they contend, was started by the North (nice justification), and the North (including Abraham Lincoln) were more racist than the South. Yes, that is right, the clearly racist North was more racist than those in the South who actually bought and sold human beings at cattle markets, or bought the most attractive slave women for their nightly pursuits. Or rewarded their wives with the gift of not working by, you know, buying them a slave. Which anniversary is slave again?

Sigh.

What bothers me the most about this apologia is the constant contention that the South was morally superior and deeply religious. One even argued that the South was deeply committed to orthodox Christianity. That worked out so very well, didn't it? Sure, they might have defended slavery, or owned slaves, or threatened abolitionists, but they did so with the spirit of the Lord.

Sigh.

And after the Civil War, even if it was illegal for Lincoln to bring the South back, good Southern Christians might have turned to the freedmen (after all, the apologia says that most didn't own slaves) and extended grace and acceptance, right? Nope. They turned first to the Black Codes restricting black employment options and even occupations, and often forcing them into contracts with their old owners. Then, after Reconstruction forced them to recognize the civil rights of the freedmen, they turned to the Klan and other "social clubs" for a good old Christian "reign of terror."

We think we have come so very far. And we have in so many ways. I am reminded of the conservative efforts to gut the Voting Rights act, because those were issues of the past. (Hell, after Bushco and Diebold, I think we need to expand the Voting Rights act to include, well, all of us who aren't Republican operatives). But then there is this story of the Jena 6. You can read more there, but the gist is that the high school at this heavily segregated community in Louisiana had a tree where only white students congregated. A black student requested (last fall) to sit under that tree and the administration told him to sit whereever he wanted. But when he and other black students did, they found three nooses--all in school colors--dangling from the tree. Those white students were suspended, but the superintendent intervened and called the nooses "a prank."

Racial tensions flared with white students beating a black student. A white man held a shotgun on black kids. The man was never charged. A white student racially taunts the black kid who was beaten, and is beaten in return himself. His wounds are superficial and he attends a party that night. But the six kids are charged with attempted second-degree murder.

Six Black Jena students (Mychal Bell, Robert Bailey Jr., Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, Theo Shaw and Jesse Beard) were subsequently arrested and charged with attempted second degree murder. All six were expelled from school. On the morning of the trial, the District Attorney reduced the charges from attempted second degree murder to second degree aggravated battery and conspiracy.

The all-white jury deliberated for less than three hours and found Mychal Bell, the only one charged as an adult, guilty on the maximum possible charges of aggravated second degree battery and conspiracy. He awaits a Sept. 20 sentencing hearing. Mychal Bell faces up to a maximum of 22 years in prison. The cases against the other five Black students are pending.

This is the Southern culture that I am supposed to applaud? Or can we simply blame this on the North as well?

The sub-prime issue

An interesting take on sub-prime loans and the Bush administration push for homeownership. He suggests that the entire mortgage industry has shifted from a long-term relationship of 15 or 30 years to an immediate profit at the point of sale. The problem comes when people who want to borrow enough for a 250k house, but get talked into a 350k loan because the lender makes more money immediately. The lender then sells the loan to someone else--removing the long term market force that would make them only loan what a person could actually pay back. It is really unconscionable when you think about it. People go into buy a house--after Bush has made a huge point of getting people into homes as owners--end up with far more loan than they can afford and with an adjustable rate that explodes on them. We are hearing about mortgage payments that triple and quadruple--all perfectly legally. But imagine your own situation and see how you would respond. People with good jobs and a steady income find themselves unable to make the payments.

Suddenly, after two years of thinking that you had it made by paying only the interest payments on a loan you could never afford in the first place, the interest-only term of your loan expired and your $500/month payment suddenly kicked up to $1,500. Things get tight for a few months, there is additional stress in the family as you can no longer afford vacations or dining out. After a few months of that, the floodgates open. With the Fed threatening to raise rates, your lender decides to adjust your mortgage rate up by 3.5%--completely within their right to do. Unfortunately, this means your payments skyrocket up to $2,800 per month. Unprepared for this change and in disbelief, you cover some short term expenses by maxing out two credit cards. You make the first mortgage payment and the second, but now you are short cash and start to miss one credit card payment, then another. Life at home becomes unbearably stressful and you start talking about a second job.

Yeah, I know, caveat emptor. No one actually forced these millions of people to sign these loans. But that doesn't mean we should encourage this kind of destructive loan practices. As we are seeing and will continue to see--these kinds of mortgage practices are not only unethical, but will harm everyone in the economy.

But while Bush's terrorism fetish filled the country with fear, his 'homeownership' mantra had the opposite effect: duping vast sections of the country into the thinking they owned homes, when in reality all they had done is sign themselves up for mortgages so rigged in the banks favor that they make credit card contracts look like birthday cards. Any honest financial planner would have looked at 99% of these 'sub-prime' and adjustable mortgages against the financial realities of the new home buyers and given vastly different advice about loan amounts. Somehow the simple questions never got asked--questions like, 'Are you sure you can handle this much debt over the next five years?' or 'Are you aware that these radical increases in your payments will likely happen in the next three years?' or 'Is it clear to you that housing prices at these levels cannot sustain themselves for more than 24 months, after which it is likely that prices will drop?'

...

Nobody asked the right questions that would have resulted in a slow expanse of responsible home buying boom and lessened the number of wildly foolish mortgages that Americans took. And nobody asked those questions because the President of the United States was busy giving mortgage sellers plenty of cover by convincing the American public that they were becoming 'homeowners' rather than 'debt buyers.'

I don't think this is what conservatism stands for. But then again, after 7 years of this disaster and listening to Republicans undermine our very system, I am not sure what conservatives stand for any more.

Sigh

Going to get coffee this morning, we heard the sounds of the last week--Bush fawning over Al Gonzales, Larry Craig claiming he is not and has never been gay, etc. One of the sound clips was Bush, I think, speaking to some veterans association (one of the few places he gets a positive hearing--as ridiculous as that sounds given the treatment of veterans) and doing his whole, "Imagine an Iraq dominated by Shia militias backed by Iran, and where Al Qaeda has established sanctuaries to train for attacks against the rest of the world, including the US."

Good god. Does this guy even know how to communicate in a different way? SOF just shook her head and said, "be afraid, be very afraid." That is all he has. He is a one-note band--and off key at that. Rove asserts that Bush will be positively viewed as a man of vision, but he also said that he was proud to work with a President who tried to bring the country together. I don't know how anyone can assert that. What Rove may want to believe in what is left of his soul is irrelevant. What Rove brought to the table was a scorched-earth tactic of destroy your political adversaries no matter what the cost--and scare the living shit out of the American people.

Now Bush is left with only that. He has lost the ability to force the destruction of his political opponents. But he can still scare the American people, or at least try.

But he should be ashamed of himself. Assuming the man is capable of shame or self-reflection. I have seen proof of neither.

*****

SOF called the war a complete cluster, and just shook her head at what it has become. Behind the scenes generals are admitting that this current surge is unsustainable without some future action. Either they institute a draft, or they extend the tours from the already extended 15 months to 18 months or longer. They used to be 12. The draft is the political third rail right now. If Bush were to institute the draft, then all my Republican friends who don't like this war, but who are not effected would all of a sudden pay attention. If their kids were available to be drafted, they might actually take some action. Of course, if Bush were to institute the draft, he might be impeaced by his own party at that point. Their political fortunes would be dead, and they know that.

But it just makes you weep for what this country has become in 7 years. Less than 7 years, actually. We went from having a strong military and some ability to threaten bad countries to one caught in a morass of Iraq. We went from a country where the social safety net to one where a hurricane can completely destroy a city and conservatives can say, "hey, stop your bitchin." We went from a country that had some level of moral authority to one that tortures. Tortures! We went from a country where conservatives like John Yoo could complain about the very existence of secret court warrants as a threat to democracy, to one where John Yoo could argue that Bush shouldn't even get warrants at all. We went from a country where the Justice Department was the crown jewel of Federal service to one where you got a job by pledging your allegiance to the worst President in the world and assuring your interviewer that you were neither gay or had ever propositioned another man in a men's room, AND had the proper stance on Roe.

Sigh.

****

We all fear now that Gen Petraus' report will be so spun by the White House that we will not get an honest reading on what is going on. Remember, everything is political for this White House. Well, we might get other takes--I guess it just depends on how effective Bush and Fox News are at disseminating that spin.

But there are other voices like this one where a retired British General blasts the American approach

Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was “one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq”.

Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam’s regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.

In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is “inadequate” because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy

Yeah, relies on military power and then doesn't send enough troops. Sometimes I wonder if the entire Bush administration grew up eating Chinese toys or something.

Sigh.

More Politicized Justice

TPMmuckraker has the story of how the Bush Justice Department interviewed candidates:

"Do you believe in God? Are you gay? Have you cheated on your spouse? What's your position on abortion? Should gays be allowed to marry? Have you contributed to Republican candidates? What kind of conservative are you?

Welcome to Bush's Department of Justice. Those are just some of the questions that investigators think may have been asked during interviews for both career and political positions at the Department over the past three years."

Amazing how these people pushed--not for competence--but for loyalty at every possible place in our government. Not loyalty to America, but loyalty to a particular brand of conservatism and this administration.

******

Speaking of actual loyalty, I love this washingtonpost.com story about how the recent GAO report was leaked to stop Bush's people from watering it down:

"The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq."

****

Finally, Karl Rove has written an oped for a conservative rag (not going to link) saying that History will see Bush as a great man and wise leader.

Sigh

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "Defending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's new homemaking degree against critics he views as outside the mainstream, a Southern Baptist state newspaper editor suggested that women are hard-wired for work within the home."

I am tired of saying "unbelievable" about these people

New article in the Post says that soldiers and US officials in the Green Zone are given cheat sheets on visiting Democratic congresspeople that one called "being slimed in the Green Zone."

"The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history.""

We know from other Post reporting that the Bushies filled this reconstruction people with loyal Buhies and people who had the right opinion on Roe v. Wade, but as many bloggers have noted, we thought that they might have started focusing on some level of competence by now. But no. Everything is political. Instead of all these visitors being "concerned Americans" trying to understand the situation, they are divided into friend or foe and shown only what the Bush people want them to see.

Brief, choreographed and carefully controlled, the codels (short for congressional delegations) often have showed only what the Pentagon and the Bush administration have wanted the lawmakers to see. At one point, as Moran, Tauscher and Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.) were heading to lunch in the fortified Green Zone, an American urgently tried to get their attention, apparently to voice concerns about the war effort, the participants said. Security whisked the man away before he could make his point.

Tauscher called it "the Green Zone fog."

"Spin City," Moran grumbled. "The Iraqis and the Americans were all singing from the same song sheet, and it was deliberately manipulated."

Unbelievable.

Friday morning

Less a rant this morning. Well, we shall see.

The leading news story this week has been Senator Larry Craig's bathroom activities. Last night, I heard the entire tape of his interview with the cops. I couldn't stop listening and there is really nothing newsworthy there. For many of us, the story has been a little funny. The right wing politician caught in an embarrassing situation and publicly shamed. As Sarah (Two-Headed Blog) said:

However, my mirth soon turned to sorrow and pity for the guy, especially after member after member of his own party began turning on him.

Sam Brownback appeared to be the only Republican who responded to Craig with a sense of compassion. Mitt Romney couldn't run over Craig enough and was this close to strapping the Idaho Senator to his car top for a 12 hour ride. Oh wait, that was what he did to his dog.

NPR had a great commentator by Marc Acito last night, who as a gay man himself wanted to jump on the Craig bashing, but couldn't when he started thinking about the pain this man has lived through. As Acito noted, Craig didn't invent the homophobic agenda, "he inherited it."

It has been nice to see liberal voices extending a bit of compassion to this man who's life has probably just come undone.

*****

Now for something different. Kind of. Tony has a post on the evangelical preacher Rick Scarborough who evidently is suggesting that God is punishing America by removing some of its prophets. Who are these prophets? Well, he lists the deaths of Jerry Falwell and Adrian Rogers and the retirement of D. James Kennedy as a suggestion that God is punishing America for, well, I assume it is the standard gays and abortion and liberals and Ted Kennedy. I couldn't read it that closely.

Nevermind that I don't consider any of those three remotely prophet-like. Perhaps I am still remembering Falwell's "blow them all away in the name of the Lord," or Rogers role in overturning the SBC. And Kennedy suggested that when the Puritans slaughtered the Pequots, they were right to do so and God had in fact ordered that hit. Sigh.

Scarborough is famous for embracing Tom Delay as a man of god. (I can't even type that and keep a straight face.) Wikipedia says that he also was a strident opponent for the HPV vaccine in Texas. We talked about that here at Streak's Blog and really all agreed there was a lot of very good reasons to oppose that bill. But none of us suggested what good old Rick saw as the best reason. For Scarborough it was that the vaccine would short-circuit God's punishment for sexually active women. Evidently, the god he worships punishes women who are sexual by killing them. Nice.

******

Finally, the big daddy weave notes that the SBC is now attacking yoga. A man named Hinkle (from Missouri) is leading this charge to remove yoga from the SBC. When I first started yoga, I read a little on the web about this. Personally, I don't get the concern, but then again, my yoga instructor is more about the stretching and flexibility than she is about mind altering. And it has helped my back and my flexibility tremendously in the last year and a half, and also adds a brief moment of introspection in an otherwise hectic week. But I feel absolutely no inclination to change faiths or invoke magical curses. After all, I am not Wiley Drake!

But BDW notes how many ultra conservative Baptist schools include yoga and asks a rather pertinent question:

"At these Baptist schools, I wonder how many students have been led to demonic activity as a result of excessive stretching? .....Just because something is not decidedly Christian doesn't mean it's anti-Christian. Hinkle can't seem to grasp that point. We don't live in a black and white world...."

I agree.

Two years later

Reading this post this morning caused me to go back through my email and blog posts from two years ago. Before I move on to the work of the day, I need to write something so I can put this behind me. Reading those emails and blogs reminded me of just how disheartening that time was. Watching Bush smirk about his drinking days in NO when he finally visited the region was unbelievable. Until his mother chuckled at the refugees and noted that they were better off. Or when Bush did his photo op in NO complete with lights that only turned on for his speech. Or when they all blamed the NO people for not getting out, or said that no one ever suggested that the levies might fail.

I wrote a lot at the time about a need for accountability and for a need to recognize that government can do important work to keep us together and help us through such disasters. Some accountability has occurred. Many people voted Democratic in the last midterm because of Katrina, though Bush seems to have internalized none of that. His incompetence seems purposeful now as he plods along ignoring past mistakes and even pushing for new ones (Iran).

Katrina changed things for me. I remember BB blogging about his belief in a basic social safety net and how its failure during Katrina disheartened him. It did me too. The monumental incompetence of this administration and belief that they should cut taxes further in response to such a huge disaster filled me with disbelief. I remain convinced today, as I was then, that most conservatives (even the evangelicals who continued to support Republicans in the last election) actually want good government and have never quite figured out that Bush doesn't share that goal.

I remain hopeful that we can recover from this administration, but also cynical that the next snake-oil salesman that comes along brandishing a Bible and toting the next Karl Rove behind him will further undermine our Republic.

Ok, back to the work of the day. One more thing. The memories weren't all bad. Who can forget Dick Cheney's heckler?

Not sure about this guy either

Latest rumors are suggesting that this is the guy.

TPMmuckraker August 27, 2007 9:18 AM: "Meanwhile, Fox News cites 'sources' as saying that Solicitor General Paul Clement is the likely choice to be Gonzales' temporary replacement. Clement, as third in succession at the Justice Department, has been serving as acting attorney general for the U.S. attorney firings investigation."

His loyalty to Gonzo and Bush will be front and center as well as any lack of effort he made to investigate the firings as Solicitor General. Or lack of willingness to investigate anything in this godforsaken administration.

Oh great

Melissa Rogers: Southern Baptists and "Christian School 101": "Southern Baptists are moving to open their own schools, offering an alternative to public schools that would educate a new generation about biblical principles."

Given the latest educational nugget from Paige Patterson, let's just say that this does not fill me with good thoughts.

Chertoff is an interesting choice

Attorney General Gonzales resigns, officials say - CNN.com: "President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position, senior administration officials said. Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, would replace Chertoff, the officials said."

The rumor I read over the weekend thought that Chertoff would be easier to get through the confirmation process because he was a known quantity and because he had no connections to the US Attorney scandal. But that won't stop the US Attorney scandal from being part of the confirmation process, but won't it also bring in Katrina? If you are a Senator, wouldn't you take this opportunity to ask questions about the screwups?

It just seems apt

Gonzales out--updated

Resigned. First Rove, now Gonzo. If only Cheney.

From the New York Times, news that Gonzo extended his resignation by phone Friday night. Something is fishy about this too. Any coincidence that, like Rove, the news comes early Monday morning instead of being buried Friday afternoon? The last I read Gonzales was not one of the senior staffers who wanted to resign, so is it possible that Bush pulled the trigger? Oh, I am sure we will see the Prez hugging Gonzo and telling the American people (again) what a good man this is. I read a rumor over the weekend that Bush intended to bring Chertoff over from HS. We shall see.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Attorney General's resignation had not yet been made public.

I am guessing that is because this has been in the planning for a week or two. Gonzo may have dialed a phone on Friday, but someone else made the call.

But not without whining.

"The official said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales's and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over his tenure as Attorney General had made continuing difficult.

"The unfair treatment that he's been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department," the official said."

Oh yes, the unfair treatment. Asking him to recall information. Asking him to explain why people were fired when he is assuring us it was not for political reasons.

I am sure some conservative in Texas will pay Gonzales good money to be incompetent and corrupt for him, but the only good thing that came out of his tenure in Washington was that his incompetence and immorality was revealed before this trainwreck ended up on the Supreme Court. And make no mistake about it, had Bush played his cards a little better, Gonzo would have been a slamdunk. Imagine that. Someone who couldn't recall anything and still acted as the President's lawyer as Supreme Court justice. Or worse, Chief Justice.

We will rue the legacy of this incompetent administration for years to come. But at least we didn't get that trainwreck for the rest of his life. At least that is good. But here is hoping that Gonzales, like Rove, isn't finished with our judicial system.

Now, Dick, aren't you missing the family?

Update: Cnn is already reporting that Bush plans to nominate Chertoff, so I guess that rumor was true. One incompetent person to replace another. Perhaps Chertoff is better than Gonzales, but to be fair, that bar was very, very low.

Uh, Conservatives--this guy is unbelievable

Olbermann refers to this guy as "the comedian Rush Limgaugh" but the truth is he isn't very funny. Take a look at the following exchange and let's see how many half-truths and racist comments we can find.

Talking Points Memo | : "LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.

CALLER: Right.

LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?

CALLER: Uh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.

LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing."

Oh, and btw, Rush never mentions the word genocide (at least in the transcript I read) and is he suggesting that Apartheid was a good thing? Or that the Reagan administration was relatively tough on the Apartheid government? Or that Apartheid was awful? Or that opposing Apartheid was an "anti-white" thing?

Is this guy for real? If the conservative evangelicals had any guts they would put this guy on the carpet. Because say what I will and have about conservative evangelicals, one huge global moral issue that many have spoken out on passionately is Darfur. They have been very vocal on trying to stop the killing in Sudan--and they have been right about it. I think their allegiance to Bush has muted their criticism, but they spoken out. Time for Dobson and Robertson to have their supporters flood Rush's phones and tell him what a racist idiot he is. Or better yet, why not call all of Rush's advertisers and give them the riot act.

My fear is that the Republican part of the conservative evangelical will win out. I will be stunned to see them mobilize here. Sure, if Rush was advocating gay marriage or suggesting that the Ten Commandments be removed... I hope I am wrong. I would really love them to turn on Rush. Let's watch.

This makes me feel like weeping

I have joked frequently about Bush operating more like mob boss than devoted Christian. But the story is no longer humorous and I grieve my country.

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn’t know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics “reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.”

No noble outcomes
Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country’s oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

“If you do it, you will be destroyed,” said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

“Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, ‘Should I do this?’ And my answer is no. If they’re married, they’ll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything,” Weaver said.

They have been fired or demoted, shunned by colleagues, and denied government support in whistleblower lawsuits filed against contracting firms.

“The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know,” said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. “But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, ’Don’t blow the whistle or we’ll make your life hell.’

“It’s heartbreaking,” Daley said. “There is an even greater need for whistleblowers now. But they are made into public martyrs. It’s a disgrace. Their lives get ruined.”

This is democracy as Bush sees it? At the same time he villifies government, he crushes those (or allows them to be crushed) who would clean up government.