« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Criminalizing Christianity

A new book, Criminalizing Christianity, sounds to me like the most paranoid piece of garbage to have been published in the Christian market in a long time.

"This has become more than a seasonal witch hunt by the ACLU," said [World Net Daily] Editor and founder Joseph Farah. "The attacks on Christianity in America are alarming. We are witnessing more than religious bigotry now. We are entering the early stages of what could become persecution and outright criminalization of Christianity if it is not exposed and fought vigorously by all freedom-loving people."

It boggles the mind how these people can on the one hand be making such great strides forward in their goal to turn this country into a theocracy, and on the other hand be complaining that their religion is being outlawed because non-believers dare to fight the theocrats back.

In "CRIMINALIZING CHRISTIANITY," readers will learn how quoting the Bible, especially regarding homosexuality, can make you into a criminal offender.

Learn how standing up for heterosexual marriage, espousing Judeo-Christian morality, protesting against radical Islam – even delivering a sermon in church – can get you into serious trouble with the law.

Why do people actually believe that merely expressing one's opinion in this country will get you into trouble? Because people are lying about what really happened that got lawbreaking Christians into trouble. A classic example is when people claim the Nuremberg Files racketeers were convicted for "protesting outside abortion clinics," when in fact they were plotting and carrying out multiple murders. The book fleshes out its ridiculous thesis by supplying examples of religious suppression in other countries where freedom of speech and religion are not protected as they are in the United States.

Books like this urge gullible Christians to fight back against a war that isn't occurring and further develop the persecution complex that enables their leaders to lead them around by the nose. And guess what. Even though books like this are actually dangerous to our democracy, nobody is banning them. It looks as if Christians' rights to free expression are every bit as in tact as they have always been.

Posted by Becky at 10:59 AM |

Take This Under Advisement

As Carla discusses below, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision yesterday has right-wingers in an uproar claiming the US Supreme Court has put us in danger of losing to the terrorists. I'm thrilled they stepped in to protect the separation of powers and clamped down on President Bush's abuse of power.

But I have been quite taken aback by the President's arrogant response. His official mouthpiece, White House Correspondent Tony Snow, said the Court's decision would be "taken under advisement." And the President himself said, "We will analyze the decision."

Analyze it? Take it under advisement? President Bush may not like it, but, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, "The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction." He was required to have the authorization of Congress – the people. He did not get that authorization.

We already know he has snubbed Congress – the duly elected representatives of the people and one of the three co-equal branches of government. And now he is snubbing the US Supreme Court – the representatives of lawfulness and protectors of the US Constitution.

I'm truly outraged.

Posted by Becky at 10:29 AM |

A Bongo-Banging Embarassment

The whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so complex and ancient that I will be the first to admit I don't understand it, nor am I able to even pick sides. It's a total mess in which innocent people seem to be killed nearly every day, and now we're facing the possibility that the execution of a single captured soldier could spark all-out war in the Middle East.

The seriousness and complexity of the issue is precisely why I am so annoyed by this story out of Israel. Apparently, a small group of nutty Christian pilgrims demonstrated nearby while Israel conducted its anti-Hamas military activity yesterday.

Strumming guitars and banging bongos, Christian pilgrims journeyed to Israel's dusty border with the Gaza Strip on Thursday to offer support to Israeli troops participating in the military action.

About 25 people, wearing white T-shirts that said "Your God is my God," waved Israeli flags and sang religious songs.

Hundreds of troops milled about in the distance alongside tanks and armored vehicles, seemingly oblivious to the group.

Now I know Christians have solid biblical reasons for supporting Israel, but holding a virtual "Kum-bah-yah" type sing-fest while Israeli airplanes are bombing people is reminiscent of that group of cult nuts in the movie "Bubble Boy," singing "Bright and Shiny." Really kooky.

Posted by Becky at 09:15 AM |

The jokes just write themselves!

I predicted late last week that the ever-so-scary Miami 7 story would carry us through July 4th. But then Santorum chipped in his "WMDs FOUND!" media moment. And I didn't anticipate Osama's latest video release* coming out quite so soon:

"Ukraine! gotta love those scrappy underdogs! Seriously, though, the referees better get their act together after those early rounds. What else? Oh, right -- I been telling you guys for years 'bout that 2nd hand smoke -- whatcha think now? Huh? Ya feel me? Guess that's about it for now. Peace out with love. Oh, and death to America."

*Letterman-style translation; accuracy not guaranteed; but who the hell in our intelligence agencies really knows?!?

Posted by Jeff at 09:09 AM |

But It's Just a Simple Kiss...

Everyone loves a kiss, and even more, everyone loves a good gossipy story about a kiss. This week has brought us a couple of good ones.

The first is one that made my eyes about pop out of my head. Russian Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, for no apparent reason, stopped on the street, lifted the shirt of a 5-year-old boy, and kissed him on the tummy. The boy was startled, but not nearly as much as the rest of the world, as the incident was captured by television cameras. Yesterday, the Russian blogosphere was buzzing, and the top keyword search for the day was "Putin kissed a boy."

Another controversial kiss occurred at last week's Heritage Foundation forum featuring, of all things, a discussion of whether the TV show "24" is realistic. The featured speaker was Michael Chertoff, special guests included Justice Clarence Thomas, and the panel discussion, hosted by Rush Limbaugh, included the very Republican co-creators of the show, as well as the actors who played CTU agents Tony Almeida (Carlos Bernard) and Chloe O'Brian (Mary Lynn Rajskub). When Rush introduced "Chloe," he bent over and planted a big kiss on her lips, sparking the rumor that the two were dating. If true, then hopefully his weekend visit to the Dominican Republic put an end to it. In any case, on Rush's website a photograph of the kiss is subtitled, comically, "Chloe plants one on Rush." Of course, this display of manly confidence with a younger woman occurred before he lost his Viagra.

Back in February, President Bush put Sen. Joe Lieberman in hot water when he kissed the Senator on the cheek. The jokes still continue.

Bush put himself in hot water some time ago when he was captured on film holding hands and kissing Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah as the two strolled through a garden.

Why the controversy about all this kissing? It's really pretty simple. A kiss implies a certain level of intimacy. It seems a kiss is not "just" a kiss.

Posted by Becky at 08:56 AM |

The smell of fear in rightydom

Now that the Supreme Court has smacked down W's power grab on detainees, the righties have gone absolutely postal:

The liberals must be doing cart wheels right about now. They wanted the terrorists who chop off the heads of our captured soldiers, who bomb innocent people on purpose, who fly planes into buildings containing thousands of civilians, to be treated as POW’s. They received their wish today.

WELCOME BACK 9/10/01. (Don’t cite me as coming up with that one, saw it on a blog)

The court has decided that the war on terror will now go back to being treated as a “law enforcement” issue. Lets go get Bin Laden and put him in front of a jury of his peers….I know, ludicrous.

Ah yes. Law enforcement. We can't actually go after individuals who commit heinous acts that the world community finds illegal using tried and true investigation tactics. Then the righties wouldn't get to do the jackbooted thug bit. And they do look so fetching in their brown shirts and snappy jackboot accessories.

Not to mention that law enforcement is actually proved to work against terrorism. Bill Clinton demonstrated that when he brought the perps of the first World Trade Center bombing to justice.

Imagine that. Bringing them to justice instead of allowing them to remain on the loose and still planning acts of terror. All of a sudden that "jury of his peers" thing doesn't seem so ludicrous for Bin Laden after all.

But the real weenie of the rightysphere on this issue is Jeff Goldstein who appears to be sitting in a puddle of his own piss:

In fact, we may have just witnessed the SCOTUS overreach that loses us the war.

and

I don’t wish to sound too conspiratorial here, but it seems to me that a case can be made that under Lederman’s reading of this decision, we’ve now effectively empowered an alliance between the intelligence community and the press to determine our national security posture by setting up an atmosphere wherein leaks will be even more effective and more coveted by partisans who disagree with a given administration.

Beyond that, though, granting Geneva Convention protections to out of uniform combatants who hide among civilian populations completely devalues the Convention itself, and renders being a signatory a liability rather than a protection (beyond that, the judiciary has made us a de facto signatory to Protocol 1 by judicial fiat—which may be reason enough for Bush to refuse to honor the ruling; any lawyers want to comment?). By turning the Conventions into a moral judgment rather than a pragmatic treaty agreement, a SCOTUS majority has in one fell swoop destroyed the very nature of treaties as such. In this case, the US has assumed that “moral authority” Andrew Sullivan is after by SCOTUS fiat—but in order to reach that point, the Court had to essentially advocate for leveling the playing field between us and the terrorists, who are not required to sign onto the treaty in order to receive the protections granted by and through the treaty.

Jeezus. Why do these guys have to be such chickenshit assholes?

The idea that the United States of America should treat prisoners humanely is completely beyond the reach of Goldstein. He sincerely cannot fathom the idea that we're better than terrorists.

His entire post is predicated on the foundation of retribution because he's so damn scared. He's a coward--unwilling to hold on to principles of decency because it doesn't assuage his fear.

He's terrified of terrorists. Which means of course that the terrorists are doing their job.

Posted by Carla at 06:21 AM |

June 29, 2006

Abstinence Program Doubles AIDS Rate in Uganda

In 1986, Uganda's President " launched an ambitious HIV prevention campaign, which included massive condom distribution, explicit information about transmission, and messages about delaying sex and reducing numbers of partners. HIV rates dropped from 15 percent in the early 1990s to 5 percent in 2001."

Then Christian activists got involved and Uganda's success took a sharp turnaround. New HIV infections nearly doubled between 2003 and 2005.

[C]onservative think tanks and Christian right activists saw what they wanted to see. Uganda's balance of abstinence, being faithful, and condom use, or ABC, became abstinence, be faithful, with condoms "only as a last resort." It was common to claim, as Focus on the Family's James Dobson did in 2002, that, "Uganda has made great progress against AIDS by emphasizing abstinence, not condoms."

This rewrite became a mantra in Washington, as a third of Bush's global prevention money was set aside only for abstinence. Soon, players among Bush's evangelical base, from Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse to Anita Smith's Children's AIDS Fund, began to rake in millions in federal grants to spread the abstinence-only message in Uganda.

Thanks to the Christian influence, Uganda has removed the "C" from ABC.

"Uganda's new morality-based approach has unleashed a wave of stigma against condom use, because now, if you ask for a condom, it must mean you have failed to abstain or be faithful."

It didn't stop people from having sex. It just stopped them from using condoms.

It never ceases to amaze me how inevitably, whether the West interferes or refuses to interfere with the goings-on in Africa, it always seems to lead to the deaths of Africans. You'd almost have to believe it is intentional.

Posted by Becky at 10:32 AM |

Why Religion and Politics Don't Mix

William Shaw is appealing to Christians not to believe the notion that Christians must be aligned with the Republican party. "Such a position could be devastating for the authenticity of Christianity," he writes.

The problem with mixing the two is that Christians are called to change the world from the inside out and politics attempt to do so from the outside in.

It's the concept of winning hearts and minds.

Recently in San Diego, a giant concrete cross that stands in a public parking lot has made the news as violating the doctrine of the separation of church and state. Its permanence is being fought by people who think differently about the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's famous "separation" statement. In all honesty, this dichotomy of separation is useless for the country, but for some it is a matter of America's survival. To have crosses on or off parking lots doesn't make the country more or less Christian. If some feel it is a threat to religious freedom in the nation, then perhaps they have misplaced the origin from which freedom comes. Such people ought to be helping the poor and feeding the hungry rather than fighting a cause that in the end will carry no eternal value.

Homosexuality, abortion, the War in Iraq and many more are issues on the Republican-conservative agenda. For Christians to try and correct these issues through the position of Republicanism misrepresents Christianity and its purpose. Adjusting a secular law to favor a certain Christian belief could cause Christianity to look more like a religion of political power driven by hate. No matter how well intentioned the end result may be, the means of getting there should be pursued with the same attitude. It seems it would be out of character for Jesus to ever have tried to change a nation by implementing laws, but he would have done it relationally - one person at a time.

The recently revealed details of the Abramoff/Scanlon scandal and Ralph Reed's involvement highlight the point that Shaw is trying to make:

The Reed story confirms what many devout Christians have argued since conservative social activists became a force in national politics in the 1970s: Engaging in worldly political maneuvering is ultimately debasing. … Hearts are better changed one at a time in the churches than through elections or legislation.

It would certainly seem that the separation of church and state is the best option for both the church and for the state.

Posted by Becky at 10:29 AM |

Gullibility of Americans Could Do Us In

Paul Craig Roberts has penned another thought-provoking article. Entitled "The High Price Of American Gullibility," it explores why Americans remain gullible to the neocons and how that is endangering our civil rights.

What explains the gullibility of Americans, a gullibility that has mired the U.S. in disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that promises war with Iran, North Korea, and a variety of other targets if neoconservatives continue to have their way? Part of the explanation is that millions of conservatives are thrilled at the opportunity to display their patriotism and to show their support for their country.

The threat to civil rights is incredible, and it doesn't take a great leap of reasoning to see that, though many seem unable to:

Many Americans have turned a blind eye to the administration's illegal and unconstitutional spying on the grounds that, as they themselves are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. If this is the case, why did our Founding Fathers bother to write the Constitution? If the executive branch can be trusted not to abuse power, why did Congress pass legislation establishing a panel of federal judges (ignored by the Bush administration) to oversee surveillance? If President Bush can decide that he can ignore statutory law, how does he differ from a dictator? If Bush can determine law, what is the role of Congress and the courts? If "national security" is a justification for elevating the power of the executive, where is his incentive to find peaceful solutions?

Roberts points out the obvious fact "that it is statistically impossible for the NSA's mass surveillance of Americans to detect terrorists." As one university professor has discovered, the "NSA's surveillance system is useless for finding terrorists."

The surveillance is, however, useful for monitoring political opposition and stymieing the activities of those who do not believe the government's propaganda.

Unfortunately, Roberts says, media consolidation and corporate ownership of the media has seriously limited Americans' access to non-propaganda information. The Internet, now under attack by Republicans who want to limit the information available to average folks, is one of the few places where people can now turn for the truth. Roberts fears before people wake up, it may be too late.

Posted by Becky at 09:38 AM |

Kinky Mr. Loofah Defends Kinky Mr. Limbaugh

Bill O'Reilly, the loofah and falafel king, is coming to the rescue of Rush Limbaugh after Rush was nabbed with an illegal viagra prescription as he left the child prostitution and sex tourism capital of the world, the Dominican Republic.

O'Reilly claims Palm Beach County, Florida authorities are "out to get" pool Limbaugh, to "unjustly…harm him," which they should not do because "he is an American."

Um, Bill, that didn't stop you from attacking Jeremy Glick. To quote your words to patriotic American Mr. Glick: "You have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country." Now "shut up!"

Posted by Becky at 09:22 AM |

June 28, 2006

Christian Leaders AWOL on Violent Video Game

In his latest installment in a series of articles addressing the Christian killer video game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces," J. Hutson criticizes prominent Christian leaders who have refused to condemn the game.

One of the main reasons why the Rev. Jerry Falwell co-founded the Moral Majority in 1979 was to decry the corruption of America's values. For decades, the Southern Baptist pastor has hectored Hollywood, trash-talked TV, been het up on hip hop, and spouted vitriol about video games. But this once bold, big lion who strode the stage popping off about pop culture lately has been reduced to a peewee church mouse. On his claim to fame, Rev. Falwell's got no more game. When it came time to denounce Left Behind: Eternal Forces -- a Christian supremacist video game that one Republican attorney has characterized as "the worst example to date of how the corrosive pop culture has conformed the Church to its image" -- the broken down old culture warrior has cut and run. And he's not the only one to show such cowardice.

In fact, only one Christian leader has protested the game. No, it's not James Dobson or Rick Warren, who, like Falwell, have made a career of warning parents against violent video games and other pop culture dangers. And, of course, it isn't Southern Baptist Pastor Tim LaHaye, co-founder of the Moral Majority and author of the bloody "Left Behind" series. It's Republican attorney and video critic Jack Thompson.

Thompson wrote a letter to Falwell last week (and copied it to Dobson, Warren, and LaHaye) saying LaHaye had "lost his mind" and become "part of the problem," and saying the game "makes a mockery of the witness of all of us." He went on:

"This is dangerous stuff, not only because it legitimizes the use of violence to Christian kids, but also because the last time I checked we were in a War on Terror, in which the other side claims we are engaged in a latter day "Crusade" against Islam. Now we have a Tyndale House-blessed killing game that glamorizes just that. What a rhetorical gift to radical Islamists. I can hear Al-Qaeda now: `America is producing a video game that trains Christian children to kill Muslims and to enjoy doing so.' "

Falwell has not responded to the letter, nor have Dobson, Warren, and LaHaye.

Thompson also lists (and describes) "Seven Woes" (a term from the apocalyptic book of Revelation) that "unite gamers and Jack Thompson in agreement, and mark Left Behind Games as set apart for scorn by gamers and conservative Christians alike."

The First Woe: Pushed by a Bible Publisher

The Second Woe: Alienates Its Core Audience

The Third Woe: Spyware in the Software

The Fourth Woe: Exploitation of 9/11

The Fifth Woe: Left Behind Games Hurts the War on Terror

The Sixth Woe: The Game Offends People of All Faiths

The Seventh Woe: They Shoot Nurses, Don't They?

Yes, they really do.

Posted by Becky at 10:07 AM |

Barack Obama Talks Religion

Senator Barack Obama this morning gave a "Call to Renewal" speech in which he talked about the connection between religion and politics and urged Democrats to do a better job acknowledging the power of faith. It is a great read from beginning to end. Here is an excerpt:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

Obama discusses why people are attracted to religion, the power of African American churches to spur change in politics, how he became a Christian, religious morals and values and how they impact lawmaking on issues like abortion and homosexuality, and why it is so crucial for Democrats to recognize the religious beliefs of Americans in their role as political leaders.

It is, in my opinion, a brilliant speech.

Posted by Becky at 09:22 AM |

Groupthink Grope

In the ever shrinking bizarro world that Bush supporting Republicans continue to inhabit, the New York Times is the poop scooping birdcage liner whose staff should be group handcuffed and frog marched to Gitmo.

Their transgressions oddly have an identical match to the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal: printing stories about government abusing power and eroding the privacy liberties of Americans.

Yet somehow the LA Times and the WSJ have flown under the radar of the groupthink zombies. Apparently its only treasonous to out the government's nasty little antiAmerican spying programs if your geography has two Democratic Senators on the East Coast. Or perhaps its the fact that they no longer employ the hack who helped sugarcoat their improper war.

Whatever the reason, they've decided that the Times' reign of informing Americans that their government is intruding on them without cause must end. Or at least they're going to talk it up a lot.

James Wolcott believes that they're backing the Administration into a corner with this ridiculous bellyaching:

They want the administration to show the Times and the rest of the press who's boss. The neocon contingent is already dismayed with the tiptoeing around Iran's nuclear program, with Ledeen and Perle lodging protests. If the pushback against the Times peters out, if the posse disbands shortly after mounting up, the White House is going to look weak in the bugged-out eyes of its mutant defenders. It'll be interesting to see if the controversy builds or fades over the next few days, and whether or not the Times-bashers will be compelled to call their own bluff.

Naw.

This is a groupthink machine. And it isn't a trickle up contingent. Its trickle down. Bush can do pretty much whatever he wants and the cool kid keyboardists and pundits won't abandon him. Not for long. Not if they want to hold on to their wee little grip on power.

If they really cared about the release of this information they'd be going after all the papers and media outlets--not just the Times. These people have a boner to see that paper ended. Its personal--but not to the point that they'll dump Dear Leader and pull the rug out from under themselves.

Posted by Carla at 09:10 AM |

Prayer Won't Save Zimbabwe

Having spent a year in Zimbabwe back in 1983, when it was first emerging from a civil war and headed toward prosperity, I have watched with heartbreak the country's demise under the leadership of President Robert Mugabe.

And now, after years of the most idiotic decision making, resulting in the most amazing inflation rate I have ever heard of (quadruple digit!), Mugabe seems to believe that only prayer will save the country he has ruined.

The veteran leader, who has been Zimbabwe's sole ruler since independence from Britain, struck a spiritual note on Sunday, telling Christians who had gathered in Harare for a day of prayer that divine intervention could restore the country's position as a jewel of Africa.

He prayed for God to pardon Zimbabwe for sins committed that had brought suffering to the country.

"May Zimbabweans, as we work for the economy's turnaround in every way, reach the goal of being the jewel among other nations, pray for all this in the name of Jesus. Amen," Mugabe told the gathering in Harare.

Only one thing will save Zimbabwe now, and it isn't prayer. Zimbabwe has lost many of its best educated people, who have left the hopelessness behind in search of a better life. But its people are hard working and bright with a sincere desire to succeed, and given the opportunity, they can bring the country back on track over time. What Zimbabwe really needs major governmental reform and a new President.

I hope they find a way to achieve that before it is too late.

Posted by Becky at 09:06 AM |

White House Revealed Financial Monitoring First

President Bush calls it "disgraceful" and a "great harm" to national security. Republican Senator Jim Bunning calls it "treason" that "scares the devil out of me." Rep. Peter King wants Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to consider "criminal prosecution." And House Speaker Denny Hastert, that paragon of virtue, is calling for the revocation of the press credentials of The New York Times. All this because the Times ran a story about the government's monitoring of banking records through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT).

But a search of public records reveals that the government itself has, for the past five years, been openly describing that monitoring program for all the world to see.

"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. "The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. […] "Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. "We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. […]

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website.

The article lists several other instances in which the information was made public, but the point is clear: Republicans are simply looking to clamp a firm hand over the mouth of our free press in order to reduce the flow of information to voters ahead of the Fall elections.

Posted by Becky at 09:03 AM |

June 27, 2006

Anger as a self-limiting motivator

Going back to my early days of activism, in a specific context that's a story for a whole 'nother day, with a group of friends and neighbors trying to organize around a neighborhood problem, I argued that anger, by itself, is self-limiting. If you can only move forward fueled by anger, you're eventually going to lose, because anger simply doesn't last. It's not in human nature for it to last. Eventually you get over it or you burn out, or those around you burn out on you--whichever, you're stopped.

So this comment yesterday by Kevin Drum interested me:

It strikes me that modern American culture rewards conservatives when people are angry and polarized and rewards liberals when people are united and forward looking. (Relatively speaking, of course.) This is why I don't especially think the left needs its own Ann Coulter, or its own Karl Rove. We need effective advocates and smart political operatives, of course, but they need to operate on an entirely different wavelength. Fanning the flames of anger, even in our own cause, produces a political environment that ultimately helps conservatives.

If he's right (and I think he might be), and if I'm right (and, well--do I have to say it?), movement conservatism can't last. Perhaps the sputterings we're seeing now are signs that it's running on fumes even as we speak; perhaps not yet.

But it's an interesting line of thought. Discuss.

Posted by Nothstine at 02:18 PM |

Court Right to Toss VT Contribution Limits

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday struck down Vermont's campaign contribution limits, bumping the state back from $200 contribution limits to its earlier $2000 limits. I think the Court made the right decision.

I do not believe the problem with our campaign finance system is the size of contributions funneled to a campaign. The real problem is that the already existing campaign finance reporting laws are either full of holes or not enforced so that the voters still do not really know whose money is backing the issues or candidates they are being asked to support.

Limits on contribution amounts only encourage donors into covert action that will allow them to continue their buying of influence. The stakes are simply so high it is worth it to them to push the (cash-stuffed) envelope (across the table). Two of the chief methods used to hide the sources of contributions are money laundering through various organizations (such as Americans for Tax Reform) and "issues ads" funded by independent, nonprofit groups whose contributions and expenditures are not open for public inspection. Nothing is being done about these means of circumventing existing campaign finance law. Instead, people continue to clamor for tighter restrictions.

When the public knows where campaign money originates, it affects their support for an issue or candidate, as evidenced by the great lengths to which political activists and candidates frequently go to hide the sources of their campaign funds. And in today's media-rich society, we have come to equate slick campaigns with worthiness so that those who don't have the dough really don't have an effective voice.

Posted by Becky at 01:52 PM |

Jesus Loves Porn Stars

A new Bible with a cover reading "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" is making waves.

This weekend at the erotica convention in Los Angeles, Pastor Craig Gross, who runs an anti-pornography ministry, handed out hundreds of "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" Bibles. Gross, in his "porn-mobile," is a regular fixture at porn conventions. His anti-porn Web site is provocatively entitled XXXChurch.com.

"I believe Jesus, he'd be in the show with us," Gross said. "He'd be mixing it up with these people. 'Cause he doesn't look at them as porn stars, or porn producers. He looks at us as all the same."

Gross is absolutely correct. The entire Christian message can be boiled down to this one thing: that all are sinners, that every single human being falls short of the standard set by God to enter Heaven, and that only through Jesus's substitutional death can anyone be saved. That pretty much puts preachers on the same level as porn stars in God's eyes.

But the American Bible Society thinks Gross's Bibles are unfit to print.

The [ABS] wrote Pastor Gross a letter refusing to print his Bible "out of a sense of propriety," saying the "wording … was misleading and inappropriate."

I can see why little old church ladies and those who print Bibles for them would be upset. After all, society was quite a bit different back in their day. Such things weren't spoken in polite company, let alone printed on the Holy Bible. But we're living in "interesting times."

Gross says his unconventional measures are what it takes to reach people today. "We're trying to reach a new audience and so we can't just do things like our parents did, like the generation did before us," he said.

After all this time it surprises me that many Christians still seem to believe clean-cut religious folks with King James Bibles could ever reach people in some segments of our society. And I find it sad that when someone does understand the language of the "sinner" and reaches out to offer them a message of hope, the response of the Christian world is rejection and scorn. But then, even Jesus faced harsh rejection when he ate dinner with a tax collector, allowed a prostitute to wash his feet with her tears, and actually touched an outcast leper to heal him.

Posted by Becky at 09:21 AM |

The great vomitous news mass

When I fired up the laptop this morning and cruised over to Memeorandum to see what's buzzing in the blogs, it was exceptionally depressing. Sometimes I simply can't face the nuttiness.

For example, there is just no way that anyone with two brain cells to rub together sincerely believes that the latest privacy violation of the Bush Administration is good policy. Going through the banking records of Americans with no probable cause is completely inappropriate. And Bush thinks its "disgraceful" that the Times reported the story.

Of course Bush thinks its disgraceful! He doesn't like being caught doing shit he shouldn't be doing. But its so tedious to see the massive list of "yes we'll kiss your ass" blogs defending this garbage. These bloggers don't think what Bush is doing is right and proper. I doubt they've bothered to put that much thought into it. They're merely cheerleading their team leader.

The alleged "war on terror" is in its essence an excuse for the government to expand its powers and then use them against political enemies. Its all wrapped up with a shiny, nationalism-colored-as-patriotism bow (see also ass covering with Old Glory).

Posted by Carla at 09:00 AM |

More Proof Sexual Orientation is Nature, not Nurture

A new study has found even more proof that sexual orientation is a matter of nature rather than nurture.

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, has found a link between the number of older brothers a man has, all sharing the same mother, and whether or not that man is homosexual. He also found that sexual orientation was not affected by the amount of time the man spent with the older brothers – it was purely a biological matter.

[Dr. Bogaert] suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births. A woman's body may see a male fetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

It is just more evidence to support the "liberal" notion that all human beings should be allowed to pursue happiness and fully participate in all of the rights and responsibilities of our society.

Posted by Becky at 08:48 AM |

No More Nookie for Rush

That right-wing proponent of family values and virtue, Rush Limbaugh, has just been nabbed for possession of Viagra prescribed to someone else.

I'm shocked – not shocked he had a prescription made out to someone else, no. I'm shocked because Rush isn't even married and is (or was) apparently having sex anyway.

Poor Rush. First, no more pain killers and now no more sex. Not only did he get detained and questioned, but the mean sheriff took the prescription and may charge him with a second-degree misdemeanor.

***** UPDATE *****

A bit of humor, courtesy of Matt Drudge:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: 'HOW DID BOB DOLE'S LUGGAGE GET ON MY AIRPLANE? I TOLD MY DOCTOR I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE NEXT ELECTION'... ...CUSTOMS DID NOT BELIEVE ME WHEN I TOLD THEM THAT I GOT THOSE PILLS AT THE BILL CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY'...

***** UPDATE #2 *****

And then there's this, which everyone seems to be unwilling to talk about. Eeew!

Posted by Becky at 08:36 AM |

June 26, 2006

Ted Piccolo's Fantasy World

The recent back-and-forth with Ted Piccolo at NW Republican over Grover Norquist has finally reached the point where I can only conclude that some Republicans are beyond hope. They are determined to believe whatever they want to believe.

In Ted's most recent post he refers to recent articles laying out how Norquist was the go-to guy for money laundering and buying "face time" with the President, and then claims poor Grover was "used" by Abramoff and didn't realize what was going on:

Abramoff was attempting to hide his motives from among others, the folks at Americans for Tax Reform. In an email correspondence to others inside his lobbying firm he had this to say.

"What is most important however is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff said in an e-mail on Oct. 24, 1995. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement." Of course liberals will continue to try to paint folks like Norquist and Ridenour as culprits yet conveniently overlook the role that the aggressive politics of the gaming tribe (Choctaws). Conservatives such as Norquist and Ridenour maintain, basically, that they were played by Abramoff. …Norquist and Ridenour appear to be innocent political operatives taken advantage of by Abramoff who seemed to dig himself deeper and deeper into trouble. However even in innocence we see how liberals, and their willing cohorts in the MSM, can't help but try to portray conservatives as guilty of something. We know that liberals have never let the truth get in the way of good political spin.

Compounding the hilarity of Ted's post was this little comment:

While the details are much more complicated than simply the "bad-ol-Republicans" attacking Indians, the reality is that those details will get lost on future tribal leaders. Because we know that in the future the Democrats will certainly try to use this issue to drive a wedge between Oregon Indian tribes and the Republican party. Much like the liberals are trying to drive a wedge between Indian tribes and conservatives on the national scene in the Abramoff scandal.

I guess in Ted's eyes, I'm a "liberal" (everyone who knows me would be rolling on the floor in hysterics at that one). I write a post to the effect that Ted's favorite buddy Grover screwed over the Indian tribes; ergo, the "liberals are trying to drive a wedge" … It's almost too funny for words.

What isn't funny is the Abramoff/Norquist/Ralph Reed Shenanigans. Ted may have referenced the latest news about this bunch here and here, but he obviously read the articles through rose colored glasses. Because here is some of what they say:

The middleman: lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Blunt e-mails that connect money and access in Washington show that prominent Republican activist Grover Norquist facilitated some administration contacts for Abramoff's clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist's tax-exempt group.

To see the detailed evidence, go to the article. And ask yourself whether the following supports Ted's theory that Norquist was unwittingly used by Abramoff, or the view of the Senate investigators that Norquist was knowingly selling visits with the President:

"Can the tribes contribute $100,000 for the effort to bring state legislatures and those tribal leaders who have passed Bush resolutions to Washington?" Norquist wrote Abramoff in one such e-mail in July 2002.

"When I have funding, I will ask Karl Rove for a date with the president. Karl has already said 'yes' in principle and knows you organized this last time and hope to this year," Norquist wrote in the e-mail.

And here's another exchange:

After the tribes' 2002 event with Bush, Norquist pressed Abramoff anew for tribal donations. "Jack, a few months ago you said you could get each of your Indian tribes to make a contribution. ... Is this still possible?" Norquist asked in an October 2002 e-mail.

Abramoff responded that "everyone is tapped out having given directly to the campaigns. After the election, we'll be able to get this moving."

The e-mails show Abramoff delivered, sending one check from the Mississippi Choctaw tribe in October and one in November from the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan.

Interestingly, the tribes did give Norquist's group $100,000 and did get to meet the President. Of course, Ted says Norquist denies wrongdoing, and this is all just a liberal attack on a good, honest Republican. It's true Norquist is denying it, but in the real world criminals deny their crimes all the time, so a denial is meaningless. Here's what Norquist's group says – an interesting contrast to the quotes taken directly from Norquist's own emails above:

ATR spokesman John Kartch said Norquist never offered to arrange meetings in exchange for money. Instead, Norquist simply wanted Abramoff's tribes to help pay for a conference where lawmakers and tribal leaders passed resolutions supporting the Bush agenda, ultimately securing a brief encounter with Bush, Kartch said. "No one from Americans for Tax Reform ever assisted Jack Abramoff in getting meetings or introductions with the White House or congressional leaders in exchange for contributions," Kartch said, suggesting some of the e-mails might be misleading.

Yes, that mean sneak Jack Abramoff set poor Grover up, and set him up good. It's not fair! And I'm sure Ted would also agree that Karl Rove is telling the truth when he says, contrary to the Norquist emails, that he had no idea "that Norquist solicited any money in connection with ATR events in both 2001 and 2002 that brought Abramoff's tribal clients and others to the White House."

You see, Grover has never done anything like this before. Oops, maybe he has (though naturally, Kartch is denying this as well):

Norquist did make a special effort — at Abramoff's request — to introduce a British businessman and an African dignitary to Rove at another ATR event in summer 2002. Abramoff bluntly told Norquist he was asking the African dignitary for a $100,000 donation to ATR and suggested the introduction to Rove might help secure the money.

"I have asked them for $100K for ATR," Abramoff wrote Norquist in July 2002. "If they come I'll think we'll get it. If he is there, please go up to him (he'll be African) and welcome him."

Norquist obliged. "I am assuming this is very important and therefore we are making it happen," the GOP activist wrote back, promising to introduce the two foreigners as well as a Saginaw tribal official to Rove that night.

A day later, an ecstatic Abramoff sent an e-mail thanking Norquist for "accommodating" the introductions. "I spoke with the ambassador today and he is moving my ATR request forward," the lobbyist wrote, referring to the donation.

And then there is this:

E-mails dating to 1995 show Abramoff solicited donations from clients to Norquist's group as part of lobbying efforts. "I spoke this evening with Grover," Abramoff wrote in an October 1995 e-mail outlining how Norquist and his group could help a client on a matter before Congress. Abramoff wrote that the lobbying help he was seeking from Norquist's group was "perfectly consistent" with ATR's position but that Norquist nonetheless wanted a donation to be made.

"He said that if they want the taxpayer movement, including him, involved on this issue and anything else which will come over the course of the year or so, they need to become a major player with ATR. He recommended that they make a $50,000 contribution to ATR," the lobbyist wrote.

Abramoff cautioned one of his colleagues that the donation needed to be "kept discreet."

"We don't want opponents to think that we are trying buy the taxpayer movement," he said.

Ted interprets the "discreet" comment to mean Abramoff didn't want Norquist to know about it – a complete denial of the context.

Ted also defends Amy Ridenour as a victim of Abramoff. Does this sound like victimization to you?:

In one instance, Abramoff's team wanted to send two lawmakers on a trip to the Mississippi Choctaw reservation in 2001, but one congressman's office had concerns about accepting such a trip from a gaming tribe.

"How about getting National Center for Public Policy Research to sponsor the trip?" Abramoff suggested. "Works for me," replied a lobbying colleague.

E-mails suggest Ridenour was well aware that Abramoff viewed her organization as a convenient pass-through.

In September 2002, Abramoff suggested to one of his associates placing $500,000 in client funds with the national center because the group "can direct money at our discretion, anywhere if you know what I mean."

The same morning Abramoff messaged Ridenour: "I might have $500K for you to run through NCPPR. Is this still something you want to do?" Ridenour was enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do it."

The two articles contain so much more damning information (particularly the second, which I have barely even touched on here) that Ted Piccolo ought to be ashamed of himself for ever standing up for Norquist and Ridenour. Ted ought to be outraged that people on his side are behaving this way. He ought to be saying, "Not in my party!" Instead, he derides me for giving the story a second thought and childishly points his finger at the unions, as if one side's lawbreaking justifies lawbreaking on the other side:

So, following your usuall MO, just because there is a story there must be "something" out there. Have you not been following the culture of corruption in the Union and Democratic parties?

Please stop throwing accusations around as if that makes someone immediately guilty of something.

Guess what. There were almost 200 convictions of RACKETEERING by union members in 2005. Perhaps we should make an accusation that "Our Oregon," is guilty of that as well? We would have a much stronger case than you would by your simply tying silly online news stories together.

It's truly a sad day for Oregon Republicans when someone with this poor intellectual capacity is their primary issues blogger.

Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM |

June 25, 2006

Sunday read ems

I'm headed off to the beach to escape the heat. Here's some good stuff to keep you engaged until I get back:

Why Can't Conservatives Govern? at the Portland Freelancer.

Whatever Happened to the United States? at Middle Earth Journal.

Write your own Norquist caption at Rox Populi

Winning the Real War by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly

The Quiet Assault by The Heretik

Christian Lady Blogging -- Part One Of Travels in Wingnuttia by Echnide

Posted by Carla at 08:43 AM |

June 24, 2006

Branding fear

The nonWMD announced by Rick Santorum in order to boost his flagging Senate reelection bid is being pushed by a few lame assed rightwing hackospherians.

The new spin is that the government didn't tell the public about this "find" because they had to protect our soldiers:

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

Huh?

If we were to find WMD, wouldn't we secure it? How is it that we'd be telling Al Qaida where to find the weapons..if we already had them in our posession?

I find it tough to believe that this clown gives a rat's ass about troop morale as well. As if our guys would feel bad because we actually found some of the weapons the President used as an excuse to invade. Good grief.

The piece goes on to say that announcements of this find could have exposed informants and left open an intelligence advantage. Also ridiculous. These weapons are old, deteriorating material from the first Gulf War. Its not the WMD Bush claimed as authority for invading. We don't know if there was an informant who gave it up or if our troops stumbled upon it. And even if there was an informant..its someone who wasn't exactly giving up quality information.

The righty pundits and bloggers are constantly working to market this shit to Americans. They push their brand of foreign policy and dealing with terrorism like those who market consumer products in the US. As if their brand of soap is better than the other guy's.

We're so overwhelmed with their marketing messages that unless we're playing close attention--its truely tough to know who to believe. Especially when the Republicans work overtime at injecting fear into the discussion.

Its no different with the NSA spying and the government gathering Americans' banking records. They're marketed to us as tools to be used on the "War on Terror".

And we are unpatriotic terrorist lovers if we protest the compromise of American values which include those little things like "search warrants" and "courts" and "privacy". Or heaven forbid that we require the government to be open with the American people. That might give the terrorists a clue as to what we're doing to monitor them.

If the government decided to roll tanks into American suburbia with the excuse that martial law is required to capture terrorists--I swear these same assholes would go on the Sunday talk shows and thank the Bush Administration for beating back those pinko commie American liberals who dare oppose their fight to capture the terrorists.

There is no line that can't be crossed. Not when you're marketing that brand.

Update: Speaking of fearmongering, Roger Simon proves my point exactly. What a dick.

Posted by Carla at 08:11 AM |

June 23, 2006

Markos is snubbing me

Dammit. I'm a liberal blogger. How come I'm not getting my marching orders from Markos?

Posted by Carla at 03:47 PM |

Last throes (again)

Thinks aren't looking so rosey in Baghdad:

Iraqis call state of emergency in Baghdad:

Iraq's government clamped a state of emergency on Baghdad and ordered everyone off the streets Friday after U.S. and Iraqi forces battled insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and rifles near the heavily fortified Green Zone. The military also announced the deaths of five more U.S. troops in a particularly violent week for American forces that included the discovery of the brutalized bodies of two soldiers. Twelve U.S. servicemembers have died or been found dead this week.

The fierce fighting in the heart of Baghdad came despite a crackdown launched 10 days ago that put tens of thousands of U.S.-backed Iraqi troops on the streets as the new prime minister sought to restore a modicum of safety for the capital's 6 million people.

Iraqi and U.S. military forces clashed with heavily armed attackers throughout the morning Friday in the alleys and doorways along Haifa Street and within earshot of the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. and British embassies and Iraqi government headquarters.

The most tightly watched city in Iraq is barely under control it would seem.

But oh those reporters. Why aren't they out among the people--writing all the good news from Iraq? All those schools in Baghdad must be doing supremely well with militia roadblocks and gunfire in the streets.

Surely they could get a quote or two from the cute little Iraqi kids trying to dodge bullets.

Posted by Carla at 03:36 PM |

Sears Tower Terrorists: Did You Know?

BuzzFlash has put together a fascinating analysis of today's announcement that seven terrorist plotting to destroy the Sears Tower had been captured by the Bush Administration. (For links to their sources, go to the analysis itself.)

Have you heard about this yet? And did you know these facts?:

- The group "never met Bin Laden or had any contact with the terror kingpin's henchmen… In fact, they had no connection to any known terrorist organization.
- "No bomb making materials were found in the raids."
- The "only overt acts described in the indictments were swearing oaths of allegiance to Al Qaeda and taking video footage of the F.B.I office."
- Six of the seven men indicted "are described only as driving (the leader) or the informer places or as attending meetings between the two."
- They "only devised a plot on paper."
- Chicago Police are saying there was "No credible threat… They had no capability to (destroy the Sears tower). They never got to that point – or could have."
- A Sears Tower executive said, "Law enforcement continues to tell us that they have never found evidence of a credible terrorism threat against Sears Tower that has gone beyond criminal discussions."
- A senior federal law-enforcement source says they had "no means" to attack the Sears Tower or other buildings. "There was no threat at all."
- The Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication Executive Director said, "The plan developed in Florida was never an actual plan, and therefore, nobody was in danger."
- The suspects were largely American citizens, operating within our borders, and not even Arab.

Coming in the immediate aftermath of the announcement that WMDs had been found in Iraq (a bullshit story), this story struck me as very questionable. After learning of the above, I tend to agree with BuzzFlash's conclusions:

BuzzFlash is supportive of the FBI for arresting the group. We just don't think it is as important as Bush seems to want us to. The timing of the raid, given that there was no immediate operational threat, appears politically motivated. The Bush Administration wanted to scare Americans and tie the Iraq War to terror after a Senate debate on redeployment that very morning.

After listening to the breathless explanation by a rightie friend of the evidence presented on Sean Hannity's show yesterday for why the WMD find was so incredibly important (and repressing the urge to gag), I am convinced that all of this is being drummed up solely to comfort the increasingly restless right wing and get them back in the fold. Looks like good ol' Karl has found his sea legs again.

Posted by Becky at 02:45 PM |

Take That, "Coyote"

A just-released Senate report on Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling reveals that Grover Norquist was Indian-tribe screwing Abramoff's "godsend."

Moving money from a casino-operating Indian tribe to Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition founder and professed gambling opponent, was a problem. Lobbyist Abramoff turned to his longtime friend Norquist, apparently to provide a buffer for Reed.

The result, according to evidence gathered by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, was that Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform became a conduit for more than a million dollars from the Mississippi Choctaw to Reed's operation, while Norquist, a close White House ally, took a cut.

Those Republicans who continue to defend Norquist say he is telling the truth and just being set up by nasty, partisan Democrats. Not so. Norquist is lying. He claims the money the Choctaws gave him was to support his anti-tax efforts, which he says matches the tribe's own goals.

Nell Rogers, a planner for the Choctaws, told the Senate that the arrangement was never intended as a contribution to support ATR's general anti-tax work. Rogers said she understood from Abramoff that ATR was willing to serve as a conduit, provided it received a fee.

And indeed, Norquist did charge a fee for his laundering of funds from one Indian casino to the Christian Coalition to use to outlaw that casino's competition – two other Indian casinos. Norquist on two occasions skimmed $25,000 off the top of the total $1.2 million he laundered for the tribe. In addition, he charged multiple Indian tribes $25,000 each to arrange meetings with President Bush.

Great guy, that Norquist. No doubt Oregon's TABOR-backers are very proud to have him on their team.

Posted by Becky at 12:47 PM |

Soledad Cross Should Stay

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has tragically refused to stay a federal judge's order that San Diego must remove the Mount Soledad Cross. The cross, 43 feet high, is a memorial to fallen American soldiers buried on the site, but an atheist has successfully argued in court that the Christian symbol violates the separation of church and state. The case has been going on since 1991.

Supporters of the effort to keep the cross are hoping the federal government will use its powers of eminent domain to take the property and keep the cross in place, but so far no movement in that direction has occurred. Congress already did what it could to save the cross by designating it and the land under it a national veterans memorial and authorizing the Department of the Interior to accept the City of San Diego's donation of the land. Unfortunately, the City declined to donate the land.

After supporters of the cross collected 100,000 signatures to petition the City Council to save the cross, the question was put to the voters, and 76% voted in favor of the proposition to keep the cross. But a State Court ruled the proposition was unconstitutional.

I agree with Rob Muise, attorney with the Law Center, which is trying to save the cross:

"Friends, comrades, and family members of thousands of our fallen veterans have chosen the Mt. Soledad memorial as a place to honor and remember their fallen heroes," he said. "As a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, I am sickened by the thought of the pain that these court decisions must be causing for these grieving families. Our veterans deserve better than this."

It's a real shame that this case has gone on so long and wrenched so many hearts. I don't support the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, but the meaning of the cross extends far beyond Christianity to include the general reverence people feel for sacrifice.

One would be hard-pressed to find any symbol on public property that is free of religious or mystical meaning. The hyper-atheism that calls for purging all religious symbols from public property, no matter how long they have been in place, so as not to exclude some Americans in reality spits on our nation's diverse heritage.

Posted by Becky at 12:09 PM |

Playing God

The L.A. Times has an interesting article looking at the various end-times beliefs and how believers of various faiths are working to hasten the end of the world.

According to the article, many mega-churches are using global communications and aircraft to spread missionaries around the world. They believe that once the whole world has heard the gospel and been given the opportunity to accept Jesus as their savior, the messiah will come. Their goal is to reach every nook and cranny in the world with the Christian message within two decades.

Shiite Muslims also believe a messiah will return. Theirs is known as Mahdi. When Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran he spent a fortune fixing up the city to prepare it for Mahdi's return, which he expects within two years. He believes Mahdi and Jesus will both appear and will lead Muslims in ridding the world of corruption.

Some Jewish groups in Jerusalem believe the messiah will come when they have built a temple on a spot where a holy Muslim shrine now sits – and many Christians also see this as a necessary precursor to the second coming of Jesus. Some Christians are adopting traditional Jewish practices so as to be more aligned with Jews and thereby hasten the second coming. Many believe all the Jews must return to Israel and are expending vast resources to move populations of Jews there, such as those from Russia. Others are working to convert Jews to Christianity before it is too late.

Mississipi cattle rancher Clyde Lott believes that the Old Testament book of Numbers requires a perfect, pure red heifer to be sacrificed before the messiah can come. He is working to breed just such a red heifer. He actually has had one of his red heifers found by rabbis to be worthy. Unfortunately, he isn't being allowed to fly one of his perfect cows out to Jerusalem to be sacrificed.

All humor aside, the article lays out the basic Christian apocalyptic countdown:

Jews return to Israel after 2,000 years, the Holy Temple is rebuilt, billions of people perish during seven years of natural disasters and plagues, the antichrist arises and rules the world, the battle of Armageddon erupts in the vicinity of Israel, Jesus returns to defeat Satan's armies and preside over Judgment Day.

The article then asks an interesting question:

But are all of these efforts to hasten the end of the world a bit like, well, playing God?

None of these actions are particularly harmful, in my opinion. The real danger is with those who are not discussed in this article – the end-times believers who are actively seeking to bring about Armageddon. These people are taking the lives of the entire world into their own hands – so convicted of the rightness of their views that they are truly playing God.

Posted by Becky at 10:08 AM |

June 22, 2006

Debate Over Creationism Cranked Up to New Level

Scientists around the world are engaged in an all-out Creationism vs. Darwinism debate.

More than 600 scientists have signed the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" statement published originally in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, the leading promoter of Intelligent Design.

Meanwhile, the national science academies of 67 countries yesterday attacked Creationism, saying the origins of life are being "concealed, denied or confused" and warning parents and teachers against teaching the Bible version of creation as literal truth.

Personally, I believe the Biblical account of creation is nothing more than mythology. That said, I also believe in a divine force that has instigated and guided the development and evolution of life in the universe. I also know that I cannot prove my belief; it is something I feel is true.

Biblical creationism denies provable facts and should not be taught in public schools. It is entirely appropriate, however, to teach children everything that science knows to be true and the evidence for why scientists theorize as they do about the origins of life. Most people are increasingly awe-struck as they learn new scientific information about life. The divine aspect of it all is something many people intuitively feel, but is not provable; it is a matter that is best taught at church and at home.

Posted by Becky at 12:17 PM |

Notorius Drunk Driver Gets Another DUI

About 18 years ago, I witnessed a head-on crash in which a drunk driver crossed the median and hit an oncoming car. We immediately pulled over and I rushed to the car that had been struck, only to find the driver, who turned out to be a much-loved grandmother in the area, dead. The drunk's car was upside down in the ditch, and I remember feeling furious with him as he blathered on about how his arm hurt. I have felt very strongly about drunk driving ever since.

The other day a friend started going off on MADD for their militant anti-drunk driving activism. I was truly shocked. Drunks behind the wheel of a car are extremely dangerous. And typically, it seems, they are not the ones who get hurt when they lose control of their vehicles.

That is why I was disgusted to read today that a notorious repeat drunk driver has re-offended, and nothing seems to have been able to prevent her from continuing to endanger the public. Nine years ago, the "human bomb" hit and killed Mary Johnsen as she and her husband were walking along the side of the road. The drunk killer had already been cited for a DUI four times.

When a Bellevue officer pulled over Susan Lynn West early Sunday morning in a Newport Hills shopping center, the officer says her "speech was slurred and her eyes were bloodshot and watery"; she had a "difficult time keeping her balance"; that she "refused field sobriety tests...." and breathalyzer tests, and in the passenger floorboard were two empty, and still cold, 24 ounce cans of beer.

They were Steel Reserve - one of the highest alcohol content beers you can buy.

West's killing of Johnsen spurred Oregon to lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving from .10 to .08 and required repeat offenders to use ignition interlock devices. That didn't stop West. She was pulled over while driving without a license (she isn't allowed to drive, even sober) or a device.

I don't know what we have to do to stop this senseless endangerment of the public, but clearly our enforcement of the law against these repeat offenders needs to be reexamined.

Posted by Becky at 11:52 AM |

Twisted wingnuttery

For those who think there aren't some serious problems within the US military, think again. When there are groups of our soldiers murdering innocent civilians, something has obviously gone terribly wrong.

But in a weirdly pretzel twisted fashion--conservatives are using these wretched acts to justify acts of torture against detainees:

The Pentagon yesterday announced the names of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged with the April 26 kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania. The accusations are grave and, if proved, will almost certainly lead to severe sentences. We suspect no parallel process is taking place among Iraqi insurgents for the weekend murders near Yusufiya of U.S. soldiers Thomas L. Tucker and Kristian Menchaca.

That's a distinction worth pondering the next time you hear Iraq war critics carp at the U.S. refusal to apply Geneva Convention privileges to enemy combatants. The Convention extends those privileges to combatants who abide by the laws it sets for war, including the treatment of prisoners.

Combatants who fail to obey those laws--by not wearing distinctive military insignia or targeting civilians--are not entitled to its privileges. If they were, the very purpose of the Convention would be rendered a nonsense. And this is why the U.S. has refused Geneva privileges to the enemy combatants at Guantanamo, which we hope is an argument heeded by the Supreme Court as it decides the Hamdan case.

This is what the bloodlust war crowd is now reduced to. The twisting it takes to justify this is crazy.

This person is actually saying that its perfectly acceptable for the US to engage in barbaric treatment of detainees because when it happens outside the chain of command--our guys are harshly punished. But as long as its done through orders and policy, there's no problem.

If this was applied equally--it means that no person who's beheaded or tortured Americans can be tried for war crimes as long as they did it as a matter of policy or within their chain of command.

In the name of defending the President and the whacked out "war on terror" policies, these nutters are willing to justify this murder.

Posted by Carla at 08:21 AM |

Holy Grail Found in Iraq

Senator Rick Santorum, in a hastily called press conference late yesterday, proudly announced to the world that we have found WMDs in Iraq.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Obviously, the first question one would ask is why, with WMDs being the reason we went to war and with all the criticism Bush has received for not having found them, would we not have been told about this sooner?

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq. Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

Something stinks here. Reading on, we learn what that stinky thing is.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

From now on, however, whenever anyone says we haven't found WMDs in Iraq, the "Christian" liars like Santorum will say they are the ones who are lying. You lose your audience when you have to start having to give caveats and explanations, and these guys know that (remember the hay made over "I voted for it before I voted against it"?). Santorum is already gloating undeservedly over the find.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

And so another brick is laid in the wall between wingers and thinkers.

------------

Marty Kaplan at the Huffington Post offers a related editorial that is well worth a read.

Posted by Becky at 07:28 AM |

June 21, 2006

Bend's Crazy Commercial

KPTV has posted on its website a link to a new "controversial" commercial that was created - using taxpayer dollars - to encourage tourists to visit Bend, Oregon.

It's a sort of take-off on the "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" theme. Only much worse.

Go to the site and watch the commercial - with your speakers on. I don't know if I'm old and out of touch (I doubt it, as I love South Park humor) or if the people who put this campaign together don't get the difference between crude and funny, but to me this ad says, "If you like to get drunk, sleep around, sleep with your sister, smoke pot, sleep with sheep, or anything else, you'll fit right in here in Bend."

Posted by Becky at 12:43 PM |

Last throes

Or not:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunman abducted about 85 workers Wednesday as they left an industrial plant north of Baghdad, police and a witness said.

The workers were thought to be mostly Shiite and the plant is located in a predominantly Sunni Arab area.

The witness said that about 85 workers were taken near the parking lot of the al-Nasr General Complex in Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad, while police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said they filled up a bus and a minivan. Taji is predominantly Sunni Arab area that has seen much insurgent activity.

It would seem that the Iraqi police aren't exactly helpful, either:

The Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, which oversees police, denied its forces were behind the kidnappings.

Suspicion fell on militias, which are believed to have infiltrated police forces and have killed hundreds in sectarian violence, personal vendettas and kidnappings for ransom.

Exactly what was the "Bush Iraq One Point Bounce" about? Things are better and safer in Iraq because we killed Zarqawi and weakened the insurgency?

Not so much.

Posted by Carla at 12:15 PM |

June 20, 2006

Norquist's Fake Property Rights Group

My interest was piqued today when I came across this recent article by Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator about his first-ever visit to Grover Norquist's Wednesday group meeting. Bethell gave a glowing report about the group's discussion of property rights and their impact on economic development around the world.

I'm a believer in property rights for that very reason, but I'm also very skeptical about anything that has Norquist's name associated with it. So you can imagine my consternation to learn that Norquist has started another affiliate group, the Property Rights Alliance. PRA is headed up by Scott A. LaGanga, former Federal Affairs Manager for Americans for Tax Reform.

I had to check this group out. Here's what I have learned so far.

A quick glance at the home page for the site shows that the group is not focused on the needs of squatter families or Mexican small businesses, as Mr. Bethell wants his grassroots readers to believe. The front page has three stories on it: "Microsoft's Judge Applies Ebay's Patent Rule," "Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore," and "Symposium on Intellectual Property Rights to be Held." It's mission statement reads thus:

PRA stands as an advocacy organization dedicated to the protection of physical and intellectual property rights. PRA’s efforts to protect property will be all encompassing, including land rights, small landlord fights against rent control, and intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical, recording, movie and software industries.

Okay, so it's fairly easy to see what the plan will be here. They'll win grassroots hearts and minds by hiding behind the perception that they're out to protect everyday people, but in reality they'll be screwing us all and serving the needs of powerful corporations.

Issues Norquist's PRA will be watching include compulsory licensing and drug importation (both big pharma issues), eminent domain, the Endangered Species Act, federal government land and building ownership (think privatization and selling off of national parks), government mandated multicasting (better watch your cable bill), legal downloading, National Environmental Policy Act, and patent reform.

I was amused to see that PRA went to all the trouble to issue a press release praising the Oregon Supreme Court's decision to uphold Measure 37 (which, by way of disclosure, I strongly support) and in this interview seems to imply PRA had something to do with the initiative. But PRA does not list Oregonians in Action, the Initiative's sponsor, in its database of state pro-property rights groups. Considering the fact that OIA has successfully won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on behalf of private landowners and has many other important successes under its belt, this oversight smacks of PRA's lack of sincere interest in private property rights for individuals.

But then, it's a Norquist group. What did I expect?

Posted by Becky at 06:15 PM |

Libby Pardon in the Offing?

To pardon now or to pardon later, that is the question.

Scooter Libby just won't quit asking for sensitive information in his defense. And even though his case is typically the sort that earns a Presidential pardon (an icky norm, in my opinion), it seems he's pressing for sooner rather than later.

But the President is looking at some sticky politics. Sure, Karl Rove seems to be in the clear, and pardoning Libby could stem the steady flow of embarrassing information reaching the public. It could also keep the Vice President from having to take the witness stand.

But mid-term elections are coming up. If Republicans hold on to control, then the President might move quickly to stop the pain. On the other hand, if Democrats take over and start digging into the rats' nest, Bush might need the trial to serve as a continuing excuse not to cooperate with congressional investigators.

I'm betting on the latter.

Posted by Becky at 01:38 PM |

"Lie and die"

It's the framing, stupid

"KERRY: "Stay the course" is not a plan. And what this administration wants is to have a fake debate, as usual. Uh, they're--you hear the drumbeat on every television show from every commentator, "cut and run, cut and run, cut and run, cut and run." That's their phrase. They've found their three words, they love to do that, and they're gonna try to make the elections in November a choice between "cut and run" or "stay the course." That's not the choice. My plan is not "cut and run." Their plan is "lie and die."

Every friggin Dem needs to be on TV, radio and newspapers using that phrase. That's exactly what Iraq is.

Posted by Carla at 01:14 PM |

Safavian's Hilarious Excuses

David Safavian, former chief procurement officer at the White House, has just been found guilty of lying and obstructing justice in connection with his dealings with Jack Abramoff. Safavian had funneled insider information to Abramoff, helping him make a lot of money, in return for some nice perks, such as a weeklong golfing trip to Scotland and London. We'll have to wait until October 12 to learn how long his sentence will be.

Safavian has quite a background of interacting with powerful people. Prior to moving into the White House position, Safavian and Grover Norquist founded a lobbying firm together, Janus-Merritt Strategies. Norquist has refused to release tax records of the firm for the period during which he and Safavian owned the company, which was sold in March of 2002, and I don't wonder why. Clients included several Indian tribes and the National Indian Gaming Association. But their most interesting clients were the American Muslim Council and Abdurahman Alamoudi (now in jail on terrorism-related money-laundering charges), a fierce supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. But I digress.

Safavian's obstruction of justice charges stemmed from his work helping Abramoff, Norquist, and Ralph Reed rip off native American tribes in a money laundering scheme that pitted the tribes against each other while lining the pockets of the players who were manipulating them - as well as a whole lot of Republican candidates. Back in September of 2004, John McCain promised the Indian tribes he would get to the bottom of the $82 million lobbying scandal. His investigations became so dangerous to the Republican party as a whole that Norquist and the party began to mercilessly attack him. McCain, who was looking toward the future of his own career, confused everyone when he responded by transforming from a maverick into a butt-kissing Bush apologist.

Interestingly, native American Oregonian Ted Piccolo over at NW Republican continues to stand by the Norquist-funded and inspired TABOR initiative, part of Norquist's multi-pronged plan to shrink state governments down until he can drown them in a bathtub, despite Norquist's helping thoroughly screw the Indian tribes. Go figure.

Back to Safavian. His lame excuses for the part he played in the whole sordid Abramoff scandal are quite entertaining. For example, Safavian gave Abramoff inside information about government properties he wanted to buy or lease. Safavian also served as the mastermind of some of the strategy for developing pressure on Congress that would be financially favorable to Abramoff and his clients. Safavian, however, claimed he just gave information that was generally available to his old friend and the government didn’t even know yet what it would do with the properties. He said he was inexperienced and didn't know there was anything wrong with what he did.

Right after Safavian gave the information to Abramoff, he went on the golfing trip. Despite the fact that the trip cost more than $130,000 and included $500 a night hotels, $400 rounds of golf, and $100 rounds of drinks for nine people, Safavian claimed he thought he had paid Abramoff back for the trip with a check for $3,100. That little, "unintentional" miscalculation was made by the White House's chief procurement officer – the guy in charge of buying stuff. I guess they'd prefer we believe they are incompetent than thoroughly crooked.

Posted by Becky at 01:09 PM |

Pentagon Clinging to Outdated Psychology

Somehow, more than thirty years after mental health experts have determined that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, a Pentagon document outlining discharge policies is still listing homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders. A spokesman says the document is under review.

In addition to this bizarre classification, military enforcements of "don’t ask, don't tell" are on the rise.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.

At a time when we're facing a shortage of soldiers, so that the men and women who have volunteered to lay their lives on the line for this country are being ordered to serve multiple tours of duty, it's disgraceful that our leaders are continuing to impose their religious views about homosexuality on the military.

Maybe they're just afraid we might end up with a gay military hero one of these days.

Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM |

June 19, 2006

TABOR Resource Site

While conducting research I discovered this excellent site all about the TABOR initiative that is currently circulating in several states, including Oregon. "TABOR" stands for Taxpayer Bill of Rights, but here in Oregon, the initiative's backers have changed its moniker and now prefer to call it "The Rainy Day Amendment" so it will sound more palatable.

Interestingly, TABOR backers everywhere, just like here in Oregon, are claiming the issue is a spontaneously local one, but all are being funded by the same group of organizations.

At the forefront are Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Limited Government -- an organization closely associated with U.S. Term Limits and the Club for Growth, a PAC famous for its nastiness in fighting for a right-wing economic agenda.

A publication from the Heartland Institute a year ago highlighted these organizations, as well as such high profile far-right institutions as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council as being the major players behind the pro-TABOR movement, notwithstanding the local puppets' claims that the idea is homegrown.

The site has state-by-state informational links and great explanations of why it's a bad idea to link the growth in government spending to increases in population and inflation. I highly recommend you take a gander. It's quite an enlightening clearinghouse of information.

Posted by Becky at 06:00 PM |

"Betting on Failure" in Iraq

John Fund belabors the mystical pile of bullshit that is the shallow run of reasoning for the war in Iraq. Given that his excuses and source citations have been toppled multiple times at blogs and media outlets more substantial than PK, I'm not going to waste time doing it again.

But one small part of Fund's diatribe is worthy of mention. Its the subtitle for his headline:

Trying to Get Even: Democrats keep betting on failure in Iraq.

Fund uses this phrasing to set Democrats up as America hating nation bashers who want to see Bush lose.

What Fund (and others who use this phrasing) fail to articulate is what victory in Iraq actually looks like. What is the threshold for "winning"?

I'm betting it has little to do with Iraqis being able to hold their own nation together and move forward--and everything to do with the timing of the 2006 elections. All of a sudden there'll be a victory in Iraq somewhere between August and October. Bush will decide to power down the US military presence just in time to try and help the GOP keep the House.

When John Murtha wants to set up troop withdrawals its "cut and run". When Bush decides to do it, it will be "victory". The situation in Iraq won't have changed.

People like John Fund will just write about it differently.

Posted by Carla at 10:01 AM |

My Forging of Signatures on Petitions

I have kept my mouth shut for four years now about Bill Sizemore's false implications regarding my forging of signatures on petitions, but recent discussions have made me realize that his characterization of what occurred is facilitating his smoke and mirrors effort to worm his way back into the core of the Republican apple.

First some background. While Sizemore was running for governor, we discovered that OTU's bookkeeper, Kelli Highley, had forged whole sheets of petition signatures on a campaign in Newberg. The investigation took a couple of years, during which time she also forged whole sheets of signatures on petitions to file several initiatives. What she did was attach people's names to issues they may not have supported by copying their signatures on petitions they had never seen.

Sizemore is telling everyone I sought immunity in the OTU racketeering lawsuit because I, too, had forged signatures on petitions. His implication is that I did the same thing Kelli Highly did. That is false. Now what I did was illegal and wrong, and I am ashamed of it, but it was nowhere near what Sizemore is leading people to believe.

Petition sheets have a section for signatures of those who support the petition and a space at the bottom where the person circulating the petition is supposed to sign stating they personally witnessed the collection of the signatures. OTU sent out a set of petitions, during the time Sizemore was running for governor, to its membership list and many people signed and returned them. Unfortunately, a few people didn't follow the instructions. An individual, being the only person to sign the petition, would often not realize they had to also sign as a witness to their own signature and would leave that portion blank.

What I did was on a few of these – probably a dozen, though I don't recall precisely – I copied the signature of the lone individual who had signed the petition into the space where they were to sign as a witness to their own signature. Every one of these petitions had been mailed to us by a contributing member of the organization in an envelope with their own return address and was obviously a matter of improper completion of a form for an issue the individual supported. Yes, what I did was illegal. But it isn't fair to say that I "forged signatures on petitions."

It's time for Republican activists to wake up to a very important reality. I had to spill my guts and provide evidence to federal investigators BEFORE I was given immunity. I was taking a very big risk. If I had been the only lawbreaker at OTU, they would have been idiots to give me an immunity deal. That is why I again ask the question: why was the federal investigation called off? The only answer that makes sense to me is that to prosecute Sizemore would have meant they would have had to prosecute Grover Norquist, a very powerful and well-connected man who certainly doesn't give a rat's ass about little activists in Oregon except as he can use them to accomplish his own purposes.

Posted by Becky at 08:28 AM |

The Truth Comes Out

Joe Lauria has penned a very disturbing piece about Jason Leopold and his report that Karl Rove was about to be indicted.

Another cautionary reminder that some people are gifted at being liars while convincingly swearing they are not. If what Lauria says is true, and it sounds like it is, Leopold should be ostracized immediately before he further taints the respectability of left-leaning news sources generally, and Truthout.org specifically.

Posted by Becky at 06:22 AM |

June 18, 2006

Yes I took their money. Yes they're full of shit.

[For the duration that the internet ad runs on PK, I'll be shoving this back to the top.--Carla]

This evening, PK accepted a blogad from a bullshit techno company. See the right hand sidebar. The ad is deceptive. They dress up like a net neutrality ad..then go for the jugular for anti-net neutrality. Your proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

I trust our readership is smarter than that..and that you'll enjoy the concept of PK's ad coffers making money off of people stupid enough to send us an ad where we out their deceptive practices.

Posted by Carla at 09:47 PM |

Teach Gay "Cure" in Schools?

Anti-gay activists who disagree with the introduction of the "gay agenda" in schools are looking to bring their own agenda into the schools.

Angered by what they see as the promotion of homosexuality in schools, thousands of American parents are banding together to demand that their children be taught that it is possible to stop being gay. […]

A high school in New Hampshire allowed an "ex-gay" activist to address pupils on Civil Rights Day last year. In Colorado, education officials are pondering whether to hand out a pamphlet to teachers suggesting that "conversion therapy" - a combination of prayer and counseling - can reform homosexual tendencies.

It's ironic that parents who don't want the subject broached in school would respond by advocating that their take on it be taught. Personally, I am opposed to elementary and middle schools teaching kids anything about the morality of homosexuality at all. In a perfect world, it's an issue that should be addressed at home by parents offering moral guidance to their children. I've spend a lot of time with my children helping them overcome bigotry and understand civil rights.

Parents who are concerned about what their children may be learning about this subject in school ought to have developed a relationship with their children such that they would know what their children are exposed to and be able to respond appropriately. The world is full of conflicting and varied ideas and high school is a good time to begin exposing children to those ideas. With appropriate parental involvement, children will develop a critical mind and be better grounded in their own beliefs.

Posted by Becky at 09:25 AM |

Christian Group Wants to Dump Marriage

Ekklesia, a Christian think tank in England, is saying that "marriage should be abolished and replaced by a variety of civil partnerships."

Under their proposals, couples would still be allowed to marry if they wished but the legal aspect would be removed from the ceremony and they would then have to register their partnership under law in a separate process. . The group believes the current situation is confused by attempts to fuse Christian and civil concepts of marriage into a "one-size-fits-all" arrangement.

Jonathan Bartley, director of Ekklesia, says that legal marriage isn't working and points to the relatively high divorce rate as proof.

"At the moment there is only one form of marriage defined under law, which everyone has to take or leave. It does not reflect Christian ideas of marriage, which are based on a covenant before God, rather than a legal contract and agreement between individuals. And it does not properly acknowledge the reality of the existence of other, secular viewpoints, either. Religious communities are entitled to have their own ideal of marriage which they offer to the wider society. But requiring others to accept this definition by law benefits no one. It is confusing and counter-productive."

I've considered the same option as a solution to the gay marriage debate. One way to handle the conflicts could be to have couples enter legal, contractual agreements with each other if they wish, and to let marriage itself be a matter of ceremony, which could be conducted in a church or by some other means if couples so desired it.

The one real drawback of this approach might well be to reduce the perceived seriousness of marriage and thereby result in even more broken families. On the other hand, if two individuals want to make a lifelong commitment to care for each other and build a life together, we need to find a way to honor that.

Posted by Becky at 09:23 AM |

June 17, 2006

More Conservative Media Bias? No Way ...

Chip Berlett writes that the real scandal with the Christian supremacist video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces "is that the demonization of enemies, bloodthirsty dualism, and murderous rampages on the computer screen are accurate reflections of the apocalyptic theology espoused by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins in their Left Behind series of novels which have sold more than 70 million copies."

Few in the mainstream media have dared confront the fact that the best-selling Left Behind series is a primer valorizing bigotry, paranoia, and guerilla warfare against those who promote tolerance, pluralism, and global cooperation.

The bad guys in the game – the ones the Christian soldiers kill - are the U.N. peacekeepers, just to give you some idea of how tweaked these people are. Vanity Fair several months ago lifted the curtain on the brutality that is rampant in the "Left Behind" books.

Far from being a Prince of Peace, the Christ depicted in the "Left Behind" series is a vengeful Messiah—so vengeful that the death and destruction he causes to unconverted Jews, to secularists, to anyone who is not born again, is far, far greater than the crimes committed by the most brutal dictators in human history. When He arrives on the scene in Glorious Appearing, Christ merely has to speak and "men and women, soldiers and horses, seemed to explode where they stood. It was as if the very words of the Lord had superheated their blood, causing it to burst through their veins and skin." Soon, LaHaye and Jenkins write, tens of thousands of foot soldiers for the Antichrist are dying in the goriest manner imaginable, their internal organs oozing out, "their blood pooling and rising in the unforgiving brightness of the glory of Christ."

After the initial bloodletting, Nicolae Carpathia gathers his still-vast army, covering hundreds of square miles, and prepares for the conflict at Megiddo. As the battle for Armageddon is about to start, Rayford Steele climbs atop his Hummer to watch Christ harvest the grapes of wrath. Steele looks at the hordes of soldiers assembled by the Antichrist, and "tens of thousands burst open at the words of Jesus." They scream in pain and die before hitting the ground, their blood pouring forth. Soon, a massive river of blood is flowing throughout the Holy Land. Carpathia and the False Prophet are cast into the eternal lake of fire.

But the main stream liberal media – or is that the conservative media? – has given the books a pass.

Posted by Becky at 10:52 PM |

Petition Signers Database Goes Too Far

A church in Florida has posted on the Internet the names and addresses of 400,000 Floridians who support banning same-sex marriage.

The petitions these individuals signed are public record. So the Christ Church of Peace, which supports freedom for gays to marry, created a searchable database called "Know Thy Neighbor."

While I support their cause, I find this tactic disgraceful. Particularly since it makes me have to side with that slimeball James Dobson.

"It's a gross invasion of people's privacy," said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, an offshoot of James Dobson's national Christian conservative group Focus on the Family.

Stemberger argued that, if Christian conservatives published the names and addresses of gay-rights activists, they would likely be condemned as hatemongers.

"A lot of people would be outraged and say it's a hateful, un-Christian gesture," he said.

I agree. Intimidating people for their opinions goes WAY too far. Even when they're wrong.

Posted by Becky at 10:30 PM |

Conservative Media Bias

Steve Young has an opinion piece you must read: "If the Media Reported on Democrats the Way they Report on Republicans."

Even though the media keeps saying Bush is feeling his oats after last week's killing of the bogey-man Zarqawi, his trip to Iraq and his "bump" in the polls, the reality is Democrats had one hell of a good week.

Posted by Becky at 10:13 PM |

What Do They Have Over Patrick Fitzgerald?

In a fantastic article entitled, "Karl and George: The Teflon Partnership" Evelyn Pringle explores how the outing of Valerie Plame began as an acknowledged serious problem and ended up with Karl Rove walking away.

Shortly after Valerie Plame was outed, Joe Wilson received a long handwritten letter from the first President Bush expressing his "outrage at what had happened and his understanding of the seriousness of it," according to Wilson. The elder Bush, a former CIA Director himself, is known to have said in 1999, that "those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors."

How must the father feel now that he knows his son is the leader of a gang of the "most insidious of traitors?"

The American taxpayers who paid for the investigation to determine the identities of the insidious traitors deserve to know what happened to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald between October 28, 2005 and June 13, 2006. Back when he announced the Scooter Libby indictment, he said Valerie Plame [was] … "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years."

Pringle offers an incredible, concise narrative of what happened and how the situation evolved. It is truly stunning that the Administration has been able to move this story to where it is today.

For 3 long years, Bush engaged in this type of a cat-and-mouse game at the expense of the American taxpayers, and most taxpayers emphatically say they are not amused.

John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon during Watergate, wrote an open letter to Fitzgerald and warned that the Bush gang was using the same tactics the Nixon team used during Watergate and said in part:

Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office.

Republicans have convinced cheerleading party loyalists that Plame wasn't really under cover and that the leaking of her identity was no big deal. But that isn't true:

On July 22, 2005, former CIA agent, Larry Johnson testified at a Senate hearing and said the matter was not just about Plame. "We're talking about an intelligence resource, a United States national security resource that was destroyed by these White House officials…And they have harmed the security of this country."

On October 30, 2005, former CIA agent Jim Marcinkowski told 60 Minutes that one of the worst things about the leak is that it gives America's enemies clues about how the CIA operates. […]

After watching this dog and pony show for 3 years, who among us is going to expose the truth when we know this gang of thugs has done something detrimental to the country when it means our entire family is fair game for destruction and there is nothing we can do about it.

I have to concur with Pringle's conclusion:

We will no doubt have a Democratically controlled Congress in about 8 months and they had better do their job in exposing this corrupt regime because this gang of thugs is ten times worse than the Nixon administration.

We need to be prepared for more dirty tricks if Democrats take Congress. What happened to Clinton will be child's play compared to what these guys will do when faced with the possibility of prison - or worse, as traitors. Are there more David Brocks out there, hovering on the brink of lucidity, potentially able to wake up when the dirty tricks finally go too far? Or has this bunch made it abundantly clear that such behavior will not be tolerated?

Posted by Becky at 09:51 PM |