« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 30, 2006

Dissing the Establishment Clause

[Updated below.]

(Sorry I've been away from PK for a while now [or, if you didn't like my stuff that much anyway, you're welcome]. I've been tending my own garden a little more in the last few weeks.)

What with the release of the NIE documenting that we've made terrorism worse (or better, depending on whose side you'r'e on) in Iraq, America joining the ranks of torture capital around the world, and the news that the Republican co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus just resigned over predatory emails to a 16-year-old boy, perhaps it's understandable that this one snuck under my First Amendment radar:

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.

Think of it as a supply-side remedy to all those pesky "No Ten Commandments in the Courthouse" suits:

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

In the time left before the devoutly-to-be-wished pre-election congressional recess, the Senate may decide it has other matters to deal with besides this. We can only hope.

Update: The vote was predictable: Walden voted for this piece of unAmericana; Wu, Blumenauer, Hooley, and DeFazio voted against it. (Are you listening, Carol Voisin?)

And georgia10 at DailyKOS adds this:

To see just how disturbing this bill really is, check out the House report on the bill. Most notably, there were several amendments offered in committee to try and temper the effects of the bill. For example, the committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Nadler that would have exempted from the bill cases "involving a declaration of an official religion."

Posted by Nothstine at 08:17 AM |

September 29, 2006

Jesse Ventura, Insulting the Devil, and Global Warming

Some articles I thought you might enjoy:

Interested in seeing what former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is up to these days? His new look might not be the only thing that surprises you.

It appears Hugo Chavez isn't the only major politician down south who isn't fond of President Bush.

And check out why one NASA scientist says, "one degree and we're done for." Kinda makes habeas corpus pale in significance.

Posted by Becky at 10:20 AM |

The President is Mocking You and Me

Yesterday, President Bush gave a speech in which his tone was so dismissive of many patriotic Americans that I wanted to slap his face. He said those who opposed his pro-torture bill don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror. Never forget that when the President mocks our elected representatives, he's mocking us. And because of the complicity of the main stream media, he's going to get away with this baloney.

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing," Bush said at a Republican fundraiser.

"The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush told a convention-center audience of over 2,000 people. The event put $2.5 million in the campaign accounts of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley and the state GOP.

Now, look at how the AP characterized the bill, which even allows rape as an acceptable "interrogation" technique, and tell me whether you think the average voter would understand the danger in which the Republicans have just placed this country:

The president also criticized House Democrats, including their leadership, who voted this week against a White House plan for interrogating, detaining and trying terrorists. "We must give our professionals the tools they need to protect the American people in this war on terror and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill," he said.

Note his use of the word "professionals." Funny that the professionals from the CIA actually refused to continue their oversight of our interrogation of detainees because it was too harsh. I wonder what kind of professionals the President intends to employ.

Posted by Becky at 06:33 AM |

September 28, 2006

Campaign Ad filmed in Church... by a Democrat

Campaign Ad Filmed in Church Divisive, "Crosses the Line"

Discuss.

Posted by Kevin at 07:44 PM |

Southern Baptists wanna go negative, surprising nobody

Land: Majority of Baptists support Bush

Land, who also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent and bipartisan federal agency, said the United States needs to worry less about trying to improve its image in the Middle East.

Instead, Land says, "we ought to go negative."

"We ought to be spending our money explaining what the Middle East would look like if the jihadists win, what Afghanistan looked like when the Taliban was in control and what the role of women was.

"We need to focus more on the fact that most people being killed in Iraq are not Americans but Muslims being killed by other Muslims," he said. "If democracy loses in the Middle East, it's Muslims who will be the primary losers."

The biggest problem I see with what Mr. Land is suggesting here is that there are apparently a lot of folks in the region who don't want either of his two choices - Islamic terrorists or western-styled democracy imposed at the end of a gun barrel and with a blatent ethical and moral double-standard wherein we can imprison them where, when, why and for as long as we wish and be accountable to absolutely nobody for any of it while on the other hand we lecture them repeatedly about the desirability of doing things our way.

To make a very loose historical analogy... think of some of the former Soviet Block nations in Europe. The brave freedom fighters in Prague didn't want either the Russian Communists nor the German Nazis who went before them. As the Soviet forces slowly beat back the Germans in the waning days of WWII undoubtedly more than a few citizens, had they known what was coming, would have vastly preferred to both be rid of the Nazis and to be left alone to pursue their own course.

Recall that the Soviets too were fond of extra-judicial imprisonment and kangroo courts where defendents had virtually no rights, just as president Bush is.

Some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East were propped up at various times by American governments. Saddam in Iraq (Reagan) and the Shah in Iran (Nixon, Ford, Carter) top the list.

Rather than "going negative" as the allegedly Christian Mr. Land suggests, we could instead stop using the Arab people as our own personal bitchs in the name of supposed freedom.

Posted by Kevin at 07:31 PM |

Mark Foley Needs A Good Ass-Kicking

How would you feel if you sent your 16-year-old son off to work as a page in the offices of Congress, and subsequently he began receiving emails like these from one of the Congressmen:

"glad your home safe and sound...we dont go back into session until Sept 5....its a nice long break...I am back in Florida now...its nice here..been raining today...It sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks...how old are you now?..."

"I am in North Carolina...and it was 100 in New Orleans...wow that's really hot...well do you miss DC...Its raining here but 68 degrees so who can argue...did you have fun at your conference...what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do"

"I just emailed will...hes such a nice guy...acts much older than his age...and hes in really great shape...I am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym...whats school like for you this year?"

"how are you weathering the hurricane...are you safe...send me an email pic of you as well..."

Would you believe those emails were purely innocent, or would you want to kick a certain Congressman's ass from here to China? I think Republican Congressman Mark Foley has some explaining to do. On second thought, I don't much have the stomach for more Republican liars, so maybe he ought to keep his trap shut.

Posted by Becky at 04:35 PM |

Perspectives from Israel

It's always interesting to read the perspectives on current events of people in other parts of the world, and three different pieces from the same news source, Israel News have caught my eye the last two days:

This article talks about Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with Muslim leaders this week and reveals the intractability of Christian-Muslim tensions.

This one lays out the similarities between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and U.S. President Bush.

Finally, this one looks at Israel's preoccupation with the Iranian threat and says only God can help the country. Two quotes struck me: "No one would dare do to a nuclear Iran what was done to Afghanistan and Iraq." And "Israel's true role in this affair is just to be a hostage. The great Satan's pet, the Big Brother's little sister, the one that will suffer several heavy blows if anyone lifts its hand at the Iranian bully."

Posted by Becky at 12:02 PM |

Onward Christofascist Soldiers?

Apparently so.

Pastor Becky Fischer, the camp's leader, says the point of the camp is to encourage attendees to "take back America for Christ."

"I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," she said.

14 young Islamists arrested in a foiled terrorist plot in Syria.

In Sinai's pocket of poverty, young Islamists' rage boiling over

Blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was the biggest single act of terrorism so far on American soil. For the anti-government radicals in Algeria, such actions are child's play. Apart from the almost daily dose of car bombs in the capital, Algiers, entire villages have been annihilated and its residents decapitated. Buses are found by the roadside, passengers' throats slit ear-to-ear. Intellectuals, journalists and foreigners are targeted. All told, in the past five years, 60,000 Algerians have died in a campaign of unprecedented ferocity. - How real terrorists do it

Just remember what Dear Leader keeps telling us... we're fighting "them" over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

Posted by Kevin at 10:18 AM |

We Will All Pay when Bush Nukes Iran

"The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East." So begins the latest editorial by Paul Craig Roberts, Why Bush Will Nuke Iran. The entire editorial is so gripping, and really so terrifying if you think about it, that I won't even try to summarize it here. Go read it. I think you will conclude, as Roberts does, that "It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics."

Posted by Becky at 09:33 AM |

Republicans are immoral assholes who hate America

Whatever pretense of morality the Republican Party pretended to cling to fell away this morning when they decided to vote for Bush's latest pretend anti-terrorism bill.

This unAmerican, amoral, piece of garbage legislation is a cynical use of law by Republicans desperate to hold on to power at the midterms.

This bill would allow raping of prisoners as a debate tactic.

Any Democrat or Republican who votes for this bill has absolved themselves of the right to be called an American, as far as I'm concerned.

I am deeply ashamed that these are the people who represent this nation in government.

My own Senator, Gordon Smith, is voting FOR this thing. He deserves nothing but scorn and disgust from his fellow Oregonians. He is a sick example of the depths to which Republicans will go to grasp power. He nauseates me to the core.

Update: I don't know if it was a slew of phone calls or if this was reported incorrectly this morning--but Smith voted AGAINST it in the end, as I understand it. So I take back what I sad about him.

Posted by Carla at 08:56 AM |

September 27, 2006

Listen to the Generals

President Bush might not be listening to the generals who are speaking out against his handling of the War in Iraq, but that doesn't mean you can't listen to them.

Inform yourself about what the generals are really thinking. Watch this video from a Senate hearing yesterday of Major General John Batiste, a lifelong Republican who resigned from service so he could tell you what is going on. Don't let our military's loss of this brave leader be for nothing.

Posted by Becky at 05:48 PM |

Ted Piccolo is a Smirking Chimp, Too

I just had to shake my head this morning when I saw this post by Ted Piccolo asserting that because blogger Hart Williams has also made a living writing pornography in the past, we can dismiss out of hand the significance of his research into Howard Rich's clandestine political machine. This is a rather strange twist for a guy who's always complaining that no one will debate the issues. Particularly when he belongs to a party that is addicted to pornography.

Ted writes:

Of course now that I am publishing this story it means that I have been in touch with the mother ship and probably plotting the removal of another planet in our solar system... I am a bad, BAD man.

Unfortunately, Ted's oversized ego and undersized intellect prevents him from seeing the matter any other way.

Anyhoo, Ted, who obviously has his head up Howard Rich's ass, believes Rich never tried to hide anything, so voila, there is no conspiracy. I've been communicating off and on with a former Howard Rich insider who has repeatedly assured me that the group did NOT wish to be discovered. And it has been extremely clear, if you've followed Hart's research on Boregasm, that my source's assertions are correct - his group went to great lengths to cover their tracks. In fact, this person expressed shock when, once their secrets were coming to light, Rich, et al abandoned their secrecy and confirmed their involvement like it was no big deal.

But let's get on with Ted's primary assertion: basically, he thinks Hart is a pervert; therefore, his theory that there was a secret conspiracy (which, unfortunately for Howard Rich and all the idiots on his payroll, is based on solid factual evidence) is nonsense.

If having an interest in pornography entirely discredits a person, then the Republican party is in deep doo-doo. Not only has porn star Mary Carey attended a Republican fundraiser where the President helped raise $23 million for congressional campaigns in 2005, she also attended a Presidential dinner at the White House. Then there was that whole unfortunate Jeff Gannon scandal. In fact, there are quite a few very perverted Republicans out there, and if you are interested in further reading, there have been a mind-boggling array of Republican sex scandals throughout the years. You can find numerous surveys and news reports showing that the porn industry is just as lucrative in the Bible Belt and Salt Lake City as it is anywhere else. So I found it rather hilarious that the Portland Mercury's 2002 sex survey found that 26% of Republicans surveyed stick foreign objects in their bottoms. Now that's a party you can be proud of.

Hart Williams has posted a response of his own at the originating website where Ted gets his material (because, as we all know, he's incapable of doing any credible research on his own):

Jeepers. I suppose that I am a horrible person and all that, but I've never made any secret about my background in porn. In fact, I've always used my real name, precisely because I expected some guttersnipe to eventually show up and scream PORNO!!!! as if that were an argument.

Well, it might be to prudes, censors, bluenoses and other enemies of the First Amendment. But, really, without having viewed the work, you have no idea whether it's Marilyn Manson or Auguste Rodin.

Or, the difference between erotica and pornography is a matter of taste. But this has no bearing on stealth PACs, campaigns and bullying, does it?

But, while you're casting reflected aspersions, riddle me this ...

Let's test your PsychoDdrama IQ: Having been dissed by "Brandy Alexandre" -- how credible an attack do you believe that to be?

I mean, in all of your careful research, you MUST have found that I am the only person that Ms. Alexandre ever flamed. Right?

Anyway, thanks for being the attack dog. You never REALLY know that you're upsetting the opposition until they start slinging mud.

Odd that I can write 50,000 words on the various questionable practices of the friends of Howie Rich and the only answer that comes back is --- MOMMY! HART'S A PORNOGRAPHER!!!!

Ad hominem ad infinitum.

Amen

-- Hart Williams

While Hart's current writings may not be as exciting as pornography, those who get all pumped up over politics - and even those who just care about their own kids' futures - should read what Hart has written under the pen name of Ed Waldo. It's pretty fascinating stuff. Rich breaks the rules and uses the extreme wealth of his many influential connections to circumvent the democratic process. He knows you won't support the changes he proposes if you really understand them. That's why he tried so hard to hide the fact that multiple groundbreaking ballot measures in 13 states were not grassroots at all, but were rather the product of a small group of profit-driven rich guys who don't like playing fair.

Posted by Becky at 09:35 AM |

September 26, 2006

It's All About the Children

A co-worker of mine told me this morning that she has left her husband because he is physically abusing her teenage son. To her great credit, she left him the first time she saw him punch the boy - for no reason. At the police station, her son was taken aside and interviewed. Only then did she learn that the abuse had been going on for some time, with the father often punching him so hard he fell to the floor. I know this boy. He's a good kid – and he's a big kid, not one who would easily fall to the floor. My friend was told by the police that they could not charge her husband because the boy had no bruises or injuries.

How interesting it is that a report has come out today showing that Oregon is not doing a good job of protecting the well-being of children. Non-profit groups are unable to keep up with the need for help for child abuse victims, and growing drug abuse and other family stressors are making it worse.

Some time ago, I read something that has stuck with me ever since. If you want to know how well a society is doing, look at the way it treats its children. We ought to be very concerned about what this report says about the state of our families and our society.

Posted by Becky at 09:56 AM |

September 25, 2006

Bend Bulletin Recommends Censorship

It seems the Bend Bulletin editors believe in censorship. They write in an editorial today that it is just plain wrong to allow people to put ironic or sarcastic statements in the official Voter Pamphlet claiming to support or oppose a ballot measure when the clear intent of the person filing the statement is actually the opposite.

I think irony and sarcasm can peel away the phony façade of a political argument faster than anything else. That's the very reason we love political comedy and why it is so absolutely crucial to good government. As Thom Hartmann pointed out recently on his excellent morning show on KPOJ, this was the job of the court jester – the only one who could really tell the truth about politics. In the case of Voter Pamphlet statements, the humor is dramatically weakened if an ironic or sarcastic "pro" statement must be filed with the other, more staid, "con" arguments.

But apparently the editors of the Bend Bulletin think such communication tools are somehow inferior and do not belong in politics. I say, if they can't tolerate free speech, then they're in the wrong business.

Posted by Becky at 05:01 PM |

There Goes that Liberal Media Again

I get so tired of the right wing's ardent belief that the media is liberal. And rarely does one get a more poignant example than this. If ever there was a time to read the foreign press, it's now.

Posted by Becky at 01:57 PM |

Finally, Healthy Hospital Food

Have you ever eaten hospital food? I've had three surgeries, two births, and a two-day hospital stay with a sick child. I also worked part time for three years in a hospital while in high school. So I've eaten my share of the crap they pass off as food to their sick patients. Gooey white bread, pasty gravy, soggy canned vegetables, sugary desserts, sweetened canned fruit, deep fried ick, and processed entrees that taste like TV dinners. It has always amazed me that the major purveyors of health care somehow don't seem to make the connection between what you put into your body and how well your body will function.

Finally, hospitals are starting to get it, serving meals that are so healthy they don't have to modify the standard meal plan to meet particular patients' health needs (such as low-sodium or low-fat), and so tasty people come to eat there even when they aren't patients in the hospital. Oregon Health Sciences University is one of the hospitals making major changes, and since they have done so, their food sales have more than doubled.

Makes you wonder about the veracity of the argument that kids in public schools wouldn't eat healthy food if cafeterias served it.

Posted by Becky at 09:08 AM |

She's de Debil!

I couldn't help but think of Bobby Bouchet's mother when I read this story this morning. Jerry Falwell says that if Hillary Clinton was running for President, religious conservatives would be more mobilized than if the Lucifer himself were a candidate.

Of course, it's all blustering nonsense. If someone believes the Devil actually exists and they would still choose the Devil over Hillary, you really have to wonder what is wrong with their brain.

But then Falwell was addressing the faithful at the "Values Voter Summit," where attendees at a prayer breakfast were also assured that God would keep Congress in Republican hands (does that mean Diebold is God?). Falwell's staff later said he did not intend to demonize Hillary. But clearly the Christian vote manipulators speaking at the conference intended to demonize the entire Democratic party – after all, God Himself apparently doesn't want them elected.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

People Eating Tasty Cockroaches

Stunts like this are why PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) lacks credibility. Seems PETA has a problem with the way Six Flags Great America is planning to celebrate Halloween – by allowing unlimited line-jumps to anyone willing to eat a live Madagascar hissing cockroach.

PETA says eating live cockroaches is "gratuitously cruel." The park, looking equally ridiculous, defends itself by saying cockroaches are nutritious, high in protein and fat free – as if nutrition will be a factor in some 18-year-old's decision to eat a 3 inch long cockroach.

Getting upset over people eating cockroaches is as ridiculous as getting upset over people eating shrimp. And if the problem is that the bugs are being eaten alive, well, is there a more humane way to kill a bug than to crush it, which is what happens when you chew it up? PETA would get much further if it stuck to its message about the cruelty of animal treatment in the fur and commercial meat production industries and left silly stunts like this alone.

Posted by Becky at 09:00 AM |

September 24, 2006

Give 'em hell, Bill

All I can say in response to this headline - Angry Clinton defends record on fighting al-Qaida - is: Bravo!

I've never been a particular fan, nor hater, of Bill Clinton. I voted for him in 1992 after having watched two more preferable candidates (first Tsongas and then Perot) cease to be viable options. But I voted for Dole in '96 and I strongly supported Clinton's Impeachment on the material facts of the case. The average of which I would describe as middle-of-the-road. But not on this day!

One thing that has really irked me for the last 5 years has been the attempt by rightwing partisans to blame 9/11 on Clinton. But what did Bush do differently prior to the tragic events of that day? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing which could be construed as even remotely more constructive towards heading off the threat that al Queda posed to America. To the point that he was found sitting in a grade school classroom in Florida reading a childrens book as the events unfolded that day. If the threat from al Queda was so blindingly obvious, as the rightwing freaks and their media lapdogs would have us believe, then surely he could have found something at least slightly more constructive to do with his time!

Even after 9/11 the Bush record on pursuit of Osama bin Laden is anemic at best (bordering on traitorous at worst...).

So I say Bravo to president Clinton for vigorously pointing out the facts to NeoCon lapdog Chris Wallace.

Posted by Kevin at 06:44 PM |

Political Ad Of The Year

Writers at the Washington Post have been pouring over a ton of ads for this cycle, and have come up with one big one, taking a bit from all of them.

It reminds us of just how silly political advertising has become. Worth the read...

ANNOUNCER: It's the big squeeze. Taxes go up every year. Gas prices through the roof. The cost of living is skyrocketing. The legislature wastes more and more. Every week brings new scandals. People are leaving our state. Criminals are coming across the border, victimizing American citizens.

Are you tired of politics as usual? Do you ever feel like no one's representing your interests? Isn't it time for a fresh start?

CANDIDATE: We need to make a change. We need real change. It's time to change the way things are done in Washington. If you want a change, I'm your guy.

ANNOUNCER: Grandson of a farmer. Son of a police officer. Raised by a single mother. Born in a rural small town. His values were shaped in rural Arkansas, a half-mile down a dirt road. A paper route earned a new bike.

He worked his way up from poverty to Harvard Law. He volunteered and saw combat in Vietnam. He built an investment company from the ground up. With his wife, Debby, he founded Kids Reading Network in honor of his mother.

He was elected mayor. Cut taxes. Created jobs. Balanced the budget. Cut waste, fraud and abuse. Abolished 71 obsolete boards, commissions and task forces. Turned the city around.

CANDIDATE: I want to set the record straight. I'm opposed to illegal immigration and methamphetamine. I believe in the wonders of science. I believe you deserve better. I believe our state needs government that works -- servant leadership. Our children deserve a senator who wants the job. That's why I'm running for governor.

ANNOUNCER: The choice? A successful businessman and mayor -- or an ineffective congressman.

She's a liberal, supports gun control, abortion on demand, mandatory gay rights. He voted against strengthening criminal laws against terrorist attacks. He voted against the Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement the tools to fight terrorism. Weakening America's security. Out of touch with Ohio values.

CANDIDATE: The choice in this race is simple. If you're satisfied with the way things are, I'm not your candidate. I believe change starts with ideas. You deserve good ideas. But more importantly, you deserve a governor who gets the job done for you.

I'll stand up for the little guy. It's that simple. It's that fair. It's that important. And I'm not just talking about these issues. I've done something about them.

ANNOUNCER: Protecting the California dream. Changing Maryland for the better. Ready to lead Massachusetts. Turn around Ohio. Make Wisconsin great again.

Colorado values. Nebraska values. Nebraska common sense. Real Montana.

CANDIDATE: This grandma wants to shake Austin up. Bring some passion back to Albany. We need a senator who will stand up for New Jersey. I'll fight for Florida. I'll fight for Iowa's future. That's the Colorado promise -- and mine, too.

ANNOUNCER: Courageous, determined, a fighter for our issues. Challenging politics as usual with honest ideas to lift our state. Hard work. Results.

CANDIDATE: I approved this message about conservative change. I approved this message because working together is the only way to solve our problems. I approved this message because I won't play politics with our security. I approved this message because we've got a great future here in Michigan and I'm fighting for it every day.

ANNOUNCER: It's time to have a governor on our side.

CANDIDATE: I approved this message because it's time for a new politics of unity and purpose. I approved this message because when good ideas cross party lines, we should, too. I approved this message because we really need to know how our representatives vote.

ANNOUNCER: Smart solutions that work.

CANDIDATE: I sponsored this ad because we need someone on our side. I sponsored this ad because we need to protect our borders. I sponsored this ad because you can't change Washington unless you change the people you send there.

ANNOUNCER: Together we can.

CANDIDATE: Why the hell not?

Posted by Alan at 06:38 AM |

September 23, 2006

Something for the Christian Right to Consider

Every member of the Christian Right who is considering continuing their support of Republicans who are standing behind the President in his effort to legalize torture should read R.J. Eskow's "Death of a Torture Victim." I have not seen it more clearly demonstrated how like the ancient Pharisees the current crop of Christian leaders really are.

Posted by Becky at 01:17 PM |

Christians with Values Told to Vote Republican

Christian leaders, activists and politicians have gathered in Washington, DC for the Values Voter Summit, a slick conference sponsored by the Family Research Council, Americans United to Preserve Marriage, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family in an effort to shore up lagging Christian support for Republicans. The group is discussing abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, judicial reform, feminism, liberal media, the "millions of Muslims" who want us all dead, and "the role of the church in political issues" – and they even have a session on "exposing liberal groups." The conference is clearly Christian and Republican, and its name smacks of the ignorant belief that only Christian Republicans have "values."

Noteworthy speakers at the Values Voter Summit include Senator George Allen (R-VA) (of "macaca" fame), Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Brent Bozell, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Anne Coulter, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sean Hannity, Katherine Harris, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Ron Luce (Founder of Teen Mania youth ministries), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Tony Perkins, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Tony Snow, and Paul Weyrich. Notably absent are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

To ensure the attending theocratic patriots don't miss the whole point of their get-together, the schedule for Friday began with an invocation (prayer), the Pledge of Allegiance, and the National Anthem. This morning's political discussions began with a session of "praise and worship." Emphasizing the point, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline and former Virginia Attorney Generak Mark Earley spoke at a session entitled "Attorney General in the Culture War." Today's program features a session entitled, "In Defense of Mixing Church and State from Acts 16" (read at least one person's view on this subject here).

Press who have attended the events so far are reporting that attendees are being urged to set aside their frustrations with President Bush and turn out for Republican candidates (42% of white evangelicals disapprove of the job Bush is doing). Because only Republicans have values, don't you know. As James Dobson put it, "There is no choice, because the alternative is terrible." Pastors are being urged to press the social conservative agenda from the pulpit and ignore the threat of IRS investigations. Speakers are offering pastors advice on how far they can push the line without crossing it (of course, the individuals giving the advice are not attorneys – and as Americans United for Separation of Church and State points out, they are giving bad advice).

Attendees were treated to a sneak preview of the epic motion picture "One Night with the King," the Old Testament story of Esther, which will be released in theaters on Friday the 13th of October. Interestingly, the book of Esther, believed to be a true story by much of the Christian world, is actually a Hebrew modification of the ancient Egyptian astrological story of Ishtar and wasn't originally included in the Bible. True or not, its message of Providence and Divine rescue is sure to strike a chord in the hearts of a frightened populace - something which has not been overlooked by event planners.

Speakers are conflating the war on terrorism with family values, saying that we must protect our families and characterizing current world events as a war between Christianity and Islam. James Dobson told attendees, "millions of Muslims want to kill us," and went on to explain:

We have more than 100 members of the press here. I want to make it very, very clear that we are not saying, at least I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, that all of them want to kill us, that all of them are terrorists. I want to tell you this. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage of a big number is a very big number. And out of 1.2 billion, the estimates I've seen are indicate that somewhere between 10 and 15 percent do buy into the notion that jihad calls for the killing of infidels.

In a nutshell, Christian voters are getting a very clear message from the non-profit, non-partisan sponsors of this Value Voter Summit: Set aside your disappointment over Republicans' lack of commitment to your "values" like gay marriage, abortion, and liberal media. Don't hold them accountable for breaking their promises to you. Because the Democrats are worse – much worse. And they won't protect you from the biggest threat of all – Muslims who want to kill you.

Posted by Becky at 11:12 AM |

Time To Tell The Kids?

Another Episcopalian Diocese is considering a gay man to be their Bishop

The Episcopal Diocese of Newark was voting for a new bishop Saturday, with an openly gay priest among the six candidates.

The election in the historically liberal diocese comes at a time when divisions over the Bible and sexuality are threatening the denomination and the worldwide Anglican family.

A win by Canon Michael Barlowe, 51, would put the diocese at the center of a crisis over whether Anglicans who disagree about ordaining gays can stay in the same fellowship.

Now, I'm not a member of the church, and I'm not "rooting" for anyone to be elected. But what this does show, in my opinion, is that it's probably time for the church to do what the rest of us see coming - split.

Splitting isn't something anyone really ever wants to do. But sometimes, when you have two groups in the same church going in two very obviously different directions, it's for the best for both parties to go their own way.

I just hope that they are able to do it in a Christian way.

Posted by Alan at 07:37 AM |

September 22, 2006

Howard Rich on the Tee Vee

You don't want to miss the PBS special report tonight at 9:30 on Howard Rich and the questionable tactics he used to put initiatives on the ballots of several states. If you don't catch it, streaming video will be available at the web site after the show.

While you're at it, take a gander at the PBS interview with blogger Hart Williams, a.k.a. Ed Waldo from Boregasm, a personal hero of mine who played a crucial role in the dot-connection that lifted the curtain behind which Rich tried to hide his dirty dealings.

Posted by Becky at 12:52 PM |

Iraqis in Constant State of Terror

In case you've been missing the daily reports of tortured bodies dumped all over Iraq, Manfred Nowak, a UN official, has just issued a report claiming that the state of terror for the citizens of Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein – and the torture occurring in US detention centers and at the hands of Iraqi police may even be worse than that inflicted before we went in to bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people. I think I've recounted enough explicit descriptions of torture here in the last couple of days, so I'll leave it to you to read the article if you want to know the signs of torture showing up regularly on these bodies. Suffice it to say, modern power tools have expanded people's creative torture options.

The report points out the government in most of Iraq is completely broken down and in a state of primal anarchy. Nowak quotes a US Army major as saying that everyone is at war with everyone else, and the only protection people have is what they provide for themselves. The only reason the world does not know how desperate conditions are is because it is so unsafe for journalists (134 of them have been killed in Iraq during this war) that they will not go in to cover the news. Even members of the CIA have rebelled over our torture activities after being sickened by the brutality of what they saw.

And with around 100 Iraqis dying each day now, the White House's spin machine ain't spinnin' so well these days.

Bad news has cascaded out of Iraq at such an astonishing pace that it defies credulity to suggest that the war has not drastically worsened the lives of Iraqis. ...

The problem for Bush... is that many Americans are now connecting the dots and realizing that Bush's own actions brought terrorism to Iraq. So his pleas to stay the course and fix the problem he created can only garner limited sympathy.

So much for winning hearts and minds.

Posted by Becky at 11:42 AM |

Frankenfoods Are Taking Over

Due to recent discoveries about the state of my health, I have decided to go on a diet of organic foods (which I am delighted to report taste much better than standard grocery store produce). My reasoning is because of the lack of pesticides and herbicides, but I also have had concerns about genetically modified food (which, as I understand it, cannot be labeled "organic"). My father's best friend actually works in the sugar beet industry and has explained to me why we need not worry about these foods. Still, the reports are disturbing.

Deborah Rich, an olive farmer and agricultural writer for The San Francisco Chronicle, writes today about her concerns with the so-called "Frankenfoods" being engineered and served daily to nearly all Americans, who don't even realize it.

Almost all soybeans and more than half of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered. These two foods are in so many processed foods that most Americans are eating them – as are our livestock and poultry. It is a vast experiment, as we literally do not know the extent of any negative effects on the human body or on the environment. We've all heard the justifications – reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, longer shelf life, and the ability to feed all the hungry people in the world. But according to Rich these benefits are not actually coming about.

The price of modified seed includes a technology fee that effectively siphons off the bulk of any additional revenue farmers might gain from reduced pest damage or decreased management costs.

Many hoped that genetically engineered crops would help the environment by cutting pesticide use. We should have known that growing crops engineered to tolerate herbicides could lead to more chemical use. A 2004 analysis funded by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that the introduction of engineered corn, soybeans and cotton caused a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996.

And because resistant crops have encouraged near constant use of one or two classes of herbicides, superweeds that withstand the chemicals have now emerged and will require ever more potent poisons to control.

Another hope was that gene tinkering would help end world hunger. But the dream of concocting drought-tolerant, insect-resistant, nutrient-dense supreme species ignores the reality of global markets already awash in food. Hunger and malnutrition result from poverty, not a lack of food in the world.

I would add to that the fact that much of the Third World's food distribution problems are directly linked to government corruption.

What is really scary is that research increasingly raises alarms, demonstrating the likelihood that our bodies might not respond well to this genetically engineered produce. Imagine that – we once had an entire ecological system in perfect balance, and even with all we know today we still seem to believe we can tweak some things here and there and nothing bad will happen. Well, we're wrong.

Among the findings: abnormal white and red blood cell counts and inflammation of the kidney in rats fed genetically engineered corn, accelerated growth of stomach and intestinal tissues of rats fed engineered potatoes, and immune responses in mice fed altered peas.

So what happens if we find out this stuff is really dangerous? Can't we just stop planting it and go back to our old seeds? Unfortunately, no.

[P]ollen from genetically engineered crops is on the move. In a recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 50 percent of nonengineered corn and soybean varieties tested by one laboratory contained DNA from engineered versions. Chasing down and eliminating this freeflowing DNA from our seed supply, should the need arise, will require Herculean effort.

Not only are natural foods being polluted by genetically engineered foods, but also companies like Monsanto, which own a vast percentage of the seed industry, can remove any non-modified seed it owns from the market any time it wants to and we can't do anything about it. Could it be that someday, no matter how much we want it, there simply will not be any organic food left in the world? If so, what does that mean for people with fragile health, like me? Rather than being able to help ourselves through natural means, such as a combination of diet, exercise, and natural supplements, we will have no other options but to submit to pharmacology, with all its ugly side effects. It frankly pisses me off.

Posted by Becky at 10:24 AM |

They don't hate our freedom. They hate our hypocrisy.

There are an estimated 14,000 detainees throughout the Bush prison system, world wide. Let's take one example:

Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi was released uncharged last month from an unnamed Bush prison (presumably Abu Ghraib). He had been held for nearly two years. Without charge. Without trial. Without explanation.

Bush keeps telling us that "they hate our freedom." What freedom? The freedom to imprison and torture at will and without recourse and for as long as we like??? That's not a "freedom" that can be found anywhere in American jurisprudence. It most certainly is starkly at odds with the inalienable rights which underpin American notions of "freedom" and "justice." Our ancestors rebelled against British rule for far, far less egregious injustices!

In responding to a question about General Colin Powell's questioning the moral basis of his pathological obsession with torture, President Bush tried to sweep the issue aside by retorting:

BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic

Really?

So the actions of the UnaBomber, Jeffrey Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh were compassionate and decent enough to warrant their being granted fundamental, inalienable rights that those terrible Islamofacists need to be denied? Even those innocent Muslims who eventually get released without charge, explanation or apology?

Can there be any doubt that President Bush is the kind of demagogue that H.L. Mencken was thinking of when he said, "the demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots"?

But then again... this is the same George W. Bush who smirkingly mocked Karla Faye Tucker's plea for clemency. So perhaps he's not a demagogue. Maybe he's just lacking any personal moral compass. How else do we reconcile the mocking of the condemned with this fixation with torturing the innocent and guilty alike?

While you are pondering that, take a minute to peruse this fascinating post: The Pentagon on why they hate us. It seems that Rumsfeld's civilian ideological minders let some honesty slip through.

Posted by Kevin at 07:35 AM |

September 21, 2006

The Panicked Voices in My Head

God help us: it is looking more and more as if 2008 might pit Hillary Clinton against Newt Gingrich in a run for President. I just don't know if I can take it. Newt is a horrible person. Hillary is a compulsive liar. What kind of a choice is that?

So anyway, I was pretty irritated this morning to read about two individuals who are coming to the defense of the Pope: Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Why did they have to go and do that? Now I'm even more dismayed about the next Presidential election and the future of our country.

What Hillary said:

It's just outrageous and offensive that people would be threatening violence against him based on what he said, especially when there is so much they should be working on together.

What Newt said:

I think what he said in his entire speech ... is that Islam has to come to grips with having a genuine dialogue of mutual respect. Everything you've seen of the viciousness and the evil that has been said since then by fanatics reinforces the pope's speech.

I don't for one second believe these two very sophisticated politicians didn't understand what the pope pulled with his speech. So why are they speaking out in support of him? Are they both committed to the same international cause as our current administration? It has been looking that way to me for a long time.

When Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into law, is pal-ing around with George H.W. Bush, Hillary Clinton supports the War, and Laura Bush is keynote speaker at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative conference, it all just makes your head want to explode. Somehow, the conspiracy theorist in me finds relevance to this, this, and this. Someone pour me a drink.

Posted by Becky at 11:22 AM |

American Fundamentalists Fear Iranian Fundamentalists

I couldn't help but shake my head this morning as I read WorldNet Daily's breathless reporting on the dangerous, apocalyptic visions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I don't dispute the man has these visions; nor do I dispute that they are dangerous. What gets me is that WorldNet Daily caters to the Christian right and apparently is blind to the identical situation here in our own country, where our born-again Christian president and the majority of Americans also believe in the Apocalypse.

Ahmadinejad's closing remarks at his U.N speech are described by WorldNet Daily as "chilling":

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet," Ahmadinejad said. "Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

If he had replaced "human being" with "One" or "Son of God" this very statement would quickly go from "chilling" to thrilling – to the Christian right, that is.

The article warns of Iran's "mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah," saying it is of concern because of the country's "potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad envisions will set the stage for the end of the world." Many around the world fear the preoccupation of the Christian right and President Bush with the Second Coming of Christ and the Apocalypse, combined with U.S. military might and interference in the Middle East, for the very same reason.

The article warns, "Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi." Bush has frightened many by saying very similar things. For instance, he is reported to have said he believes God talks to him.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

And just as the Christian right is pushing for moral revival in the U.S. (even the President has claimed he believes America is in a Third Awakening), "Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West." Read the following and think about the parallels to today's evangelism, youth camps, the emergence of FoxFaith and other religious media, and more:

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will he rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

And horror of horrors, end-times beliefs appeal to one in five Iranians! Perhaps WorldNet Daily didn't realize that 59% of Americans believe Revelation's end-times prophecies.

Posted by Becky at 11:13 AM |

September 20, 2006

Fox Seeks Christian Cash and Loyalty

"The company that brought TV viewers racy and irreverent programs such as 'Nip/Tuck,' 'Temptation Island' and 'The Simpsons' has found religion." So begins this story about Fox Entertainment's new "FoxFaith" film production and distribution division. Having seen the green from "The Passion of the Christ," they've decided that while they're busy raking it in from the sinners, they might just as well be raking it in from the saints, too.

And how better to wed the Christian world to the right wing than to link Fox to Religion?

Fox might seem an unlikely studio to pioneer a religious label, given its history as a purveyor of salacious TV programming. Yet people in the Christian community say the company has gained credibility as the voice for conservative America through its Fox News Channel.

Just as labeling our irreverent drug-using, heavy-drinking, womanizing President a "born again Christian" automatically turned off the brains of many in America's Christian community, so linking Fox to religion will ensure that the religious right fully, mindlessly accepts whatever clap-trap and propaganda Fox News dishes up. What a shame.

Posted by Becky at 11:23 AM |

Naughty Petitioners Cost Rich a Fortune

Betsy Hammond at The Oregonian has written a mildly interesting piece about the initiative battles around the country, which have managed to pare down the number of states voting on TABOR spin-off measures to three. A far better report on the current state of affairs in this on-going soap opera can be found here. It's an incredible saga of millions and millions of dollars spent already by both sides, and the sorry-ass crooked petitioners who have managed to blow it for the anti-government folks who very much would like to bust the system that ended those petitioners' misdeeds. Well worth a read.

Incidentally, I have the Montana District Court's scathing decision in which he threw three of Howard Rich's initiatives off the ballot because petitioners so overwhelmingly violated the law in gathering the signatures. I will happily email a copy to anyone who emails me a request with the words "Montana court decision request" in the subject line.

Posted by Becky at 10:42 AM |

Patriotism and Torture

The discussions we have had here this past week about the Pope's antagonism to the Islamic world, the importance – or lack thereof – of history, and whether or not the U.S. bears culpability in the current conflict of cultures has only heightened my concern that because the MSM has failed to do its job, Americans do not know or understand the depths of evil to which our own anger since 9/11 has pushed us, nor do we understand the rising anger in the Muslim world where the truth is known - hence it seems irrationally violent. We still seem to believe America is always righteous and good and kind, and our opponents are always irrational, evil and violent. Anyone who points out otherwise is treated as traitorous. I maintain that those who demand that Americans wake up and put a stop to this madness are the ones who are the true patriots, and those who bury their heads in the sand are abandoning their duty to their country.

Joe Conason writes today about that very thing in "Opponents of Torture Are True Patriots." You owe it to yourself and this country to read what he has written – especially if you are a Christian.

It is strange but true that the country’s most prominent spokesmen for the Prince of Peace and for tradition and morality are also its most outspoken proponents of torture. These worthies are unfazed to learn that this government is responsible for the bloody medieval abuse of innocent men, like the Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was sent to a Syrian dungeon on baseless suspicion.

The Reverend Louis Sheldon, who heads an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition, has indignantly warned Senator McCain that opposing torture may mean forfeiting the support of evangelical leaders in 2008.

What are we to make of the fact that men like the reverend, who refer to themselves as “Christian” while obnoxiously suggesting that other Christians are inferior in faith and character, now tell us that we must support the horrific abuse of prisoners?

What “traditions” and “values” do Mr. Sheldon—and, for that matter, the devout Mr. Bush—truly uphold? What kind of conservative promotes the violent abuse of people who have been convicted of no crime?

These words should cut America to the heart. As should the truth about the torture we have inflicted on prisoners in our custody in our post-9/11 war on terror:

This first-hand account tells the horrifying tale of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who had been purchased from members of the Pakistani military. These men were bound, beaten and kicked in the stomach until they vomited blood and fainted. One prisoner was beaten in the face until his eye fell out. They were urinated on, dragged naked across asphalt by wires wrapped around their arms, and forced to walk barefoot across barbed wire and splintered glass. Beatings concentrated on eyes, nose and genitals. Copies of the Koran were dunked in buckets of urine and feces, and pages of the Koran were used to wipe out these buckets, shine shoes, etc. in front of Muslim prisoners. Gasoline was injected in their penises. They were tied naked to the floor and raped. They were given electric shocks. Their beards were literally pulled out. There is much more, but I won't go into it here.

This report tells of how dozens of Taliban prisoners died after surrendering to Northern Alliance forces, asphyxiated in the shipping containers used to transport them to prison.

This report describes techniques we have used, and that the President wishes to formally legalize, including forced shackled standing for 40 or more hours, being held in 50 degree rooms and doused with cold water, and water boarding. The effectiveness of these techniques is highly disputed, and the "mock execution" mental effect on prisoners violates the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, for those who have not seen them, here are some of the Abu Graib torture and abuse photos.

Do you support the President's effort to retroactively allow torture so that those who have committed these atrocities will never have to pay for their crimes? Be a patriotic American – think about what your own family members may face someday if these practices are condoned and then used against them – and then contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them how you feel.

Posted by Becky at 09:38 AM |

September 19, 2006

Red Letter Christians Push Blue Voting

I'm a bit flummoxed by the political push of the left-leaning Red Letter Christians. Like many people, I've been deeply concerned about the religious right's growing influence on government for some time (though I disagree with Rosie O'Donnell's view that radical Christianity is as threatening as radical Islam, at least it's not yet). So at first glance it seems refreshing to see the religious left poke its head up and say, "Hey, we're here, too!" But is a leftward push back via religiously driven political activisim really the answer?

A new group representing values voters on the religious left castigated the religious right yesterday, announcing plans to counter conservatives with a series of candidate fairs, voters guides and Web logs.

One weblog is called GodPolitics.com, and 200,000 voter guides entitled "Voting God's Politics" will be distributed before the election.

"The monologue of the religious right is finally over, and a new dialogue has just begun," Mr. Wallis said. "That's good news for churches, for politics and really, for both parties. We believe the debate on values should be central in American politics. The question is: Which values, whose values and how should we define moral values?"

The right has concentrated on opposition to same-sex "marriage" and abortion, he said, adding that the war in Iraq, poverty and the environment should equally concern evangelicals.

While I like the general message of these so-called "Red Letter Christians" – basing actions and philosophy on the words of Jesus (which are printed in red in many Bibles, hence their name) – how is religious left government influence any better than religious right government influence? Will the religious left take its cues from the aggressive political moves of the religious right, and simply perpetuate the problem, only this time with the political left keeping quiet because they're pulling in Democratic votes? Why can't religion stay in the churches, homes and communities and out of government?

Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM |

Predatory Lenders Targeting Military Families

One of Our Oregon's primary efforts is to rein in the payday loan companies, who have made their money on the backs of the working poor by using predatory loansharking techniques that are simply disgusting. One of the recent developments in this industry has been the targeting of military families.

Congress is considering capping interest rates for payday loans at 36%. Can you even imagine a 36% credit card interest rate? And believe it or not, a Department of Defense investigation found that some of our military families, with fathers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and mothers home raising children alone, are being charged as much as 500% interest! The Senate has already passed the 36% cap, but, as usual, your Representative in the House needs to hear from you on this issue. Congress is being heavily lobbied by the lending industry to retain the status quo.

If you want to help our military families get through tough times without getting screwed, visit Our Oregon's interactive website, which will help you contact the appropriate members of Congress about this issue.

Posted by Becky at 09:35 AM |

September 18, 2006

OK, Then, Just Kill Them All

The Pope's lovely message of peace and rationality has certainly struck a chord with Al-Qaida, who is now warning that the Pope and the West are "doomed" and has vowed to continue the holy war until Islam dominates the world.

"You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations."

Since the "Christian" West is entirely unwilling to look at our own culpability in this clash of cultures or try to find a rational, peaceful solution and quit stirring things up, it looks to me like the only option we have at this point is to kill all Muslims so they can't dominate the world.

Maybe that explains the whole depleted uranium munitions thing.

Posted by Becky at 11:23 AM |

Who Really Loves our Troops?

The next time you hear some Republican equate Democrats' opposition to the War with disrespect for our soldiers and claim that only the GOP cares about soldiers, point them to VA Watchdog so they can see for themselves what the Republican Administration is doing to our veterans.

For example, an effort is underway to rid the VA of its obligation to pay disability benefits by paying disabled veterans a lump sum in the amount of 30% to 50% of the total expected lifetime payments and expecting them to take responsibility for investing the money so it will last through their lifetime. VA Watchdog's report lays out the history of this effort, current activity, and potential problems for veterans, such as their inability to obtain increased benefits in the future should a service-related injury worsen over time. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, is working to see this change come about.

Here is another example of how our veterans' best interests are being sacrificed to the god of cost savings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims ruled that Vietnam-era veterans exposed to Agent Orange because they loaded it off ships and onto planes or because they flew the planes that dropped it are eligible for VA benefits related to the health problems that resulted from that exposure. Until now, believe it or not, only soldiers whose feet had been literally on the ground in Vietnam were eligible for this coverage. But now the VA has decided it will appeal the case, and refuses to even process claims.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has decided not to publish its cancer findings on the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam veterans. We spent $140 million in taxpayer dollars studying airmen who were exposed so we could determine appropriate compensation for exposed veterans. That study reportedly shows a doubling of cancer rates among the highest-exposed veterans, but the Air Force has instructed the scientist who conducted the analysis to destroy the data.

The stories of this country's abandonment of veterans under a Republican President, with party-loyalist appointees to every level of government, and a Republican-controlled Congress, are so numerous and so heartbreaking that it is difficult to even point to ignorance as an excuse for the claim that Democrats hate our troops. Republicans sent our troops to a war based on lies, Republicans have allowed the use of depleted uranium munitions, Republicans have refused to properly arm, feed, and protect our troops, and Republicans are the ones trying to slash their benefits, avoid compensating them for their injuries, and abuse their loyalty to this country. It is the Democrats who are fighting to preserve benefits for our troops, including decent wages and health care. To me it is as plain as day who truly honors and supports our troops.

Posted by Becky at 11:16 AM |

Republicans Today Are Not Conservative

Here is a great example of why I say the Republican party is no longer the party of conservatives. Read it and weep. Conservatives are thoughtful, prudent, and want the best possible outcome. Today's Republican party, on the other hand, is about profiteering, ideology, and cronyism. And the GOP's lack of fiscal responsibility is costing us dearly.

Posted by Becky at 11:14 AM |

September 16, 2006

Pope's Message Had Subtle, Controversial Undertones

In attempting to encourage people of different faiths and cultures to engage reasoned dialog and refrain from violence, Pope Benedict XVI has instead set off another round of anti-Christian and anti-West violence in the Muslim world (you can read key excerpts of his speech here). At first glance, it looked to me as if Muslim leaders had mis-translated the Pope's message, intentionally inciting a violent response by telling Muslims that he had said the concept of jihad was "unreasonable" and Muhammad's innovations were "evil and inhuman". But it may well be that our surface reading of the Pope's message is incorrect.

The response over at Northwest Republican is both typical and understandable:

In response to the papal suggestion that their religon might be violent, modern Muslims express violent outrage and threaten more violence. …

Where are the calm Muslim leaders expressing sincere concern that their peaceful religion has been misunderstood and asking how, through peaceful dialogue, such a terrible misunderstanding can be resolved? The truth is, in expressing violent outrage that such a sentiment has even been quoted, Muslims are proving the very charges made against them and their religion.

We are in a war for civilization. They prove it by their words and actions. Let us not let down our vigilance.

But Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, offers a different explanation over at Counterpunch. After reading his editorial, I'm beginning to believe the reaction by the Muslim world is not necessarily due to the overt message of the Pope (that violence between cultures is unjustified and that communication based on reason is essential), but rather the subtext of his message - which reinforces the view that it is the Arabs who are irrationally violent, while the West is peaceful and rational.

Recall that the Greeks, aside from shaping rational western thought, also shaped our ideas about geography. The Greeks first divided "Europe" from "Asia," and opined that Greeks were unique and superior to the "Asiatics." The Greeks, declared the Father of History, Herodotus, knew that they were "free," whereas the Asiatics (particularly the Persians) were prone to enslavement by nature. This ideological construction derives from a century of conflicts---the Greco-Persian Wars of the fifth century---but it has been echoed by Orientalists for centuries. Repeated by the Pope, for example, who while still Cardinal Ratzinger told the French newspaper Le Figaro that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union "on the grounds that it is a Muslim nation" which has "always represented another continent during history, always in contrast with Europe."

In beginning his remarks citing that exchange between a Byzantine Greek emperor and this "learned Persian," the pontiff was perhaps conveying a not-so-subtle political message. It may have been a response to the learned letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. Ending his speech with two references to the need for a (truly reasonable, nonviolent) "dialogue of cultures" Benedict unmistakably alludes to former Iranian President Khatami's campaign for a "dialogue of civilizations." This is the Pope's rejoinder to that plea, presented as the response of the western world (growing out of that remarkable Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman synthesis), to today's Persia---the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Leupp points out some interesting history about the relationship between the emperor the Pope quoted, Manuel III, and the Islamic world in his day and shows how incongruous that particular emperor's actual motivations were with the message the Pope seemed to the West to be trying to convey. "Here in 1391 we have an emperor in his war camp, provoking what was to be a disastrous war with Muslims while eruditely disparaging their religion." While behaving irrationally and violently toward the Arab world and waging persecution against all non-Christians, the emperor had the nerve to wax eloquent about the irrationality and violence of the Arabs, who had even come to his own aid when he had called on them for help. "[T]he Byzantine emperors… persecuted religious minorities, including Jews, Manichaeans and dissident Christians, during centuries in which the Islamic world showed relative tolerance. … Many Byzantine Jews welcomed the initial Muslim Arab advances, providing relief from Christian persecution."

At a time when the Islamic world is all too aware that Iran's current and previous Presidents (Khatami and Ahmadinejad) have reached out to the West with impassioned pleas for reasoned discussion and an end to the violence the West has waged on the Arab world, the Pope has reinforced the erroneous Greek view that Arabs are innately prone to irrational violence and that it is time they come to the table and approach the current clash of cultures with rationality. No wonder Muslims are offended.

One increasingly expects historical distortion and hypocrisy in the speeches of Bush administration officials. The effort to depict the Terror War as a war on "Islamofascism" shows their desperation. They must be delighted to hear the pope conflate Christianity, the west, and Reason explicitly while implicitly linking Islam, violence, and irrational intolerance. How sweet that His Holiness's erudition should elliptically reference Iran, while the Bush administration prepares to attack it!

It appears that those who know their history (a group that, unfortunately, does not include the vast majority of Americans) recognize that the Pope was attempting to rewrite it, disguising a confrontational message to the Islamic world in the cloak of the lofty siren song that the West would hear. One must wonder why the foremost religious leader in the world would say something that would work to align the West and all of Christendom with the Bush Administration's unjustified war plans for the Middle East. Could there be a link to the seemingly theocratic push by the President and his closest political allies?

Posted by Becky at 11:00 AM |

September 15, 2006

Military leaders urge Congress to just say no

29 retired Generals, Admirals and DOD officials sent a just released letter (.pdf) to the Senate Armed Services Committee urging it to reject Bush's attempt to redefine the Geneva Convention so as to legitimize his illegal CIA torture program. The list includes a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili. In a separate letter another former Chairman of the JCS, General John Vessey, wrote to Senator McCain and also urged a rejection of Bush's obession with torturing detainees. And just the other day a third former Chairman of the JCS, General Colin Powell, likewise voiced rejection of attempts to redefine the Geneva Convention.

While Americans are predictably split on the issue, a solid 56% agree with our military leaders that torture is a bad and unAmerican idea, with only 38% expressing approval of torture.

Count me in with the majority on this one. Just say no to George "torture 'em" Bush.

(hat tip to Cernig of the very aptly named NewsHog)

Posted by Kevin at 07:08 PM |

Gas Prices a Republican Dirty Trick

Lifting a heavy load of high gas prices off the backs of commuters buys a lot of goodwill these days. And I think that is exactly what is going on with the news reports that the cost of gasoline is headed down. Some reports yesterday even said it could hit the unbelievable low of $1.15 a gallon. I'm not buying it.

I do think it's going to keep trending downward – at least until November 8, when Big Oil's favorite Republicans are safely returned to office. But somehow I don't believe gas prices will stay low for long. And I'm not alone.

The GOP, with majorities in both the House and Senate, would have much more to lose [from high gas prices] than Democrats. Big oil does not want its buddies in the Beltway to lose the grip on any branch of government.

Lo and behold, per-gallon prices have dropped, although there is less stability in the Middle East and more hostility directed toward the U.S. from oil producing Middle East countries than we have seen in a long time.

If oil prices truly are tied to political and economic issues in the Middle East and terror threats on a global scale, there is no rational explanation for such a precipitous drop in crude oil after the recent turmoil in Israel and Lebanon and the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What are we left with but price manipulation?

Further, after beating back numerous congressional attempts to authorize drilling in ANWR, and despite dire predictions about what repairs on BP’s Alaska pipeline would do to oil prices during an extended shutdown period, a huge previously uncharted oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico is surprisingly discovered.

Think I'm off-base, that Republicans, who are clearly terrified of their association with the President, won't be helped just because gasoline prices are headed downward? Then explain why Bush's approval ratings exactly follow gas prices.

Think gasoline prices can't be manipulated for political purposes? This article makes a great case that not only can they, but they are.

Five of the largest oil companies now control 50 percent of U.S. refinery capacity (versus 34 percent in 1993) and 62 percent of the retail gasoline market (versus 27 percent a decade ago). This gives the oil industry unprecedented ability to manipulate the market.

As the article explains, the federal government (which is controlled by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and an Administration packed full of oil company executives) certainly could force prices down if it wanted to do so. But why would these people do that?

Since 2000, the oil industry has pumped out more than $68 million to politicians—80 percent of that going to Republicans.

These millions don't even reflect the additional millions the oil industry pumps into conservative and libertarian think tanks that funnel money to politicians, their family members, and their favorite causes, as well as fight for lax environmental standards and an entirely free market and anti-labor laws.

Read this article, which looks at how oil price manipulation shifts money from the poor to the wealthy and makes a convincing case for charges of price gouging and massive profiteering off of a resource that is a vital part of our economy.

Then tell me I'm wrong.

Posted by Becky at 11:19 AM |

September 14, 2006

Ron Saxton Better Have an Ace Up His Sleeve

Oregon Democratic Governor Kulongoski has called Republican challenger Ron Saxton's bluff, asking him to reveal what "efficiencies" he would find in the state budget that could possibly offset the losses in funding that would result from the new programs and tax cuts Saxton is promising voters.

Looking back to the only time Saxton has served in elected office, his single term as a member of the Portland School Board, Kulongoski's campaign manager, Jim Ross, pointed out that sometimes reality creeps into the budget process. One would think after Saxon's experience in Portland, having to ask the City of Portland for a bailout because the District could not balance its budget, he would have learned that lesson.

Ross noted that the Portland schools received millions from the City of Portland before and during Saxton's tenure. When the district could not meet its budget, even with these additional funds, Ron Saxton had to go back and get $3 million more. "Portland schools needed that money," said Ross, "and it's good that the city came through for them. But Saxton has been saying that he can cut taxes and add new programs just by finding efficiencies. The record shows that he couldn't find those magical efficiencies when he was in charge of the Portland School Board. He had to take bailout after bailout from the city just to keep the school doors open."

Rather than taking that reality to heart, however, Saxton has decided to continue kissing the right-wing fringe's behinds by endorsing $1.3 billion in tax cuts, including Bill Sizemore's Measure 41, and claiming he will "happily" implement Howard Rich's Measure 48 (at least, that's what he said last I heard – he may have changed his mind again), which threatens to chop an additional $2.2 to $2.7 billion out of the next budget. This on top of new spending proposals:

• Expanding state police patrols

• Full enrollment for Head Start and a higher teacher pay

• Giving alternative energy tax credits

• Increasing the subsidy for employers who provide health care

• A major investment in higher education and vocational training

This is not a commentary on his proposals. It is a commentary on his consistent tendency to try to have it both ways. He supports TABOR, he doesn't support TABOR. He wants to cut taxes, he wants to increase spending. He wants to return the kicker, he won't raise taxes, he wants to keep the kicker for a rainy day fund, but that's not a tax increase, but whenever a tax cut is eliminated it's a tax increase. Every time I turn around the man is being wishy-washy again. That's what happens when you try to please everyone instead of telling it like it is. As Ross rightly points out, "Ron Saxton will say anything to get elected." I think we've had enough of politicians like that.

Posted by Becky at 02:41 PM |

September 13, 2006

This may be the best political ad of the season

This TV ad is so good. Simple. Direct. Cutthroat without being nasty.

Truly superb.

I haven't learned how to post YouTube stuff (I'm so friggin techy challenged). Go to Kos and watch it.

He doesn't need the traffic...but c'est la vie. Its SO worth the click.

Posted by Carla at 08:01 PM |

Propaganda from the Heritage Foundation

I just got a major propaganda piece from the Heritage Foundation. I can only assume they don't read PK, because if they did they would not have sent me this piece of garbage. Being near the top of my shit list (for good reason) they would not likely have handed me any ammunition.

I knew it was right-wing bullshit as soon as I saw the envelope.

TAX INCREASE INFORMATION

DO NOT DESTROY
SURVEY ENCLOSED

Inside was a flyer listing some numbers associated with the impact of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire - conveniently timed to coincide with beleaguered Republicans' campaigns to go back to Washington, DC. Here are just a few of these numbers, though they are all outrageous (for information on what Bush's tax cuts really brought to those who needed them, see this article):

$1,040: The average tax increase if President Bush's tax cuts expire.

But what is the average tax "increase" for the average taxpayer (take out the wealthy and see what the rest of us would actually save)? Not much. Would it be worth it to have a truly measly tax cut for most people and a hefty one for the wealthy so that we would continue the drain on the federal budget that prevents us from paying for things like veterans' health care, for example?

6.24 million: Number of jobs that would be created over the next decade by making President Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Jobs in the U.S., or jobs in Third World countries? High-wage jobs or minimum wage jobs (of course, these same anti-worker people are also hard at work trying to eliminate the minimum wage and destroy the clout of labor unions).

$69 Billion: The cost of reinstating the Death Tax.

The estate tax (let's call it by its real name, shall we?) actually only hits the richest of the rich. And having the tax in place is providing the federal government with $69 billion that it needs to do things like take care of our veterans, for example.

$27 Billion: Amount spent in 2005 by Congress on frivolous "pork" projects that use taxpayer funds to reward local special interests and pressure groups.

Too bad the Republicans in Congress wouldn't say NO to all that pork so they could adequately fund veterans' hospital care, among other things.

A letter accompanies the Heritage Foundation flyer. It sets out from the beginning to frighten the unaware:

Dear Ms. Miller,

Enclosed is a confidential survey to determine your awareness of the impact on [insert recipient's city here] area taxpayers of pending tax increases on families, businesses and senior citizens, and the effect such increases may have on your tax bill.

The letter describes several examples of "tax relief … scheduled to expire over the next several years" – if the "liberals" succeed in their "crusade" to block the effort to make the tax cuts permanent. The letter then, after pumping up the inflammatory rhetoric, asks recipients to help them present the media and politicians with "an honest, objective look at the real impact of proposed policy – NOT the 'political spin' or 'media bias'." Because if the tax cuts are made permanent, you see, the "after-tax income for a family of four would increase by an average of $1,848 per year." There's that mystical average family again.

Of course there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and that's sort of information we're dealing with here.

I did find one nugget of truth in the letter:

Clearly the stakes are higher than ever, and the debate over taxes is – as usual – tainted by political partisanship.

Of course, this letter, coming during election season to someone like me who has never contributed to the Heritage Foundation or received mailings from them before, couldn't possibly be "tainted by political partisanship," could it? Surely they are referring to the "liberals."

If all this isn't bad enough, you should see the survey questions. Purely scientific, of course. Not only does a mail-in survey of this type defy reliability altogether, the questions themselves are extremely biased. For example:

1. Were you aware that – thanks to a provision in tax law demanded by liberals in Congress – President Bush's historic tax relief packages of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire, resulting in what The Wall Street Journal describes as "the biggest tax increase in our nation's history"?

Check out this one:

4. Did you know that if liberals succeed in revoking President Bush's tax cuts, a married couple with two children making $40,000 a year will see their taxes rise from $45 to $1,978, while married seniors could face a 107 percent tax hike?

And then there is this absolute whopper of a lie:

8. Liberals in Congress are working to reinstate the Death Tax – a leading cause of the termination of successful small businesses in America. Reinstating the Death Tax would increase taxes by $69 billion. Do you support or oppose the Death Tax?

(The truth about the "Death Tax" can be found here and here, for those who don't know it.)

What a pile of crap. But then I knew that as soon as I looked at the envelope.

Posted by Becky at 05:57 PM |

Odd Reasons for Stopping By

It has been absolutely fascinating to me to check in on the Site Counter and follow which posts here at PK get read and which don't, and especially which posts are being pulled up from the archives in various Google searches. Some of the posts here are extremely popular, bringing literally scores of hits a day to the site, and I really would never have guessed which ones they would be.

For example, Google images searches for pictures of Kiera Knightley bring up this entry several times an hour. Likewise, Google image searches for Nicole Richey and Calista Flockhart, as well as Google searches for "skinny women," bring numerous people to this post every day.

I've been consistently astounded at how many people every hour are using Google to learn about the self-proclaimed Messiah Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda and winding up here, sometimes several an hour. I only hope the irony of the post isn't too obtuse for the many Googlers from foreign countries who land on the site. I wouldn't want to be encouraging them.

And I don't even want to tell you what Google search terms are bringing up this entry, but it's downright disgusting. If the naturist Christians who own the site are doing what I'm doing and looking to see where the hits on their site are coming from, they must realize the sort of horrible people that are visiting it multiple times per day to gawk at the photos there. Maybe Carla was right about them after all.

Posted by Becky at 04:36 PM |

New Websites for Your Favorites Folder

I've just learned about some excellent new research tools for people who want to know who is behind this year's big initiative campaigns.

The first one - www.howierichexposed.com tells all about Howard Rich and his scheme to take over the world. Included is a wonderful item – a flow chart that shows who got money from him, who got money from them, and who got money from them so you would think it came from a local grassroots effort.

The next site is one that exposes the web of people and money behind the anti-union efforts, including the so-called "Union Facts" campaign of lies. You can find this site at www.AntiUnionNetwork.org.

Finally, just for the fun of it, go check out this hilarious expose of bad Congressional hairstyle trends. They're all wonderful, but I think the dead animal hair is my favorite.

Posted by Becky at 01:56 PM |

Bush Claims America In "Third Awakening"

President Bush yesterday said that he believes America is experiencing a "Third Awakening" of religious commitment that is tied to our current "confrontation between good and evil." The statement is further evidence that the Administration is using religious rhetoric tied to its aggressive foreign policy activities to keep the faithful in the Republican fold.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830.

We all know the President isn't an avid reader, so maybe he missed the big headlines from just two days earlier reporting that Americans aren't any more religious today than they were before 9/11. The intense surge in church attendance immediately following the 9/11 attacks quickly passed, and by January of 2002, people were back to their normal routines.

I might not be as concerned as I am if I had not just read Testament of the Death Squads: Good Christ, Bad Christ by Greg Grandin. The article tells the extremely disturbing story of how Christian leaders have repeatedly partnered with American political leaders to wage war around the world.

Starting in the 1960s, conservative evangelical theologians such as John Price and Jerry Falwell … not only urged their flocks to fight what would become known as the culture wars … but to get more involved in foreign affairs as well. Ronald Reagan’s crusade against the Central American Left--his patronage of the Contra insurgents in Nicaragua and death-squad states in El Salvador and Guatemala--was the first extensive opportunity to do so, an apprenticeship that gave the Religious Right its first real taste of its own power within the Republican Party and drew it closer to other groups within the Reagan Revolution.

In order to bypass public and Congressional opposition, the White House outsourced the “hearts and minds” component of its Central American wars to evangelicals. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum sent down “Freedom Fighter Friendship Kits” to the Contras, complete with toothpaste, insect repellent, and a bible. Gospel Crusades, Inc, Friends of the Americas, Operation Blessing, World Vision, the Wycliffe Bible Translators, and World Medical Relief likewise shipped hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid to the anti-Sandinista rebels and Honduran refugee camps, where they established schools, health clinics, and religious missions. In El Salvador, Harvesting in Spanish, Paralife Ministries, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund (affiliated with the Unification Church) and the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade broadcast radio programs, handed out bibles, ran schools, established medical and dental clinics, and provided moral education to the soldiers. Pat Robertson used his Christian Broadcasting Network to raise money for Efraín Ríos Montt, the evangelical Christian who presided over the Guatemala’s 1982 genocide, which killed over a hundred thousand Mayan Indians. Most of the Guatemalan relief aid raised by evangelicals in the United States, by groups such as the California-based charismatic Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship, went to help the military’s efforts to establish control in the countryside in the wake of its campaign of massacres.

In the United States, right-wing Christians Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Phyllis Schlafly and Oliver North, along with evangelical capitalists such as Amway founder Richard DeVos, founded the Council for National Policy in 1981, which, as the Religious Right’s steering committee in the 1980s, was deeply involved in Reagan’s Central American exploits. Christian businessmen raised money for arms and humanitarian work and funded the myriad organizations that worked closely with the White House to sway public opinion and congressional votes in favor of Reagan’s policy in El Salvador and Nicaragua. As part of Iran-Contra’s extensive support network, they deepened their ties with the international Right, with retired military and black ops personal, mercenaries, arms merchants, right-wing public relations experts, ex-agents of the Iranian Shah’s secret policy, international drug traffickers, the Sultan of Brunei, and anticommunist states such as Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Panama, and Israel. Many of the militarists who executed the Contra war -- John Singlaub, CIA director William Casey, Vernon Walters, and Oliver North -- were themselves members of either Protestant or Catholic ultramontane sects, such as the charismatic Church of the Apostles, Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. Catholic Casey attended mass daily, and filled his mansion with statues of the Virgin Mary. The Da Vinci Code has nothing on what took place in Central America during the 1980s.

There is much more to be found in the article. This observation is one of the more upsetting ones:

Third World poverty, according to evangelical Ronald Nash, has a “cultural, moral, and even religious dimension” that reveals itself in a “lack of respect for any private property,” “lack of initiative,” and “high leisure preference.” Some took this argument to its logical conclusion. Gary North, another influential evangelical economist, insisted that the “Third World’s problems are religious: moral perversity, a long history of demonism, and outright paganism.” “The citizens of the Third World,” he wrote, “ought to feel guilt, to fall on their knees and repent from their Godless, rebellious, socialistic ways. They should feel guilty because they are guilty, both individually and corporately.”

Evangelical Christianity’s elaboration of a theological justification for free-market capitalism, along with its view of a immoral third world, resonated with other ideological currents within the New Right, laying the groundwork for today’s embrace of empire as America’s national purpose. In a universe of free will where good work is rewarded and bad works punished, the fact of American prosperity was a self-evident confirmation of god’s blessing of US power in the world. Third-world misery, in contrast, was proof of “God’s curse.” David Chilton, of the Institute for Christian Economics, a Reconstructionist think tank, wrote that poverty is how “God controls heathen cultures: they must spend so much time surviving that they are unable to exercise ungodly dominion over the earth.”

Could that be the explanation for why these people prefer spreading Christianity over helping Third World countries get up off their knees? Could it be why these people, who worship a cruel God who promises eternal, conscious torment in hell to all non-Christians, feel justified in raining hell fires of their own down on non-Christian nations, who, they believe, all are destined for hell anyway, and are already suffering for their sins? Grandon seems to believe so.

[T]he kind of moralism that many key fundamentalists used to justify the violence visited on Central America in the 1980s easily led to the kind of righteousness that today legitimates cluster bombing of civilians as an option of first resort.

The results of the mixture of politics and religion are now, as they have always been, horrific. Which is why the Rev. Sun Myong Moon's ties to the Bush family and prominent Republicans and his desire to institute a theocratic one-world government concern me so deeply. And why I was also alarmed to read this article about a global conference on religions in the post-9/11 world being held in Montreal.

There's an urgent need to secularize religion and spiritualize politics, said Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the India-based Art of Living Foundation.

I could not disagree more.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

September 12, 2006

Tom DeLay has waaaaay too much time on his hands

Good grief:

DeLay, a former Republican congressman from Texas, sent out a letter to his supporters urging them to watch -- and vote for -- country singer Sara Evans in the third season of the popular ABC show. "Sara Evans has been a strong supporter of the Republican Party and represents good American values in the media," DeLay wrote. "We have always been able to count on Sara for her support of the things we all believe in. Let's show Sara that same support."

But DeLay's comments weren't just limited to supporting Evans. No, DeLay also took the time to bash one of Evans' competitors. "One of her opponents on the show is ultra liberal talk show host Jerry Springer," DeLay wrote. "We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans."

Are you kidding me?

Tom DeLay is trying to lobby the voting on a reality tv dance competition. Apparently being a slimy asshole isn't limited to real politics--he has to stage it out for this fake TV bull.

He's so insulated that he obviously has no idea what a complete and utter embarrassment he is to himself and his associates.

Gawd.

Posted by Carla at 11:33 AM |

Measure 37 Not to Blame in Newberry Crater Controversy

I think Measure 37 is getting a bum rap because of the controversy over the proposed development of the Newberry Crater. An editorial in yesterday's Register Guard by Douglas Larson, an adjunct professor at Portland State University, prompts me to explain why.

Larson writes:

When Oregonians approved Measure 37 in 2004, few realized that their passion for "property fairness" could threaten some of the state's most treasured natural wonders - including the Newberry National Volcanic Monument, located about 30 miles south of Bend. …

Newberry Crater would have been the perfect poster child to depict what Oregon could lose if Measure 37 became law. The 90-square-mile monument, with the crater as its centerpiece, was created by Congress in 1990 to "preserve for present and future generations the unique geologic landforms and many other resources."…

Yet, despite its national monument status, Newberry Crater may soon feature more than its unique geologic landforms, rare lakes and priceless plant and animal communities. Indeed, future visitors may also behold a geothermal power plant, an open-pit mine containing an estimated 8.5 million cubic yards of high-quality pumice, and a hundred upscale vacation homes equipped with septic tanks and drainfields.

All this would be on 157 acres of private property alongside East Lake.

And therein lies the problem. The land is privately owned. And unfortunately, the County can't afford to buy it so they have little choice but to allow the owner's development plans, which were legal at the time it was purchased, to move forward.

I can only ask why nobody ever moved to purchase this precious land for the public before. It has been nearly forty years – plenty of time to have raised the money to buy it – but the land is still in private ownership. Why? I think it is because people who recognized the resource decided that they wouldn't have to come up with the money if they just took the property through regulation. They thought they had it locked up.

Who cared about the man who invested in the property? It was just one guy. So what? Well, I'll tell you so what. It hasn't been just one guy. It's been property owners all over the state, some big and some small – enough of them that all the sky-is-falling rhetoric in the world wasn't enough to change Oregon voters' minds when they went to the polls – two elections straight – and stood up for private property rights. It is something that it is high time land use planners and environmentalists got through their heads.

The passage of Measure 37 never meant people thought natural resources weren't worth saving. Obviously, natural resources are a top priority for Oregonians. No, what the vote meant was that people thought it was wrong to be cheap about it – to take the resources for the benefit of the public by regulating away their use and not paying for them, leaving individual property owners stuck paying mortgages and property taxes on land they couldn't use. Oregonians are fair people, and they didn't like that.

The potential damage to the Newberry Crater is intolerable and I place the blame squarely on the backs of people who years ago recognized what could be lost and, rather than launching a fundraising drive to save the resource, instead worked to take away the owner's property rights. Now it's coming back to bite them, and all the rest of us, hard in the butt.

Posted by Becky at 10:33 AM |

Term Limits Ads Pure Bunk

Term limits proponents are running some slick ads right now on several Oregon radio stations. Now I really don't care too much one way or the other about term limits, though I lean more against than for them. But these ads are driving me crazy. The reason is that the woman narrating the ads speaks with such a factual tone that you just want to accept what she says as fact when it isn't.

The ads say that when Oregon's legislative term limits were repealed, "problems returned" and the result was "partisan bickering." The ads say, "they call our legislature a national laughingstock," implying that the rest of the country will quit laughing at us (assuming they really are) and all will be right in the world again – if we just re-institute