The Bootleg Blogger

Comment on Streak's Sin Post

2006-05-01T12:10:00.001-07:00

I originally wrote this as a comment on Streak's Blog, specifically his post, Streak's Blog: Sin. I felt bad that it was so long so I posted it here instead.

Streak
Excellent post. Ahhhh. Sin, sin, sin. Ain't it a great topic! The problem is, whatever your take on sin, Jesus wasn't too big on anyone sitting around figuring out who ELSE was doing it (Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye?) I love your comment that the sinless churchgoer. My recent church experience has been so refreshing. Church has once again become for me a lifeboat for sinners. Man, it's a great place to be! You look around the room at all the wounded people who are so glad to be there to fellowship with other world weary travelers. There's no time for judgement- we don't even want to mention the word because we're so glad to know we're going to miss it that we don't want to mention it too loudly unless maybe you want to hear the story, too. Matt 7:47 says, "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." Does this mean there isn't right and wrong? Of course not, but a healthy view of what's our job and what's God's would go a long way toward bringing a little peace and healing to a road-weary world. Remember "Come to me all you who are weary...."?

Well, regarding sexuality, there's an excellent article that directly addresses this issue. It also is quite informative about Biblical interpretation, Biblical sexual attitudes, and the role of modern discovery informing our theology. Wink's not exactly a darling of the Fundies so hopefully this won't prompt any flames from passing anonypussies. Anyway, I think it's one of the best articles I've read on a responsible Biblical interpretation of sexual orientation. It's long so I've posted a couple tidbits:

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.

Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right.

Oil spill

2006-03-12T04:07:00.000-08:00

The largest oil spill since they started keeping track just happened on Alaska's north slope. This according to the Anchorage Daily News. Try searching CNN or the New York Times- you won't find the story, at least not as of 6am Sunday morning. The funny thing is that I found it here on Aljazeera first. Anyway, I was struck by this quote:

Richard Fineberg, a former state oil analyst, said it is too early to determine environment consequences, but said the area, near the start of the trans-Alaska pipeline, does not match the popular image of the state.

"That area is not pristine. It's industrial," he said.

I guess since it's been industrialized an oil spill is no big deal environmentally. Makes me real sorry we haven't started drilling in ANWR already. Sorry, but any talk of "minimal impact" to the environment by drilling is just rediculous. Drilling is just the first part. Obviously there's an ongoing threat any time you are transporting oil- whether it's by pipeline or by tanker. Exxon STILL hasn't fulfilled their responsibilities in Prince William Sound. Any insinuation that big oil is environmentally sensitive is just a bad joke.

Immoral Budget

2006-02-08T09:54:00.000-08:00

Miguel De La Torre has an excellent article at EthicsDaily.com. He articulates well why the current budget proposal is immoral. Here's a couple lines:

I am left to conclude that this budget is immoral and unethical, because Bush is selling the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.

Cringing in My Seat

2006-02-08T05:12:00.000-08:00

I watched a good bit of the funeral for Coretta Scott King yesterday. I taped it on CSPAN in order to be able to watch the whole thing. While sitting in a cafe yesterday eating lunch I looked up to see George Bush speaking. I know that this was not a typical funeral by any means and that there are probably a number of reasons he was standing there, but I really feel like it was an obscene few minutes. At a time when family, friends, and the nation are mourning her passing, I think that Bush speaking anything but words of repentance at her funeral was appalling. Having to sit and listen to the man who is working against the King vision and philosophy in his actions, leadership, and policies at every level of his presidency is just obscene. This is the person who is building a legacy daily of disdain for nonviolent or negotiated resolution to conflct. He PREFERS using violence to achieve his ends. Read the 6 Principles of Nonviolence and the 6 Steps of Nonviolence at The King Center. King advocated a war on poverty- Bush is leading a war on the poor. The most honest, honorable thing for him to have said would have been, "I must respectfully refuse. I represent all that Mrs. King devoted her life to change. It would disrespect her memory for me to say anything more."

What the world needs now......

2006-02-06T05:17:00.000-08:00

I've been off of the blog for a while. Circumstances haven't allowed much posting other than posting comments on some other blogs. I do read quite a bit but just haven't wanted to take the time to form much into coherent thoughts. Anyway, the more of us reading and letting each other in on our findings the better off we are. That said, here's a sobering article from the Jerusalem Post courtesy of Guerrilla News' entitled "U.S Evangelicals to launch 'Christian AIPAC". These people aren't kidding around, and their influence will be felt. Here's an exerpt:

"Every state in the Union, every congressional district" will be accounted for, Hagee says. Board members comprise an evangelical who's who, including Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Jack Hayford, George Morrison, Rod Parsley and Steven Strang. Televangelist Pat Robertson is to attend the summit, but is not on the board.

Please see my previous post for more details on the "theology" and strategy that this reflects. These groups are NOT pro-Jewish or pro-Israel in any benevolent sense. They see Israel as a key piece on the chessboard as they maneuver world events toward what they believe will be the necessary conditions for the rapture, second coming of Christ, etc.... They are NOT pro-peace. Quite the opposite. They are well funded (wouldn't THAT be an interesting paper trail!) This has the potential for lots of discussion. As time allows......

Geeeeez- enough already!

2005-12-21T14:46:00.000-08:00

This started as a comment on Streak's Blog. Read his whole post- he does a nice recap of the issues for the last few days, especially since the Daily Show is on reruns:-). Bush is finally clarifying things in He's-the-president-that's-why fashion. I'm a little curious why all the fuss over continuing the patriot act- Bush can just continue doing what he wants- because he's the president! Is it just me, or does it seem that far fetched for him to use this same reasoning to convince himself and others that any lengths would be justified to avoid changing presidents during a shooting war? Say, last year? Maybe in Ohio?

On Intelligent Design issues- I'm so relieved that polls about Americans' beliefs about creation and ID are being used by pundits to justify teaching it in school. This will look particularly impressive historically, like the Ptolemy/church thing- church dogma tied to scientific theory has such an impressive track record. Polls, it seems, can reflect public opinion, but for a while now science isn't very democratic. Truth and verifiable science don't seem to care much what the public consensus is at the time. I must admit, though, I'm experiencing guilty hopes that the anti-evolution folks are right- the whole germ theory thing is really a pain. Think of how much we'll save on antibiotics - bacteria can't evolve so there's no need for new antibiotics to combat resistant strains. I guess my cold last week was really just sin messing with my balance of earth, air, fire and water.

My belief about God isn't threatened by evolution. A personal relationship with the Creator isn't dependent on making sure the Bible is literally true. I think we have to be careful how much our faith depends on a document that isn't a science treatise. Do we have a faith in a personal God or is our faith in book so long as it is held to be factually, historically, and scientifically accurate? Finally, one of the beauties of America is our (for at least some of us, anyway) belief that just because I believe a certain way, doesn't mean that I can impose it on you. If I'm studying math, I want a mathemetician teaching me. If it's science, then a scientist. Keep the fundamentalist theologians in the Bible colleges.

American "Rapture"

2005-12-16T04:39:00.000-08:00

This Vanity Fair article is a must-read for everyone interested in strong forces influencing our politics and foreign policy. It does an excellent job of tying together so many events, people, and efforts that have been going on for most if not all of my lifetime. It is not a rant against any particular side and doesn't get into personalities or name-calling. It is a great piece of journalism. It is LONG but read the whole thing. I hesitate to pull out a particular part to highlight, but here's one anyway. Again, a MUST READ.

With right-wing groups expanding at such a dizzying pace, LaHaye helped to found the Council for National Policy (C.N.P.) as a low-profile but powerful coalition of billionaire industrialists, fundamentalist preachers, and right-wing tacticians. Funded by Hunt and Davis, among others, the organization set out to create a coherent and disciplined strategy for the New Right.
Though its membership is secret, the rolls have reportedly included Falwell and Pat Robertson; top right-wing political strategists Richard Viguerie, Ralph Reed, and Paul Weyrich; Republican senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth (both of North Carolina), Don Nickles (Oklahoma), and Trent Lott (Mississippi); and Republican representatives Dick Armey and Tom DeLay (both of Texas). The late Rousas John Rushdoony, the right-wing theologian who hoped to reconfigure the American legal system in accordance with biblical law, was said to be a member, as was John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, who was co-counsel to Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
"Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes, senators and Cabinet members—you name it. There's nobody who hasn't been here at least once," says Falwell, who confirms that he is a member. "It is a group of four or five hundred of the biggest conservative guns in the country."
The C.N.P. has access to the highest powers in the land. In 1999, George W. Bush courted evangelical support for his presidential candidacy by giving a speech before the council, the transcript of which remains a highly guarded secret. And since the start of his presidency, Falwell says, the C.N.P. has enjoyed regular access to the Oval Office. "Within the council is a smaller group called the Arlington Group," says Falwell. "We talk to each other daily and meet in Washington probably twice a month. We often call the White House and talk to Karl Rove while we are meeting. Everyone takes our calls." According to The Wall Street Journal, two high-ranking Texas judges who spoke to the Arlington Group in October at the suggestion of Karl Rove allegedly assured its members that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Will Campbell - Here's one to admire

2005-12-12T11:32:00.000-08:00

To Streak and others of us who are constantly on the lookout for real Christians amongst the crowds of impersonators, look no further than here.

Bill Moyers Speech is Must See/Hear/Read

2005-11-18T12:45:00.000-08:00

I was flipping the channels around today and landed on Link TV Bill Moyers was taking the podium at New York University. What followed was perhaps the best speech I've ever heard addressing the issues of class we're facing today. You can can access the video, audio, and/or transcript here. I can't speak to the other speeches since I just found the page myself, but they all look they'll be worth the time to check them out.

Spin, Spin, Spin

2005-11-11T13:46:00.000-08:00

A few hours ago the president of the US chided his critics for not supporting the liberation of Iraq. Bush is once again acting like being led to a WAR on false pretenses and then getting some collateral benefit such as Saddam Hussein's removal makes him some kind of great leader. He feels like investigations into prewar manipulation of intelligence are strictly political in nature. He is critical of those who voted for the war and are now not supporting the administrations strategies (whatever they are). I agree that those in Congress who voted for the war have shaky ground from which to criticize. If they are voted out over the next few years I say it serves them right. Fortunately, there are several who didn't vote for the war who are speaking out strongly. In the case of the former group, I can at least respect the leader who acknowledges that a mistake was made and wants to correct it, especially when lives are at stake. In my opinion, Bush has not admitted a mistake or taken responsibility for poor choices since he took office. Now he's claiming we're in Iraq in order to liberate the Iraqi people. That's not why he told the American people it was necessary to go to war. He claimed WMD's. Remember the Colin Powell dog-and-pony-show at the UN? Remember Condi Rice's mushroom cloud statements? The cost of the war was to be minimal. Those who thought differently were booted out of the way. Were those just tongue in cheek, Mr. Pres? And now we find out that the stories your staff referenced to support their claims were fed to the reporters who wrote them? WMD's, according to you, were an emergency situation. Without the potential for a nuke you didn't think you'd get the votes to go to war. Without the nukes there might have been debate about the best course of action. Alternatives to war might have been offered and agreed upon. We couldn't have that! What would Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin say? Wouldn't want to get a but chewing from THOSE GUYS! Bush can whine about criticism all he wants. It is sad to watch as the most powerful individual in the world is unable to engage his critics in real, intelligent dialogue or even argument. His only recourse is say that criticism helps the enemy. What a response. My high school debate team would have shredded our fearless leader.

Bush believes that an outward display of strength and infallibility is more important that the lives of our soldiers. His behavior is reminiscent of the days when royalty would go to war with each other over personal slights with little concern over the blood spilt in protection of personal honor. Bush has had plenty of opportunities to act like a human being and show a reasonable approach to obstacles, problems, and even unexpected success. He has instead bullied his way through in an obstinate "kid everyone hated in 3rd grade" display of intolerance to anything that doesn't aline with his narrow agenda. If he had held others and himself accountable, considered diverse input and options, and recognized mistakes and moved to correct them then I could at least give him a respectful hearing. I must say that his speech today is the proverbial straw and my back's busted. What little respect I had for him earlier is gone. I wouldn't want the man left alone with the family silver or my kids. When he opens his mouth I assume he's lying. I don't mean that as in the old joke about politicians- I mean it in the sad realization that a person is pathologically intent on doing ill toward others and can't see it in themselves and won't seek any kind of help. My prayers are that somehow something can happen to stop him from doing more harm because he doesn't see any harm in what he's doing. Gridlock sounds like a blessing from heaven at this point. He sees all of his actions as good. Nothing about Bush is funny anymore. His messianic complex is killing people. His behavior is not deserving of any level of respect. He is a dangerous embarrassment.

We've had people in power who did a bad job and who were their own best fans. We've only had a few who were literally responsible for the death of thousands of people while thinking they were on a mission from God. Three years looks like a very, very long time.

A Marine's Story

2005-11-10T04:42:00.000-08:00

This story, Ron Jacobs: an Interview with Kent State's Dave Airhart has several elements that are intriguing. First, there's a marine coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan with his story to tell. My search on major, mainstream news sites (CNN, Fox, Washington Post, etc....) on Airhart's name came up with one story- MSNBC. I realize some of his opinions wouldn't even get him a hearing on most outlets, regardless of which direction their spin motor turns, but I'm intrigued by his outspoken, first-hand accounts and the probability that his story will be generally ignored.
A second revelation to me was cited in the MSNBC.com article where it says:

Now, colleges must either allow recruiters, or lose all federal funding, including loans, grants and student aid.

That's right- education funding is linked to allowing the military on campus!

Here's a couple other posts citing the story:
Kent State veteran discloses murder of Iraqi civilians and detainee abuse | AfterDowningStreet.org

Bob's Links and Rants: Brain dead in Ohio--Kent State revisited

Also, the NYTimes reports of a new incident in which

Unaware that civilians were in the house, the statement continued, Marine aircraft bombed it on Monday, reducing it to rubble.

Another family is dead, some members at the hands of insurgents and some at the hands of the US military. Guerilla urban warfare with smart bombs mixed in. How much more insane can it get? I'm afraid we're on track to find out.

Sufferin fer Jesus

2005-11-08T12:31:00.000-08:00

I'd love to see a good study on the psychology and sociology of the American Televangelist. Despite repeated reports on misdealings and misdeeds, they're able to establish multimillion dollar empires from the tax deductible contributions of people who otherwise probably lead productive, somewhat intelligent lives. Here's the latest one to roll into my attention. I realize he's not technically a televangelist, but his support seems to be from largely the same money trails: Law.com

I've always been intrigued by the need for private jets.

Here's a great assay on why we need to keep our eyes open: Trinity Foundation

Sufferin' for Jesus- Gotta love it!

How Much Do You Trust Big Brother's Discretion?

2005-11-05T08:07:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure how many are aware of this ruling- U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules. This is a reversal of a previous ruling back in 2003. The courts have

backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I think this is very disturbing, and I'm concerned that it will stay under the radar for the average citizen. The basic right of every citizen to due process of law can now be circumvented based on the judgement of the president. Please understand, my concern is not that law breakers have been arrested. My concern is that the administration feels that due process of law, with all of the checks and balances and oversight that are a part of the system, is inadequate.

Governments all over the world have instituted provisions to allow for secret, extra-judiciary branches of government to deal with what they claim to be extraordinary circumstances. For Americans, the threat of terrorism has put the US into a "new" kind of war. In answer to this threat we have been told that some of our rights and freedoms (the ones for which the terrorists hate us so much) need to be sacrificed. Now we're keeping secret prisons in other countries, the names of which have been withheld due to the probability that our actions would be considered illegal in those countries. Globally and historically this is nothing new. Unfortunately, however, these policies, when instituted elsewhere, are often, if not always, abused and held up as obstacles to those governments entering the mainstream global community.

Malaysia met the threat of communism during its youth after WWII with the Internal Security Act (ISA). The communists have been gone for a while now, but the ISA is still in place. In addition, the ISA has given the government carte blanche to "legally" get rid of any political threats. I have personally spoken with a Malaysian Christian who narrowly missed getting rounded up during college. He was out of the country at the time interviewing for graduate school, but a number of his friend were rounded up and detained for months. Their crime: they had a Bible study in their room and had dialogued with some Muslim students about faith issues. They were not arrested and charged with proselytizing which would have involved due process of law. Instead, the ISA gave the authorities the power to detain them without charges and without public disclosure of any kind.

The law was, at face value, set up to allow the government to deal expediently with threats. Individual rights could be compromised in the interest of national security. Whether or not the law was justified to begin with is beside the point.
This convoluted thought comes to this: Reduction in human rights for the benefit of national security puts discretion into the hands of a few who, historically speaking, never use this authority and decreased accountability without abuse. Recent events in our own history show that, in fact, the authorities will flirt with the edge of any limitations put up for them and, as recently evident, overstep those limits if there's a chance they can get away with it.

I do not trust anyone in a position of authority to benevolently take away freedoms in order to protect the freedoms that are left over. I don't trust anyone in authority to know who is "good" and who's "bad" with 100% accuracy. Accountability and oversight are ALWAYS needed. Extreme circumstances call for INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY and OVERSIGHT rather than the DECREASE our illustrious vice-president would like to see take place.

My hope is that Americans would never stand for the government to use these tactics against US citizens. Once given these discretionary powers, however, how many of us would ever know that they were being utilized? How much abuse would have to take place before the public became interested enough to take action? I am very skeptical given that we are currently engaged in torturing detainees and our right to do so is being debated on who technically is and isn't covered under treaties rather than what is moral or in line with our historical defense of human rights. Our administration is detaining people in secret prisons in countries where there will be no oversight. All of this gives me little confidence in the discretion of the military, CIA, and anyone associated with the executive branch of government. Our country is step by step establishing our character in the face of threats that other countries have lived with all along. Our standards for human rights, justice, transparency, and accountability found most of these other countries lacking as they dealt with perceived external and internal threats. Are we going to lower the bar now that we feel threatened or are we going to accept that a free and just society has costs that must be counted and then accepted. I don't say this flippantly. But we must seriously consider this beyond the trappings of politics. We hail the reforms in places like South Africa and Indonesia as triumphs for human rights and democracy. Why would we want to do anything that moves us closer to from whence they came?

FYI:
Here's some more info on Malaysia's ISA and the special branch of government that used it:

Once individuals were taken into custody, they were interrogated by officers from the Special Branch, which, although part of the police bureaucracy, functions as Malaysia’s domestic security service. During the political unrest in the 1970s and during Operation Lalang in the 1980s, Special Branch officers were called upon to interrogate, intimidate, and silence political detainees who were perceived as a threat to the Malaysian government. Because Special Branch officers are completely free of outside oversight when they interrogate ISA detainees, they have developed a reputation for abusive and coercive tactics.
Relevant sections of the legislation are as follows:
Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: "Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof."
Sect 8. Power to order detention or restriction of persons. "(i) If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years."

Buying Time?

2005-10-23T18:43:00.000-07:00

Thought provoking article at My brother, the warrior, died for ... ? - Los Angeles Times.

Morally Bankrupt

2005-10-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

Having read the text of the "Mccain Amendment" I am at a loss as to why there is even a discussion going on about it, especially from an administration talking democracy and the politics of "Christianity". This article, however, indicates that our esteemed elected officials want to keep open the torture options. This is just disgusting. I'm reminded of Rumsfeld's press conferences where he danced around questions about extended incarceration and torture by saying that these guys aren't soldiers. Since when does the United States NOT torture people because it is against some law? We don't torture because we believe it's WRONG! In this speech W himself said about Iraq's insurgency:

But nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness, torture chambers and mass graves. I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society. They're beginning -- they saw a government formed today.

In reference to ANYONE ELSE torture is always considered one of the examples of EVIL being present. So, if you are a government that advocates torture, you are evil. Removing torture from your country is one of the "benefits of a free society" and a sign that your policies are rising up out of the gutter. This administration's actions with regard to this, the press' coverage, and the reaction of the American people will speak volumes.

10-12 Million People Needing Food Aid

2005-10-19T04:19:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Silently, Malawi begins to starve. Oxfam estimates that 10-12 million people in the region urgently need food. Too bad they are Africans i.e. invisible.

Poor Countries and War

2005-10-18T05:01:00.000-07:00

Excellent article published here Why Did the Poorest Countries Fail to Catch Up? - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Download the pdf file. It's long and full of statistics, but here's an excerpt from the conclusion (NOTE: LDCs=least-developed countries):

Why have the poorest countries not only failed to catch up but have even failed to keep up with the
rest of the world? The reasons must be highly country specific, but, in a cross-sectional study, we can
still uncover some possible causes—or at least state positively why growth was so low and negatively
what are not likely to be the reasons for low growth. One key factor associated with low growth is war and civil strife. The poorest countries have lost, on average, some 40 percent of their output through much greater frequency of war compared with the rest of the world. If we take the effect of wars alone, we find that the entire relative decline of the LDCs compared with the middle-income countries can be thus explained. In other words, had prevalence of war among LDCs been at the same level as elsewhere, the LDCs would have at least kept pace with the rest of the world.

True conflict mediation needs to be a high priority in the world. All of our donations to relief and development, while they are needed and will be needed for the long term, are just band-aids on the wounds of war. As the article states, unless war, including civil wars, are effectively prevented then the humanitarian aid and development will always be trying to just catch up with the damage done. The developed countries like the US and the EU need to be leading in this. Our resources and expertise need to be deployed in the arena of true peace making. Our legacy of arming one side or the other in order to see our agenda furthered or a "hands-off" approach because it's an "internal conflict" or the parties involved don't meet our standards for engagement can't be continued. Too much is at stake.

First Hand Account of Pakistan Earthquake Relief

2005-10-18T04:32:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to a blog being done by a person within Pakistan. It's an interesting read and gives a glimpse of what the people there are facing.
Humanitarian Man

The Parish and Elitism

2005-09-29T03:18:00.000-07:00

The Parish has an enjoyable and troubling story. A highligh:

His Sunday School class probably shares many of his values if not his outspokenness, and many of them have learned to couch their prejudices in spiritual language so those ideas don't sound like racism or xenophobia or the worship of capitalist ideals.

Repubs and Mike Pence on Fiscal Responsibility

2005-09-16T06:53:00.000-07:00

Good article and a number of good comments over at TPMCafe I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal so I'll have to take their word for the article. Over at the Republican Study Committee site there's an interesting document quoting RSC chairman U.S. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) from a speech made on the house floor on Sept 8. A highlight:

“But as we tend to the wounded, as we begin to rebuild, let us also do what every other American family would do in like circumstances and expects this Congress to do: Let’s figure out how we are going to pay for it.

“Congress must insure that a catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren.”

A few other interesting articles on the subject are Reckless spending is no relief, Thumbing Nervously Through the Conservative Rulebook - New York Times, and WISH-TV - Indianapolis, Indiana - Your Home of 24 Hour News, Sports, Weather & the Weatherbug - Hostettler Issues Statement on Vote Against Katrina Aid.

It's interesting that when it comes to the neocon agenda and Iraq, there's a blank check. When it comes to US domestic issues, there's a call for fiscal responsibility. Pence's words need to apply across our policies. There's no question that deficit spending is not sustainable. The people of this country and their leadership need to decide if a global empire of hundreds of bases and preemptive military policy embody who we are OR are we truly interested in peace both abroad and at home? Ethical and philosophical discussions aside, we are being irresponsible with our children's future. The disappointing aspect of Pence's comments are that they reflect immediately indicate the current philosophy in the leadership of our country- fiscal responsibility is a chance to cut domestic programs that help the least privileged in our country while enriching the already wealthy while at the same time maintaining a military that is financially speaking the size of all others in the world combined. Who needs lessons in fiscal responsibility? The discussion has become almost ridiculous at this point. We're talking about removing a the mole on our arm while ignoring the tumors spread throughout the body. We'll look a little better, but we're sick to death inside.

New Film

2005-09-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

I'm looking forward to the chance to see this film screened by EthicsDaily.com. Good Quote:

“Being on the morally right side of history is always so obvious with the passage of time,” said Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. Parham said what is needed is not only a sense of history, but also a sense of discernment about events during one’s own place and time.

Reflections on Augustine

2005-09-14T09:05:00.000-07:00

Interesting reflection at EthicsDaily. Highlight:

Augustine understood that we cannot look to God to maintain our levees. We cannot look to God to evacuate our fellow citizens. We cannot look to God to stop the poverty and the inequality, which along with the flood waters drove the miserable and the wretched into the Convention Center and Superdome.

The Administration that Keeps on Giving, errr Taking

2005-09-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

Check out this article in case you've missed the VP in all of the excitement.

Arrogance Repackaged

2005-09-07T04:42:00.000-07:00

I don't want to be petty in the face of severe suffering. I hope the following is an attempt to understand part of this "American thing" we have going on here. I have heard in numerous commentaries on Katrina, most recently last night on the Al Franken show, some version of "I can't believe this is America". Sometimes it's packaged in a question, "Is this America?" A few times it's been soldiers fresh from Iraq. Sometimes it's in reference to the destruction. Sometimes it's in reference to the government's response. Something is bothering me about these questions and statements that I'm not sure I can put my finger on. When I was in SE Asia after the tsunami, I never heard the people we spoke with or read any interviews of, "I can't believe this is Thailand" or "Is this Sri Lanka" or "I couldn't believe I was in India". Don't get me wrong, people leveled criticism at their governments and those handling the response. What was lacking, however, was the American sense of, "This shouldn't happen here." I personally feel that much of the suffering and destruction could have been (and was) anticipated and some of it prevented. We have incredible human and physical resources in this country. In that sense, then yes, this shouldn't happen here. On the other hand, my skeptical side hears this kind of speech and I see another aspect to it. I see an arrogance that believes that disasters and tragedies on a large scale only happen to other people. Somehow being American in and of itself should shield us from great tragedies whether man-made or natural- Oklahoma City, 9/11, Katrina. I do know that people from other countries notice this attitude in us. Close, honest relationships can sometimes betray a guilty sense of satisfaction that now the Americans "know what it's like", "it can happen to you, too." I heard this somewhat in reverse after the tsunami. Plenty of conversations with Americans both in the US and even some working in the relief efforts would comment on how different, i.e. "better", we would plan for or respond to natural disasters "in America".

Before someone raises the complaint that this is a "America Bad-Everyone Else Good" blog, please know that's not what I'm saying at all. The comparison is just fresh in my mind. I guess I'd just like to see less arrogance from us. All of the "greatest nation" talk and "only superpower" talk and "we'll do this" and "we'll do that", "everyone did a great job", etc... I'd like to see a sense of humility. I know it's only a dream, but if the last couple years haven't taught us anything else, they should at least show us that we bleed like anyone else, we make mistakes like anyone else, we're vulnerable to attack like anyone else, we're corrupt like anyone else, the list goes on. Being "American" doesn't miraculously exempt us from mother nature or human nature. The basis for our power in the world is due to our military and nuclear arsenals. We make lots of money to go along with it, although foreigners carry most of our mortgage on the nation. For some reason we think that being the best armed and the most willing to fight carries with it a whole host of other privileges and moral superiority. Sometimes something like a tragedy and our response can reveal some of these myths for what they are.

Americans are responding to the needs of those affected by the tragedy in amazing ways- self sacrificing ways. I hope that in doing so we all gain the humility that comes from seeing our vulnerability and our humanity. Yes, tragedy can happen to us. Just like it can happen to anyone else. The sooner that doesn't surprise us, the better.

Will Our Uncle Be There When We Need Him?

2005-09-07T03:55:00.000-07:00

I'm one of the fortunate people in this world who has had over the years several "safety nets" below me. I have a family in which every member is a support for the other. Since childhood my parents have created an environment that was supportive to the point of encouraging risk, although my mother drew the line with motorcycles and sky diving. As far as financial, professional, educational, and life-crises went, I have been blessed with the safety net of parents whose support, both physical and emotional, was always there. IN adulthood my safety net was supplemented by adult siblings with whom I have a mutual relationship that says, "Whatever it is you need, I'm there." My in-laws, too, have demonstrated the same level of security. It may sound funny coming from a middle-aged husband, father, professional male to describe this safety net, but I try not to take it for granted. I fully admit that much of the good I have in my life I did nothing to get. It is grace in the truest sense of the word. I am the undeserving recipient of unconditional love from people who are really good at giving it.

One disturbing conversation I had with my parents back in 2003 revealed that, despite the fact that they lived close to the geographic center of the continental US and far away from ANY viable terrorist target, they felt threatened and even frightened in the wake of 9/11. It was difficult for me to understand, and our conversations admittedly were not very productive. Afterward I realized that the fear generated by 9/11 went much deeper. My parent's generation, children at the time of Pearl Harbor, have built a nation in which they thought 9/11 was impossible. Add into that the color coded alert system that keeps reminding them of their vulnerability (or at least it did before the elections) and you have people who have never know a threat in their lives sitting in one of the most secure places in the world feeling a constant underlying sense of insecurity and fear. The safety net of American military strength that they believed could keep out all would-be attackers no longer exists. Decision making, especially voting, is then strongly affected by this.

A question I heard asked on the news yesterday was directed to a government official (didn't catch which one). The person was explaining that this is an unprecedented disaster and the logistics of response took time to work out. This disaster was predicted ahead of time, "war gamed" a year ago, and involves loss of life, likely on a large scale. It took a week for the resources available (military, helicopters, airboats, etc....) to be deployed. We have government officials coming close to physical contortions to avoid identifying where the breakdowns occurred. Reflecting on my own expectations of government, I am probably one of many Americans who have always had an underlying assumption of a governmental safety net that would be there if something really catastrophic happened, i.e. the government (local, state, national) would be there to step in. I can't help but wonder if much of the frustration and anger being expressed by those affected by the storm, but especially those NOT affected by the storm watching from the comfort of our homes, might have as a component of it the realization that the safety net isn't really there. I'm not debating whether or not it should be there or not, just making the point that for thousands of people it was not there. Only time will tell what affects this my have on the national psyche. Will the way local governments plan be affected by this, knowing that the feds may not be there? Will this affect where we locate? How we vote? For many of the victims of the hurricane such a discussion is a real luxury. Where they live, work, and travel involves much less freedom of choice than some of the rest of us on the outside looking in. But for those who do have choices and aren't trapped by necessity, what will we do with the revelations of the past weeks? Will Uncle Sam be there when we need him?

News from Unlikely Places

2005-09-06T04:42:00.000-07:00

I didn't know this magazine existed, although I may subscribe just to be able to put it in the bathroom magazine rack, but thanks to Todd Gitlin's reference to this article in Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine. National and cultural skeletons (racism, classism, beaurocratic power plays) are getting trotted into the light as a result of Katrina. Now our environmental policy may join the crowd.

Letter from Gov Blanco

2005-09-03T12:52:00.000-07:00

Here's the disaster relief request from Gov Blanco to the President. Note it's addressed to the White House.

Anne Lamott

2005-09-03T11:27:00.000-07:00

Anne has a new post here

Greg Palast and "America's Stubborn Historical Amnesia"

2005-09-02T04:00:00.000-07:00

Great quote by Greg Palast :A pedagogical note: As I travel around the USA, I'm just horrified at America's stubborn historical amnesia. Americans, as Sam Cooke said, don't know squat about history. We don't learn the names of a nation's capitol until the 82d Airborne lands there. And it doesn't count if you've watched a Ken Burns documentary on PBS.

I suggest starting with this: read "Huey Long" by the late historian Harry T. Williams. If you want to ease into it, get the Randy Newman album based on it (Good Old Boys) with the song, "Louisiana 1927." Do NOT watch the crappy right-wing agit-prop film, "Huey Long," by Ken Burns.

Tragedy and Politics

2005-09-01T08:44:00.000-07:00
"Well, everything begins as tragedy and ends as politics."

Have any of us ever heard of Latoyia Figueroa?

2005-09-01T04:20:00.000-07:00
Excellent article by Miguel De La Torre at Ethics Daily.com highlighting the segregation of the media and its almost total caucasian bias.
Journalism today is one of the nation’s most segregated professions. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, only 5 percent of reporters are black while 45 percent of this nation’s newsrooms have no person of color.
He tactfully introduces the article by comparing the handling of the Natalee Holloway case versus another disappearance at the same time, that of Latoyia Figueroa. I personally would add that the media's obsession with the Holloway case is probably hightened even more by the fact that her alleged obductors are persons of color.

Reaping the Whirlwind...

2005-08-31T20:48:00.000-07:00
Very interesting post over here, "For They That Sow The Wind Shall reap the Whirlwind" | AfterDowningStreet.org by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Project for a New American Century (cont)

2005-08-29T08:31:00.000-07:00
Just in case you haven't seen this, here's an exerpt from yesterday's Meet the Press. Reuel Marc Gerecht, PNAC's director of their Middle East initiative had this to say about concerns over women's rights in the new Iraqi constitution (read the transcript if you want to verify the context):

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
Good to know this he isn't losing any sleep.

History, Culture, Ethnicity- Does Anyone Care?

2005-08-29T07:45:00.000-07:00
This post is pretty long and winds around a bit, but, hey, it's my blog. The thesis that I attempt to develop is that in my opinion the US foreign policy is completely lacking in the areas of historical perspective and cultural impact on the regions, nations, and ethnic groups it affects. I feel that this is obvious to me as a layperson (i.e. I'm not a politician, diplomat, or historian by profession.)

I enjoy history. I'm always amused when I think some trend or innovation is new and, well, innovative. I know several historians, each in different disciplines, who will on occasion politely (or not so politely) shake their heads and say something like, "That has strong parallels with what was going on in the SE United States from 1830 up until about 1850.....". Historians are good at shooting down smug "I'm so new and innovative" claims. I think history is important for lots of reasons. Everyone is familiar with the old, "If we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" (my paraphrase). There are many other reasons, too, I think. Along the lines of my friends earlier statement, a good view of history can be a good dose of humility when we read about indoor plumbing in West Africa when my ancestors were still painting themselves blue, living in caves, and probably eating each other once in a while. Yes, running naked into battle was once considered the ultimate expression of machismo! Additionally, I think our sense of history, i.e. how far back we look for our identity personally and as a society, can have a strong influence on our present day behaviors and consequences, including family relations, foreign policy, "why they hate us", even the outcome of wars fought thousands of miles away.

While living in SE Asia I had numerous conversations with people who had a very different view of history than me. One interesting conversation was with a language teacher. During one lesson the conversation rolled around to some photos of some historic buildings in the US. I told her that some of them were over two hundred years old (wow!). She replied in an unimpressed tone that the current ruling dynasty was about that old. I laughed at myself. Her identity with her ethnic group and the physical location of her nation dated back thousands of years. The two hundred or so years of the US was simply the age of the latest dynasty. I realize that my European history dates back to comparable times to hers, but I don't really have a strong identity with those roots. Many of us in the US of European descent have lost much of our ties to that history as being "ours". We ridicule the French and Germans in these present times. We look back with pride on our break with British royalty whereas my Asian friend looks on the monarchy that ruled her country five hundred years ago with awe and admiration. There are prominent statues honoring war heroes from a thousand years ago, heroes that present day folks honor as having defended the land and preserved their culture.

In the US we do have some areas of the country that still feel strongly connected to the pre-civil war culture. I have a cousin who has researched our family roots extensively as part of his connection with that past. Some of it gets a bit vague with rumors of horse thieves so we don't pursue that line too far. My opinion is that the mainstream US (I know, I know- don't ask me define that too specifically) connection with history is pretty short-term. We are a consumer society that for the most part lives in a short past and are pretty much concentrating on the here and now issues like making a living and achieving comfort. We are hight tech and have instant access to information, e.g. internet, library, etc... that don't require any interpersonal contact. That is, we don't have to rely on elders to tell us the history of our people verbally.

Another conversation I had a few years back was with a Pakistani gentleman, Faruq. He was very upset with the war in Afghanistan, but, despite that, we were having a very friendly conversation about it. He is a Pashtun which is the same tribe as the Taliban. If you look at their distribution on a map you'll see that they are distributed across Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as some other pockets in the region. It was quite clear in our conversation that Faruq had much more of a Pashtun identity than a Pakistani one. When we spoke about the situation in Afghanistan he used the pronoun "we" in reference to the Pashtun and Taliban rather than "they". He was very upset with the US attack on Afghanistan and had several reasons. Our conversation wasn't so much about the Taliban than it was the internal and external politics involved. In other words, we didn't get into the Shari'a law and oppressive aspects of the Taliban rule. Instead, our discussion centered more around the conflict within Afghanistan between the Sunni's in the South (i.e. the Pashtun Taliban) and the Shi'a in the north (remember the Afghan Northern Alliance ? ). Long story short, he stated that Afghanistan's politics can be seen as pretty much a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. He said that "the English came" and were good at exploiting the differences in the region. but they eventually left and we were able to rule ourselves again. (When he said this I thought to myself, "Did he just say, "the English came"? What year are we talking about?" I later looked it up and he was talking about 1839 like it was yesterday.) He then said, "Then the Soviets came and left. Now the Americans have come but they will eventually leave. We can wait. When they leave we will once again take up our cause and fight." Here was another person living in the same moment as me but with a very different view of history and, because of that, the present. I'm not making value judgments on his views, just repeating what he said.

What is my point? My point is that Iraq is filled with people much like the people I describe above and unlike the modern, non-recent-immigrant US citizen. While the stated desired outcomes from the conflicts in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan, seem a bit fluid, themes of "stability", "peace", and "security" are ones that most of the players would love to see happen. It seems to me, however, that actions have been taken in the spirit of vengeance and "justice" that are in direct opposition to "making the world a safer place"
"In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."
President Bush Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank) March 14, 2002

As we map out responses to terror, I'm sure there are several routes to take. The one we seem to have taken from the start is the one that we had the "right" to pursue i.e. They attacked us so we have the right to go after them." "Saddam hasn't complied to we have the "right" to go after him." Neither of these, in my opinion, further the over-all honorable goal of a lasting stability and peace in the world. Instead, history, ethnicity, and regional dynamics have all been ignored for the short-term goals of personal (in a corporate sense) vengeance. This administration seems at a loss as to how to handle the impasse over the Iraqi constitution. They seem to really expect a majority of Iraqis to feel an Iraqi national identity over their individual cultural identity (i.e. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, etc....). Sadaam Hussein didn't have an Iraqi identity yet we expect the rest of Iraq to do so? Where are the history and cultural experts in the administration who are warning Bush about all of these issues? Where are the military specialists on these issues? Have they been silenced or just ignored? If the Kurds establish some degree of independence, has anyone informed Bush that this is Turkey's greatest fears come true? What will that do to "stability in the region? A quick review of the area on a Google search would warn of these issues, let alone access to several intelligence agencies who have had operations in the region for years!!! One of the saddest things I've observed about this administration's approach to the "war on terror" is the total disregard for the complicated cultural and world-view issues involved in the region in favor of a gun-slinging arrogance that expects superior military might to quickly settle any issue.

I am by no means saying that a "culturally aware" policy is an easy proposition, but it is one that has to be taken if we don't want to be find ourselves time after time scratching our heads wondering why the big guns didn't solve the problem. Bush talks about sacrifice and commitment. I'm saying that part of sacrifice and commitment is going the extra mile to consider cultural, sociological, and anthropological issues in order to achieve real and lasting results in our foreign policy. Even if you are a war-hawk and want to conquer the Middle East, it seems that you would want to have thorough insight into these factors before you initiated a military campaign. I know this is a pipe dream, but I believe it to be of vital importance as more and more world conflicts boil down to tribalism (Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, Israel/Palestine, etc....) I wonder if Bush could tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a? Probably way too much to expect him to understand Wahhabism even though it has had incredible impact on his entire presidency.

If you are still reading, here's to the historians and cultural sociologists and anthropologists who were warning us about this "quagmire" long before the first Abrams tanks hit the sand. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when the information is readily available, sometimes being screamed at deaf ears.

"Theory" and "Evolution"

2005-08-26T04:28:00.000-07:00
Streak's comment hit home on a good point- the use of terminology. It's interesting how his point in his post about how historical and scientific expertise is so quickly cast aside by anyone who feels it violates a religious belief of theirs can also be applied to the word "theory" itself. How many times have you heard someone say when referring to evolution, "Well, it is just a "theory""? He make a nice clarification on the scientific use of the word.

Another clarification that doesn't get pointed out often enough is the definition of the term "evolution". Here's one definition and an expanded comment:
the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
What I think is absolutely verifiable is evolution as defined above. The discrepancy and conflict arises when "common ancestor" theory comes into the discussion i.e. we all evolved from a common ancestor or common atoms of carbon getting together. I think there can be some discussion regarding "how it all started". No matter how far you go back, there's a leap of "faith" as to where it all came from to start with. Evolution as defned above is as observabble and verifiable.

If you say it's so enough times.....

2005-08-24T19:36:00.000-07:00
Streak's Blog has a good point today regarding the discomfort some of us have with the closed-minded and arrogant views that religious faith somehow trumps scientifically or historically established theories and proofs. I am enjoying some free premium movie channels with my new satellite dish. Last night I caught Bill Maher for a few minutes and he had some good points about this. Maher grates on my nerves at times (disrespectful personal attacks, total disdain for religion, etc....) but his underlying point spoke to some of what bothers me about Creationism or ID or whatever you want to call it being taught as science. There are plenty of arguments or "beliefs" that we can readily refute. Simply presenting an alternative theory to one established through scientific methods isn't enough to make the new theory legitimate, no matter how much you BELIEVE in it. Maher's example was that you can BELIEVE that baby's are delivered by storks all you want. It doens' make it so. There is plenty of evidence to support a much messier verson.

One of the conservative evangelical Christian interpretations of the first five chapters of Genesis is now being presented as science. There are plenty of other Christian groups who support other interpretations. Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus take a bit different interpretation. Atheists and others have their theories. None of these theories or beliefs are based on scientific study- verifiable truth. Believe what you want about how it all started- evolution is taking place all around us. It can be verified and studied in the laboratory of the world at any time someone wants to open their eyes and take a look. As far as Genesis 1 goes, get into the Hebrew and you have "evening and morning, a second day" (not THE second day). Even the literal language throws ambiguity on the timing of creation. I'm happy with accepting that God created it and is still here. I would have moved on long ago, but for some reason she sticks around.

Robertson called for the assassination of Venez ... [Media Matters]

2005-08-22T20:01:00.000-07:00
Grab your air-sick bags and check out this video.
Robertson called for the assassination of Venez ... [Media Matters] Robertson has been given enough rope and has, in my opinion, hung himself verbally. Here's a person claiming to be a follower of Jesus advocating the murder of another human being. Oops! I forgot that the Monroe doctrine trumps the old, tired ones that Christ advocated.

Hypocrites with Short Memories

2005-08-21T18:35:00.000-07:00
GREAT post over at Daily Kos: Ahh, the good ol' days referring to quotes made in response to Clinton's commitment of troups to Bosnia. A couple quick excerpts:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

I'm not stating support of our policies in Bosnia, just pointing out hypocritical statements from the those who would become the current US ruling junta.

Great Writing:Doghouse: Jesus Outed in Megachurch, Film at 11

2005-08-16T06:36:00.000-07:00
Thanks to a new life emerging for the link to Doghouse: Jesus Outed in Megachurch, Film at 11, Part 1. It's a great piece full of wit. To be able to read all 12 parts you'll need to work from the page I've linked above. The subsequent pages don't all have links to the next link i.e. part 4 doesn't necessarily have the link to part 5. CHECK IT OUT!

Armchair Sociologist Part 1

2005-08-15T20:06:00.000-07:00
My bud Streak is probably about the only person who reads this, so I tend to write assuming he'll be the one reading it. He often wrestles in his blog with how masses of Christians can follow a leader who claims to be a Christian but, in his (and my) opinion exhibits policies and behaviors in total contrast to those promoted by Jesus, the "Christ" in "Christian". Here is part one of a few thoughts I have on the subject. This is by no means exhaustive, but here goes. I think that it is fairly well accepted that there are several foundational beliefs or assumptions upon which most, if not all, of our other beliefs are built. "There is a God", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the earth is the center of the universe", "Jesus was the son of God", "There is no God but God and Mohammed was his prophet", "the atom is the basic building block of matter". The list could go on and on. The evangelical Christians with whom I spent a good bit of my life have as a base belief or assumption that "salvation", as they define it, is the most important event in a human being's life. It is so important, in fact, that it supersedes and transcends ANYTHING else in one's life. While this statement may seem self evident, I point it out because so many behaviors, attitudes, policies, and beliefs hinge on this fundamental assumption.

Examples of how I've experienced this assumption in action are varied. To start, from childhood I was taught that "accepting Christ" was the most important event in my life. All teaching was designed to lead me to that point of decision. Good behavior was important, but only in a secondary way. We were taught that any admirable qualities in other people who weren't "saved" were simply good behaviors that wouldn't earn the person eternal life. The effort to deemphasize the good behavior of non-Christians communicated to us that behavior was important, but only if you were saved. In face, a saved person who behaves badly is still better off than a "lost" person who behaves admirably. We were convinced that this "lost" person who is outwardly good and seems happy, is really only putting on a shell of good works and false happiness. Only we saved people are truly happy, even when we're "backsliding". Nevermind that society at large benefited from "good" behavior. The focus was whether or not it got you "eternal life". To the unfamiliar this may sound like reasoning that could work with a child, but surely adults wouldn't buy into it. Sadly, I was in Sunday School a couple weeks ago and heard basically this same argument presented but with more sophisticated wording- "It counts for them nothing". Poetic, isn't it. So, we are brainwashed from childhood to put critical thinking on hold and accept that being "saved" trumps everything.

Flash over to politics. This same thinking says that criticism of a leader is trumped by his or her being saved. Your criticism of my saved leader is always going to be suspect, especially if you aren't a saved Christian yourself. In that case you are part of the conspiracy to undermine Christianity.

I have had this same type of exchange with Muslim friends. The context was several years ago when the first reports were coming out about Osama bin Laden. Several things were part of the discussion. I suggested that the reports were true- that bin Laden was behind terrorist activities. My Muslim friend, a person who had never participated in an act of violence in his life nor would he, was convinced that bin Laden was not responsible. He was NOT saying that bin Laden was responsible and justified. Quite the opposite- he said that the terrorism was an abomination but that a man with bin Laden's religious piety could not take part in such acts. "Bin Laden reads the Q'ran every day, prays 5 times a day, gives to the poor, etc.... He could not do such things. The West hates Islam and is making up things about him to cover up the real culprits." My friend had accepted the foundational assumptions that a person who talks the religious talk and displays the "correct" religious behaviors was not capable of doing these bad things. He was automatically given the benefit of the doubt over any criticism from someone outside of the Islamic world. I will say that since those conversations my friend has come around to understanding that bin Laden is largely responsible, but there is still always a feeling of reluctance to fully accept that there isn't another explanation.

Why include this account? I think the same principles are at play. Assume "our people" are right. Criticism is persecution of all of our principles. Ignore behaviors that aren't consistent with what we know to be right in order to protect our agenda. Others smarter than me can probably draw more parallels and conclusions.

So, for Streak and me the indoctrination started early in life. Fire insurance, or salvation as defined by our fundamentalist teachers, was top priority. I see salvation as a process for some, maybe a moment for others. I see behavior as important, particularly when it comes to the responsibility of the powerful toward the powerless. Truth is critically important, even if it undermines our agendas and embarrasses our leaders. I believe that God disdains evil behavior from those who claim to be his followers and I believe he is glorified by good works done by anyone- follower or not. I'll not play my-verse-versus-your-verse right now- maybe later.

The second big component of the Bush Christian following I think has to do with the "Agenda", i.e. at the bottom of it all is a leader who has bowed to "our" agenda, and that's even more important that whether or not he says he's a Christian. But that's for part 2, unless I get sidetracked........

Another Reminder of the Bait and Switch

2005-08-15T04:27:00.000-07:00
Good article here, suprisingly enough by CNN on the current status of the war in Iraq. The following is a good reminder of the retro-fit that has occurred.
Bush and other administration officials said the March 2003 invasion, which toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, was needed to strip of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that it could provide to terrorists. Iraq was later determined to have abandoned its non-conventional weapons programs in the 1990s, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from U.N. inspectors.

The president now says establishing a stable, democratic Iraq will foster reforms in other Middle Eastern countries that will undercut support for terrorism.
We need to be constantly reminded of how we were inundated with the WMD campaign as criteria for the war. We can't forget Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. If Bush EVER put his reputation and personal integrity at stake on ANYTHING, it was WMDs. What on earth would compell anyone to expect me to believe one word that comes out of his mouth, especially when it comes to justification for war? He now says establishing a stable, democratic Iraq is the noble cause for which we are fighting. We're to a point to where, as far as I'm concerned, it's "pick your justification time". Whatever he says will hold the same credibility with me- zero. He has created an atmosphere in Iraq that now necessitates US military presence. The breeding ground for terrorism that was previously contained and monitored is now fertile and wide open. The killing and dying isn't anywhere near to being over and we have a president who seems intent on plowing ahead as if all decisions up to now have been the right ones. Good luck to whomever follows Bush as president.

Lou Dobbs Needs to use IDIOTIC to the Guy in the Mirror

2005-08-11T16:04:00.000-07:00
I was just channel surfing and landed on a story detailing how the US military is changing code signals used in NORAD to eliminate Native American tribal and individual names. The report was actually pretty good. They also pointed out that the pentagon has NO intentions of changing things on a broader scale (e.g. Apache helicopters, etc...). Upon completing the report, the newsperson turned to Lou Dobbs who then asked her what idiot came up with the idea to eliminate Native American names from military jargon!!!! He later said that they were behaving idiotically. The lack of professionalism in this display is shocking to me. Admittedly, I seldom watch Dobbs so this may be his usual. At one point he asked if we should take Eisenhower off of our aircraft carrier!!! Talk about missing the point! I wanted to shout at him, "YES! If Eisenhower asked you to take his name off then that would be the ethical thing to do!! If the US military has systematically wiped out Eisenhower's family then YES, it would be good to remove the name!" Native American names being used by the US MILITARY is indeed obscene. This was a self-righteous, pompus display by someone with international exposure. There is no excuse for a supposed news anchor to make this kind of commentary.

State Lobbyists Near the $1 Billion Mark

2005-08-11T11:52:00.001-07:00
VERY interesting read at Hired Guns - The Center for Public Integrity A quick excerpt:
Vested interests are working harder than ever to achieve their goals in state capitols and state agencies across the country. Nearly 47,000 such interests—companies, advocacy groups, labor unions, professional organizations and even government agencies—hired more than 38,000 individual lobbyists. This averages out to five lobbyists and almost $130,000 in expenditures per state legislator.
With this kind of money being spent it's hard to fathom that my legistlators really represent my community. We elect them, but six figure or higher donations will inevitably redirect the loyalties of most politicians. Like I heard once years ago in the midst of banking deregulation, if a judge is trying your case and you hand him $130,000 it's a bribe and you, or even both of you, will likely go to jail. If you hand it to a politician it's a campaign contribution. In traveling and living overseas I've been asked so many times if the US government is corrupt like that in whatever country I was in at the time. My answer was usually something like, "Yes, but it's gotten more sophisticated and often it's just plain legal."

State Lobbyists Near the $1 Billion Mark

2005-08-11T11:52:00.000-07:00
VERY interesting read at Hired Guns - The Center for Public Integrity A quick excerpt:
Vested interests are working harder than ever to achieve their goals in state capitols and state agencies across the country. Nearly 47,000 such interests—companies, advocacy groups, labor unions, professional organizations and even government agencies—hired more than 38,000 individual lobbyists. This averages out to five lobbyists and almost $130,000 in expenditures per state legislator.
With this kind of money being spent it's hard to fathom that my legistlators really represent my community. We elect them, but six figure or higher donations will inevitably redirect the loyalties of most politicians. Like I heard once years ago in the midst of banking deregulation, if a judge is trying your case and you hand him $130,000 it's a bribe and you, or even both of you, will likely go to jail. If you hand it to a politician it's a campaign contribution. In traveling and living overseas I've been asked so many times if the US government is corrupt like that in whatever country I was in at the time. My answer was usually something like, "Yes, but it's gotten more sophisticated and often it's just plain legal."

Focus on the Family Uncovers Homosexual Agenda in the Bible, Denounces God

2005-08-10T22:08:00.000-07:00
Just when things were getting out of hand with Dobson and FOTF, this breaking news. A highlight
The first strong recognition of this deity's gay sympathies came during staff Bible study about a week ago when we were confronted with the rainbow as the sign of God's covenant with Noah. A freakin' rainbow! And what kind of a guy's name is Noah, anyway? How can we born again Christians overlook this? God is omniscient and omnipotent, for Pete's sake. He didn't have to use a symbol that He knew would eventually represent gays.

Baghdad Politics

2005-08-10T20:08:00.000-07:00
Interesting article, Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced - New York Times.

Satellite, McChesney, and the Media

2005-08-09T07:53:00.000-07:00
We moved recently and in doing so decided to go with The Dish Network. I held out a long time over the years and kept to an old-fashioned antenna. The networks have gotten to the point now that there's very little worth watching. Not even Saturday mornings have cartoons anymore and 7-8pm are not longer reserved for family friendly shows. I waffle back and forth on TV or no TV at all, but I must say that getting the satellite system has proved to be very enjoyable so far. The number of "family friendly" stations is nice, but the thing I'm enjoying over the cable package we had before is the number of alternative news and public access stations. As an example this morning I was watching UCTV--University of California Television. On the broadcastRobert McChesney was giving a great lecture on the state of media in the US. Since it was a university station and a lecture to boot, he was able to give a pretty in depth overview of media, policies affecting the media, history, etc.... No shouting, no 20 second sound bites. Points were developed and clarified. It's sad to say, but that kind of programing has become so rare in my experience that it does feel pretty novel at this point to see this kind of broadcast. I enjoy documentaries on a couple other stations and watch DemocracyNow each morning. All in all a nice discovery so far. BTW you can click on the University of California link and then select McChesney's lecture to view it online.

A few of the points he brought up that I thought were very thought provoking were that the first amendment should protect us from a few conglomerates controlling the media just as much as it should protect us from government control. He also pointed out that a truly free press or the lack thereof is completely determined by government policy making. Free press is not an organic entity that just springs up on its own. There have to be policies that allow that to happen. I thought of the internet, bloggers, and other forms of alternative media and how they may be restricted or supported by government policies in the future. Anyway, check out the links.

Evangelical Defined

2005-07-15T19:12:00.000-07:00
Thanks to CelebrateVida for this post entitled A Washington Monthly Editor on Vocalizing Vida (well, indirectly). Several thoughts resonated with me and I hope to follow up on them personally. Many of the people I appreciate most in life fall into the author's preferred definition of evangelical. I've taken the liberty to reproduce it here in it's entirety. The bold type is my emphasis.
Washington Monthly editor Amy Sullivan, guest blogger at Beliefnet.com during the week of June 20, tells what politically progressive people of faith can do about these insane false political and religious dichotomies:
"What you can do . . . is stand up and witness. Not witness, as in proselytize, but by coming out of the closet as a person of faith."
Amen to that.

Several times in the past week I came across the same trio of names in discussions of politically progressive evangelicals: Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Ron Sider. Yes, these men are influential--they certainly have influenced (and affirmed) my thinking--but folks should be able to picture more than the three of them when they think "politically progressive evangelicals."

As long as we evangelicals are afraid to admit who we are spiritually when we're among progressive friends, the politically-progressive-evangelical club will be--not just appear to be--small indeed. We won't even be able to find one another, much less make ourselves visible to politically progressive nonevangelicals.

(Incidentally, the word evangelical is a frustrating one for me. I am not a cultural evangelical. I reject the spiritual as well as the political all-about-me-and-my-crowd emphases of many evangelical churches. I'm pleased as punch to have found my home among Mennonites becaue I'm an anabaptist at heart. But if by evangelical you mean people who follow Christ and believe we should bear witness to him in word and deed, then yes, I am an evangelical. An evangelical who laments the nonevangelicalism of "evangelicals" who fight peace, enrich the wealthy, and devastate the poor in Jesus' name.)

Fools and Buffoons

2005-07-12T19:55:00.000-07:00
Good post over at the MoJo Blog by Bradford Plummer on the recent trend amongst the war hawks critical of how the Iraqi war is going. My favorite exerpt is the final sentence:
when thinking about a government policy in the abstract, assume that it will be executed not by enlightened leaders, but by fools and buffoons. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you'll be right.
Personally I would add power hungry, militaristic, imperialist, and a number of other adjectives in front of "fools and buffoons".

God Math

2005-07-11T05:27:00.000-07:00
I was channel surfing yesterday (Sunday) before walking to church. I must have caught part of the sermon to which you refer or at least one like it, and I listened for a couple minutes (I know, not the best preparation for a worship experience). The scripture reference was 2 Chronicles 7:14 (If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.) and the pulpit from which he spoke had something like "Take Back America" in big letters written on it. The part I caught was his expounding on what it would look like if God were to "heal their land". In his opinion it would include Terry Shiavo not being murdered, happy heterosexual marriages, etc... THEN he said that there is a "tipping point" at which a percentage of righteous people at which God releases his blessings on the nation. He DID say that only God knows the "tipping point". I thought it was interesting that he believes that all of this applies within a human-made political system with human-drawn borders. If you're Canadian or Nigerian or whatever and your geopolitical (human made) system isn't beyond the tipping point then you'll miss the "blessing". I guess if you immigrate into the US you might get to receive the blessings, assuming you don't throw the tipping point off back the other way. Cosmic math can be exciting. However, if I read the verse in context I see it in a much different light. Get this:
11 When Solomon had finished the temple of the LORD and the royal palace, and had succeeded in carrying out all he had in mind to do in the temple of the LORD and in his own palace, 12 the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.13 "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place. 16 I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.
Now, I'm not a Biblical scholar by anyone's estimation, but this really seems to me to be referring to God literally healing the land i.e. drought, natural disaster, and disease that were God sent to start with. Whether or not God really sends plagues is another discussion, but I feel on pretty safe ground that under most situations Land would consider him the literalist much more so than me. In this discussion I'm pretty sure that Land considers himself to be one of the "people" God is talking about in the verse. You, Steak, and I are probably not included, or, if we are, it would be grudgingly at best.

While we're proof texting (using the scripture, often out of context, to satisfy our preconceived ideas), I love the passage in Genesis 18 where Abram bargained God into sparing Sodom if he (Abram) could find ten righteous people. In the end he couldn't find them, of course, but when people like Land start talking God's blessings and wrath on human-made political bodies and their citizens, I take comfort that as along as there's BB's Hot Wife, SOF, and others like them around, we should be safe.

One more proof text:
Ezekiel 16:49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Note the sins of Sodom. Ring any bells?
Later
BB

Dobson Broadcast

2005-06-29T21:18:00.000-07:00
I was driving back into town Tuesday night from a long trip and was surfing the radio stations in the rental car since I didn't have my usual presets. I landed on a station broadcasting "Focus on the Family" with guests Chuck Colson, Professor Robbie George and Alan Sears. In the spirit of Streak's recent postings I thought, "Hey, why not give it a listen." The discussion and ranting concerning the recent supreme court decision on the ten commandments and the related rubbish that followed would have been hilarious if I didn't know that it probably carries a great deal of influence with a large number of people. At some point one of the panel, I think it was Colsen, said that the upcoming appointment of supreme court judges needs to be the top priority issue (paraphrase) on the Christian agenda. That statement, along with some of the panel bringing up persecution of Christians and Christianity in the US, made me want to crack the door and hurl in a technique reminiscent of the old imbibing days. First, I have to think that there are issues more critical to the inhabitants of this planet, those labeling themselves "Christian" included, than who gets appointed to the supreme court. Granted, in the US this is an important issue and the justices get to make lots of decisions affecting us here in the US. However, for a Christian leader to label this the most important issue facing his followers is a sad manipulation of religious fervor to achieve political gain. This guy knows good and well that regardless of who is appointed to the supreme court, he is going to get to practice his religion for years to come. Christians in the US aren't killed because of their faith, and if someone DID murder you because of your faith they would be prosecuted. Churches aren't bull-dozed, government officials don't attend services to record attendees, Christian children aren't refused college entrance and people aren't refused jobs because of christian religious affiliation. Drawing moral equivalence between not allowing the posting of the ten commandments (a CONSTITUTIONAL issue related to the establishment clause) and REAL religious persecution is a pile of shit and a lame attempt to bait and switch their constituency. These guys like their money, power, and influence, and they have figured out how to maintain it by convincing their subscribers that precursor events to real persecution events are going on right now. They say to MOBILIZE or the precursors (ten commandment postings being banned) will soon lead to more severe persecution! These guys evidently wouldn't know real persecution if it bit them in the ass- they could use some just to give them some perspective. Being a Christian seems to have paid off pretty well for them. They are broadcasting their annoying message of self-righteousness and judgement over public airwaves and getting plenty of cash for the deal.

By the way, if you want to listen to the broadcast you can get it here. However, you will have to give the "suggested donation" of $9. Try it and see if you can change the "suggested donation". I'm not finding it. So, it seems the "suggested donation" is actually the "minimum donation". Where I come from we usually call that the "price". I guess that wouldn't do, though, for a reputable non-profit to require you to pay a "price" for an item. Each one of these guys is.... how did W put it the other day? Oh, yeah, "a real piece of work."

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

2005-06-27T07:31:00.000-07:00
I'm reading a very informative, well written book and at the same time experimenting with how to post a photo to the blog. More blogging on this book to follow.

Dick vs the Generals

2005-06-24T09:13:00.000-07:00
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a concern when the vice-president sticks to assessments that differ from the military practically 180 degrees?
Highlights of this article :
The three military commanders — Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command; and Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq — described an Iraqi insurgency that had not weakened despite two years of intense counterinsurgency operations.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended his comment that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," saying the recent surge in violence was a final convulsion before the opposition forces collapse.

Rumsfeld Noncommittal

2005-06-23T15:44:00.000-07:00
Amazingly enough in this BBC article Rumsfeld doesn't have a good idea of when we'll be out of Iraq. No surprise- there hasn't been a good estimate of our commitment time since this thing started. From Rummy:
But Mr Rumsfeld said that timing in war was not predictable and there were no guarantees.
"And any who say that we've lost this war, or that we're losing this war are wrong. We are not," he told senators.
Setting a date for withdrawal would "send a lifeline to terrorists", he said.

Kingdom of Heaven

2005-06-23T11:34:00.000-07:00
Thanks to Sojourners for this article in which the author describes viewing the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, in Beirut amongst a predominately Muslim crowd.

Always Take the High Estimate and Add to It

2005-06-23T06:06:00.000-07:00
I found a few interesting articles in some idle time (read: Procrastinating). One is this AP article concerning the dollar costs of the war in Iraq. A few highlights:
Rumsfeld defended the Pentagon's pre-war vagueness at an October news conference, saying: "We were criticized for not giving answers because we didn't know the answer."

Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years. Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 - a fraction of Wolfowitz' pre-war boast.
Former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey also came under fire last year when he estimated a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then Bush's budget chief, discounted the estimate as "very, very high," and the issue was cited as one of the reasons why Lindsey resigned in December.
The sad part about the above article is that it was written in NOVEMBER 2003!!!

A Feb 2005 article says
This latest supplemental includes $64 billion for Iraq and increases the total cost to the US to more than $200 billion through 2005.
and, finally,
"...You are talking about $500 billion in total annual spending, of which 20% - the total of the supplement - is unaccounted for. No other agency has discretionary authority of 20% of its budget."
The point of all of this for me is: Over and over again we have learned to take the administration's most favorable estimates and divide by 5 or 10. Then, take any estimates that the administration scoffs at as being rediculously exaggerated and multiply it by ten or twenty percent. If someone gets fired over their concerns, call your bookie and make a large wager on whatever the fired person may have claimed, especially if it involves the cost of something in terms of dollars and/or lives. Righteous indignation, particularly on the part of Bush or Rumsfeld, is also a dead give away. This happens OVER AND OVER. Someone else is always to blame. So much for the buck stopping anywhere! The incompetence of the administration is only matched by it's lack of willingness to take responsibility for anything. As Rummy says, "...we didnt' know the answer." Unfortunately, instead of leading us to caution and further investigation, our ignorance was followed up with the command to attack.

Flag Burning

2005-06-22T15:52:00.000-07:00
Streak's Blog alerted me to this event going on in our congress. A few highlight of the article are
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center," said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
and
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
Of all the things our country needs to be spending its time on the best we can come up with is an amendment banning flag burning. I'd be interested to know the cost of putting this through even if it doesn't get passed. Here is a site where you can see how the vote came out. I think we need to make sure we write some letters letting our reps know how rediculous it is for us to have men and women dying in combat for freedom and we're spending time, money, and political capital to introduce an amendment that would LIMIT rights. Evidently congress has decided that the bill of rights now needs to be used to LIMIT rights rather than protect them. Protection of an object, even if it is a symbol, over the civil rights of our citizens is an amazing place for us to be.

De La Torre Does It Again

2005-06-20T08:53:00.000-07:00
I love a well crafted analogy. De La Torre does an excellent job of it in this Ethics Daily article. It's quite timely for me since just a few weeks ago I was amazed to hear from a friend who has always been staunchly fundamentalist-Christians only teaching her children in the public schools. She announced that she was now against teachers leading students in prayer at school. Further inquiry revealed that the influx of South Asians, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-WASPs into their community had made her realize that she would be uncomfortable with someone of another faith leading her child in prayer. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

CNN Article: Conyers Petition

2005-06-17T13:21:00.000-07:00
Amazingly enough, the mainline entertainment media actually followed this story. Hopefully it's not the last we'll hear.

Interesting Timing

2005-06-16T19:32:00.000-07:00
Interesting post by Gary Schmitt on the PFNAC site. Highlighted is an article entitled The Coming War with Saddam, by Stephen F. Hayes from which Schmitt quotes, "Removing Hussein from power is no longer a question of if, but when." Note the date: July 2002- just like the Downing Street Memo.

Downing Street: Not Necessarily New News

2005-06-16T18:52:00.000-07:00
I am please with the growing attention to the Downing Street memo. Many are expressing serious concerns over the statement, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", as they SHOULD be. However, it bears keeping in mind that the Project for the New American Century has, since it's inception in 1997, consistently made a case for regime change in Iraq. Given the direct line most of these people have to the president (his brother, his V.P., his secretary of defense, etc....) the revelations of the Memo simply confirm what is openly posted on the neo-cons own website. Of course, W has not posted articles on the site and his name does not show up as being part of the organization so his deniability is nicely intact. However, several of his administration have been drafted from this organization which clearly states its recommendations for US policy.

There are plenty of articles, but I'd like to point you to this one in particular by the PFNAC entitled, "Letter to President Clinton on Iraq" which is dated January 26, 1998. WMD's are highlighted and I'll emphasize the following:"In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Later articles are consistent with this theme, and you can access them on the PNAC site.

Another interesting article is on this page. Click on or download the article at the top entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It's about 90 pages so I'll pull a couple quotes out for you. Please note that this article is dated September 2000:"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary."
"... Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad."
Finally, there's the man himself in a July 8, 2002 press conference:
"Q But I wonder, Mr. President, regardless of when or how, is it your firm intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- and how hard to you think it will be?

THE PRESIDENT: It's the stated policy of this government to have a regime change. And it hasn't changed. And we'll use all tools at our disposal to do so.."
So, I don't think it takes too much connecting the dots. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on perspective, this administration has felt so right and so impervious to scrutiny that they have done little to hide their intentions. WMDs were convenient justification for action that was decided on long ago. Or, as someone else on the inside said, "... the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

Amazing Cast of Characters: The Project for the New American Century

2005-06-16T18:24:00.000-07:00
Here is the link to the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles. While most of the signers are readily recognizable, I've linked their names so that you can conveniently check out complete profiles.

Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen,Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, John Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Conyers' Letter

2005-06-16T15:01:00.000-07:00
Here's John Conyers, Jr. -- Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes" On C-Span he said there are 122 signatures from congress on it. Any chances this is a chink in the Bush armor? Images of impeachment are dancing in my head.

Downing Street Memo

2005-06-16T14:59:00.000-07:00
Here is the complete text of The secret Downing Street memo - Sunday Times - Times Online. I think this should be posted in as many places as possible.

C-span just showed a Democratic committee meeting on the Downing Street Minutes. Conyers says he has over half a million citizen signatures to deliver to Bush. Good to see some momentum picking up.

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

The Cost of War

2005-06-14T14:02:00.000-07:00
Those who want to be informed on the dollar costs of the war in Iraq can check out this site:Cost of War

More playing around

2005-06-10T21:07:00.000-07:00
Check out Streak's Blog. I'm playing around with a widget!

Trying out the widget

2005-06-10T21:00:00.000-07:00
Here's trying out the widget with Tiger

Hopeful Message from Brooks

2005-05-26T08:04:00.000-07:00
I am encouraged by this article, A Natural Alliance - New York Times. Columnist David Brooks makes several comments that, in moments when I'm able to muster some hope in the current political climate, carry with them the potential for positive change. Some highlights that I appreciated:

"My third thought, which may be more profound than the other two, is that we can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both. That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy."

"Millions of evangelicals are embarrassed by the people held up by the news media as their spokesmen. Millions of evangelicals feel less represented by the culture war-centered parachurch organizations, and better represented by congregational pastors, who have a broader range of interests and more passion for mobilizing volunteers to perform service. Millions of evangelicals want leaders who live the faith by serving the poor."

"Serious differences over life issues are not going to go away. But more liberals and evangelicals are realizing that you don't have to convert people; sometimes you can just work with them. The world is suddenly crowded with people like Rick Warren and Bono who are trying to step out of the logic of the culture war so they can accomplish more in the poverty war."

For some reason in the last several weeks I've come across people whose opinions I respect and who are able to look to the future with hope and confidence. Thankfully, I've been able to hear them and take what they've said to heart. I don't want healthy skepticism to sink into cynicism out of which there is seldom a ladder up. My hope is that Brooks and Spong, both of whom have expressed optimistic, constructive messages recently, are right.

Race, Gender, and Church Memories

2005-05-20T17:54:00.000-07:00
Reading Small Glimpses sparked some recent church memories of my own. I was raised Southern Baptist but have not considered myself to be one for at least nine or ten years now. I haven't been one for longer than that, but just didn't realize it at the time. I record that here as a reference point for what follows. My family and I have been attending a United Methodist church for the last year or so. We attend there for a number of reasons. It's literally around the corner from our house which makes it truly a community church. Our children also attend the same public schools as their church friends. The staff is great. Gender isn't an issue in who does what. The fellowship is great. They are a church that invests in the community and beyond with their labor and their money. It's not perfect, but who would want to attend the perfect church?!

Anyway, the memory I wanted to bring up occurred last year in the fall. It was announced from the pulpit by our pastor that the message would be brought that day by a visiting higher-up (I forget his title) from the district. She introduced him and he took the podium. He was an African-American man and gave a great message. I was almost brought to tears as I realized that this was the first time in my life that I had been in church when a denominational administrator had been introduced and they were a person of color. I looked at my children and felt so grateful for this chance for them to see our female pastor introduce an African-American guest speaker as an accepted, normal practice in the church. The church of my childhood, youth, and adulthood has been the most racially segregated part of my life up until around 8 years ago. It was also the one place where roles were limited by one being a female of the species. Neither of these situations should exist in the church. I'm grateful to have lived out of that environment long enough to develop a sense of how ridiculous, how un-Christlike, these traditions have been.

Power and the "Faithful"

2005-04-13T08:44:00.000-07:00
Streak's Blog has a good post today drawing attention to the rise to power of the dominionists and some of the flexing of their newly developed muscles. I am not a historian by training or expertise, but I very much enjoy reading history and getting a reputable historian's perspective on events. I think a great program would be the combination of history with future studies, sort of an applied history program. There's probably one out there somewhere, and I'd love to know about it if there is. Anyway, history gives us great lessons. The current trends we are seeing are by no means unique in many of their activities. The war on judges brings to mind FDR and the "nine old men".

Most of us want power, and if we get it we want more. This is about power. The dominionists are getting a good taste of it, and like most who get it they are behaving badly with it. No theocracies that I know of in my admittedly limited exposure to history have behaved well. It is cliche but true: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power coupled with religious fervor is somehow uniquely devastating. Barbarians and infidels can wreak havoc for havoc's sake and seek power for power's sake. Those who crave power but at the same time have a constituency based on religious adherence must find ways to make their pursuit of power appear to be motivated by their desire for religious ideals. If their motivation is inwardly contrary to the principles of their religious tenets then they must be savvy enough to make sure their actions reflect enough religiosity to appeal to their supporters. Good theology is replace by issue politics. The ten commandments that have become the sacred relic of the dominionist is surrounded by prophetic writings calling for repentance from using power to crush the poor and powerless. (An excellent text on this is James Limburg's The Prophets and the Powerless). Eventually religious movements based on strict orthodoxy turn on themselves (some animals are more equal than others) as even those who initially helped the movement are seen as not orthodox enough (this is actually a way to put more POWER in fewer hands). Unfortunately, by the time they implode, they have left incredible damage in their wake. The call to be a servant to all and the example of that type of service are never talked about.

We should be active in trying to limit the political power of religious zealots of ANY stripe. (See Charles Kimball's When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs.)The key to the picture, in my opinion, is POWER. We cannot be surprised by any of their actions. Anything we see, no matter the language in which it is couched, is motivated by a desire for power. Our hope is to reduce their tenure to as short a period as possible without losing our own souls in the process.

".... there ain't no cure, just a slow turnin' from the inside out." - John Hiatt

The Cost of War

2005-04-11T13:31:00.000-07:00
FYI: Here's a site that gives a running total of the Cost of War in Iraq. It shows the total cost but then allows you to break it down into your area.

SUV Loophole

2005-03-09T04:58:00.000-08:00
I posted this as a comment on Streak's Blog but figured I'd put it up here, too.
Here's a good article Law change halts huge SUV tax break -- Page 1 discussing the SUV tax break. One comment from it expresses a disappointing point about the recent "closing" of the loophole:

"I don't think it's going to affect people's buying habits. Most people buying SUVs are paying $40,000 or $50,000, so by the time you take the 50 percent bonus deduction and the $25,000 depreciation expense, most of them are still going to write off the full amount."

Once again, what was supposed to be a break for small business owners, ranchers, etc... who NEED to use large vehicles for BUSINESS. My own brother purchased an SUV for his business just to take advantage of this loophole last year. I suggested a Prius would be just as good for running to and from work or hauling clients around. He pointed out that it didn't weigh the necessary 3 TONS to qualify for the tax break! In other words, the tax law encourages you to purchase a larger vehicle for your business when a smaller vehicle could have done the job. As the article points out, when the wording was originally drafted back in the '70s, there weren't any luxury vehicles weighing over 6000 pounds! The vehicle has to be used 50% of the time for business. That leaves you the other 50% for vacations, kids to school, etc... all at those SUV fuel efficiency rates!

Here's another article SUV TAX Loophole citing increase in sales following the original loophole. Given the fact that the new changes claim to "close" the loophole but in practice still allow for plenty of incentive to buy the monsters, don't expect to see them disappearing from the roads any time soon.

BTW, one article says that the new law requires the vehicles to weigh over 14,000 pounds to get the full deduction. Let's wait and see if a 7 ton SUV rolls out any time soon!
Bootlegger

A Little Good News about Greenhouse Gases

2005-03-02T04:30:00.000-08:00
Being prone to melancholy which is sometimes near to depression when it comes to the current state of the world, I find it difficult to be optimistic about the future. Most of the things that I enjoy and care about don't carry favorable prognoses. Wild spaces, global diversity of species, peace, sustainable development, nuclear arms reduction (hoping for elimination would be too depressing), etc... I have found little in recent years to convince me that my children's world will be better than the current one, or at the very least as livable as our current situation. I've had people look me in the eye and tell me that the rainforest isn't really disappearing, that it's just another left wing concoction. Unfortunately for my psyche, I've been to several places on two continents that used to be covered with rainforest and seen the complete removal of thousands of square miles of it. I've personally witnessed the beginnings of desertification of areas that used to be the most biologically diverse places in the world. "Doctor, my eyes ......"

So, I am actually encouraged today by an article I read in the Washington Post entitled Benefits of Cutting Emissions (washingtonpost.com): "Chicago Climate Exchange". The article lists a number of countries, cities, and multinational corporations who have actually reduced their greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and have benefitted financially from doing it. This encourages me because I admit that, particularly with the US's refusal to get on board with Kyoto, that I felt little hope in this arena. Granted, the UK reducing their fossil fuel consumption won't carry the impact that the US doing the same would have, but I'm still happy about it. Companies like Dupont, British Telecom, Bayer, and others have seen a financial RETURN for taking these measures. The most common complaint from our elected leaders, regardless of party affiliation, tends to be that the standards adopted by international agreements would hurt US jobs, etc.... More evidence is mounting that shows the opposite is true if you do it right.

I realize that proof and example rarely are incentives for politicians' decisions. I'm just happy that this is in writing in a widely distributed publication.

Founding Fathers

2005-02-28T05:54:00.000-08:00
Thanks to Streak's Blog for referencing the Baptist Joint Comittee's take on the "Founding Fathers" arguments used by many, in this case David Barton in his book, "America's Godly Heritage". One of the key points made by the BJC post is

"Thus, even if Barton’s point were true, it does not compel the conclusion that we should privilege Christianity in any legal or constitutional sense."

I like the way this is worded. Oftentimes I have found myself in a discussion where I discover that I'm defending my support of separation of church and state by refuting my counterpart's assertion that the Founding Fathers (FFs) were devout Christians. The BJC cuts to the chase. Why does a belief that the FFs were devout Christians have to be seen as an affirmation of government support of, or at the very least government preference of, Christianity? I believe that a "Christian" nation is one made up of Christians. A Christian politician will give evidence of their faith by acting according to Christian principles. To say that we are a Christian nation because the FFs were Christians or because we have "under God" in our pledge is to say that these external, superficial identifiers automatically give substance to our character. This is, in my opinion, all backwards. A truly Christian nation, if it ever could exist, would be evident from the Christ-like character and actions of its citizens, not the logos displayed on the currency or the attempt to trace back it's legacy. Christ was less concerned with who his followers had been and more concerned with who they were at the present.

Establishment of the religious nature of the FFs is an interesting exercise in history. However, the character of the nation is determined by who we are now. The best way to display Christian national character is for those who openly claim to be Christians to act like followers of Christ in the voting booth, the public office they hold, and in the policies they draft. My belief is that most are doing the opposite. They are displaying nationalistic, imperial character while couching it in Christian terminology for political appeal.