« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

May 31, 2007

Moral Majority: R.I.P.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has a new piece out in which he asks whether Jerry Falwell's death was the death of the Religious Right and calls on the Religious Right to learn from its mistakes and redirect its efforts in the future.

The first thing that caught my eye was that even though he has a pretty good idea of where the Religious Right has gone wrong in its political efforts, Baldwin truly does not understand why Jerry Falwell was hated by so many people. His explanation:

In many respects, Jerry Falwell was the heart and soul of the Religious Right, which is why many people hated him so much. They fully understood that without Jerry Falwell there was no Religious Right. And make no mistake about it: liberals hate the Religious Right.

It was the Religious Right that dared to stand in the gap against a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage. And it was Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority that made the Religious Right a force to be reckoned with, respected, and ignored at one's own political peril.

Obviously, I can't speak for "liberals" because I'm not liberal (unless you're comparing me to a right-winger), but based on what I've observed, I do not believe that liberals "hate" the Religious Right. They certainly do have strong feelings about what the Religious Right has been trying to do, however, and so do I. If you look at the precise wording Baldwin uses you can see very clearly what has people upset with the Religious Right - or to be more accurate, the Moral Majority:

…a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage.

Obviously, it's all about religion-based legislation of morality – they want to impose their particular brand of religion-based morality on those of us who do not share their religion-based ideas about morality. That is not to say that "liberals" and others who oppose the Religious Right are immoral – or even amoral. For example, many of the so-called "Secular Progressives" value human life so highly that they oppose the death penalty and war, advocate for a healthy safety net so as to care for the weak and poor among us, work to build an inclusive society in which all citizens can pursue happiness and find personal fulfillment, and press for a healthy planet that is capable of nurturing healthy human beings. To many of us, the Religious Right's stance on these issues is immoral. The difference between legislating their position and legislating the "secular progressive" position is that one is an unconstitutional imposition of religion and the other is sound public policy based on sound science. Jerry Falwell's movement did indeed create a "force to be reckoned with," but it was a damaging force.

Baldwin goes on from there to give Falwell a lot more credit than the man deserves with regards to the current presidential campaign:

In fact, Jerry's passing, and a fading Religious Right, has already had a significant influence upon the upcoming presidential election. Does anyone really believe that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani would openly and boldly campaign as a "pro-choice" candidate if the Religious Right was as politically powerful as it once was? In virtually every Republican primary since the creation of the Moral Majority back in 1979, no candidate could expect to obtain the Republican nomination who did not pass the Religious Right's litmus test (at least in rhetoric) of being pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

Not anymore. Today the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, is running on a platform that is pro-abortion, pro-gay unions, and pro-gun control. Yet, at this moment, the nomination appears to be his to lose.

The thing Baldwin doesn't seem to realize is that Falwell has only been dead a couple of weeks, but Giuliani has been the frontrunner for quite awhile even though Falwell made it very clear, beginning before Giuliani even announced, that he would not support his candidacy. That didn't keep Giuliani from rising to first place among the Republican hopefuls. In fact, he has risen to first place despite the rabid opposition of James Dobson and Richard Viguerie, who said if he won the nomination, it would be "time to put the GOP out of its misery." So much for that "force to be reckoned with."

Baldwin may have a point when he says:

Accordingly, it is a very real and distinct possibility that the Republican Party will go into the 2008 presidential election without the support of the Religious Right for the first time in nearly thirty years. However, this prospect not only dooms Republican chances for a presidential victory, it also dooms the Religious Right as a major player in presidential politics.

Baldwin really can't look to the facts to make himself feel better, so he turns to faith to help him and his beleaguered readers out. Pointing to the "providence of God" that brought Falwell's Moral Majority into existence at the same time Ronald Reagan was campaigning for president, he implies that God will step in to save the day.

He also observes the Republican Party's lack of respect for the Religious Right, which he compares to an abused spouse:

Nothing illustrates the GOP's lack of respect for Jerry Falwell than the list of no-shows at his funeral. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sending a low-level White House aide to Dr. Falwell's funeral? Did you notice, too, that none of the GOP presidential contenders showed up at his funeral? In fact, there were virtually no national Republican leaders present at his funeral. This, for the man that did more--for a longer period of time in modern memory --than any other single human being to elect Republican candidates to the White House. You see what I mean by a one-sided, abusive relationship?

Baldwin calls on the Religious Right to learn from the mistakes it made in becoming too ambitious for power, compromising in order to buddy up to the Republican Party. His description of the two parties isn't a pretty one:

It has been money, not principles, that has always been at the heart of Republican and Democratic politics. Republicans have historically been the puppets of big-business, while Democrats have been the puppets of big-labor. It was Ronald Reagan who gave the GOP a semblance of righteousness. It was only a façade. Unfortunately, this misplaced trust allowed the Religious Right to be totally and thoroughly beguiled by conservative phonies George Bush I and II. At the end of the day, money, not righteousness, is in charge of both major parties. It's time that Christian conservatives understood that.

Baldwin closes by calling on the Religious Right to focus its energies on electing representatives who will value and protect the Constitution, and on this point I think we can all find room for agreement. The attacks on the Constitution under the Bush Administration have both the right and the left pretty freaked out. If the Religious Right is ready to take on issues like warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, separation of powers, signing statements, DNA databases, Carnivore surveillance, Internet filtering, Total Information Awareness, and prisoner abuse, and will set aside its efforts to legislate morality based on their religion, then I'm willing to work with them - my fellow Americans - to protect that which makes our debate possible.

If the Religious Right ultimately heeds Baldwin's call and abandons Falwell's Moral Majority to pursue true Constitutional liberty in this country, then Falwell's death may have marked one of the happiest days in American history. I certainly hope that is the case.

Posted by Becky at 03:51 PM |

They're Not "Real" Parents ... but Don't be Offended

Stephen Bennett, founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (a group promoting the homosexual "cure"), is all hot under the collar over the White House's reference to Mary Cheney's lesbian partner, Heather Poe, as the "parent" of the couple's baby boy. The offending word was found in a caption under the official photo of Vice President and Mrs. Cheney holding their new grandson. "I say shame on the White House, shame on the president and shame on the vice president for allowing such a caption to be 'officially' added onto the White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and their new grandchild," Bennett said. "I guess we can tragically and officially say both the White House and the Bush Administration have officially recognized the sinful sexual unions of homosexuals, as well as recognized and embraced the tragedy of the social experiment of homosexual parenting." Bennett goes on to accuse Cheney and Poe of "playing house," says they are not "real parents," says the Vice President is rebelling "against his superior" (the President) and making "a public mockery of the president and the current administration he is supposed to represent," and calls on his supporters to pray for the president and other leaders.

All of this is, of course, very offensive – even to those of us who are uncomfortable with homosexuality, but who have come to understand that homosexuals really are "born that way," and because their activity involves consenting adults, and no one is being harmed, what they choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms isn't anyone else's business. Too many people seem to believe that their own perspective is the only one that is valid. This view can relate to political or religious views, customs, food, clothing, activities, entertainment, or anything else. If something is repulsive to me, then surely it must be repulsive to everyone, right? Therefore, if someone else is enjoying that repulsive thing, then clearly they must have something seriously wrong in their head. Obviously, if you think about it for a minute, that view is absolutely ridiculous, and thankfully, in the case of homosexual behavior, we have the science to prove it – and more and more people are recognizing that. My point is, even people who aren't comfortable with homosexuality because they can't personally relate to it are increasingly realizing that homosexuals aren't freaky people and that they have the right to pursue love and happiness just like everyone else.

Getting to this point has been a long process, and along the way a lot of people who cannot understand or tolerate others' personal choices are completely unhappy with this trend. They are, in fact, very frightened by it. They believe we are literally dragging this country straight to Hell and are convinced that homosexuals want all of us to become gay and burn in Hell with them. The harm they do with their comments is real and it feels like hate (in the case of people like Fred Phelps, I believe it actually is hate). But what drives them typically is something very different from hate. It is fear of God and a near panic over the danger they believe our tolerance of homosexuality places this country and the souls of those who engage in homosexuality. In a nutshell, believe it or not, they are driven by very real concern for the well-being of their fellow man. As I said, sometimes we find ourselves unable to tolerate the views of others because we think our own perspective is the only valid one. We need to look at this from the perspective of those whose speech we believe is "hateful" and repulsive.

Bennett is himself a "former" homosexual, who, in a period of 11 years, had more than 100 homosexual partners until he found Jesus, married a woman, had two daughters, and started his ministry. I know a lot of people think Bennett is simply trying to make a living the easy way, and I can understand that. But I really don't think that is the case. Everything he says makes it clear he is desperate to save other homosexuals from eternal damnation.

My point here is that hating people like Bennett isn't the answer even though his comments feel very hurtful. More hate is never the answer. Neither should people be terribly offended because his motivations are actually based on concern for the eternal souls of homosexuals. No matter how ignorant you may think that is, the fact is that based on his understanding of reality, he is trying to help people. In my opinion, the answer is to continue to press forward with efforts to support personal freedom at every turn and to help all of our young people grow up valuing themselves so they will choose healthy, happy lives, whether gay or straight. Over time, as more and more homosexuals grow up in a society that is, for the most part, not repressive or abusive to them, and as they succeed in society without having to hide who they are, people like Bennett will have less and less power to hurt them.

Posted by Becky at 12:00 PM |

May 30, 2007

That Isn't God You're Hearing, Tom

Jeffrey Goldberg has a new article, "Party Unfaithful: The Republican implosion," in The New Yorker that is quite interesting, particularly with regards to Tom DeLay. You've got to read it. Now before you scold me for writing about DeLay because he's "irrelevant" or some such thing, remember that a whole lot of disgraced Republicans are still out there moving and shaking the political world. And it looks like DeLay, despite his current well-deserved woes, may become one of them. Particularly since he now claims to be having one-on-one chats with God.

Goldberg says that Karl Rove told him that "two or three societal trends" are driving the Republican Party into "an increasingly deep center-right posture" (one of those trends is a growing openness to spirituality). Interestingly, Newt Gingrich, though himself a right-winger, has criticized Rove for driving the center away by fostering a strident tone in the base. Gingrich is trying to appeal to the "center-right" voter as a means of strengthening the power of the Right, and Tom DeLay has been all over him for it, believing instead that the Republican Party should stay far right. Understand that Gingrich and DeLay have bad blood going back a lot of years, so DeLay supporting anything Gingrich does is about as likely as Grover Norquist supporting John McCain. But the point is, a lot of heavy-hitters on the right are trying to appeal more to the center, and DeLay is determined to undermine that effort. That's why we need to pay attention to him. That, and the fact that a lot of right-wingers believe God wants the Republican Party to stay right-wing.

DeLay says that when, in the coming years, he is not fighting the indictment in Texas (he insists that he is not guilty) he will be building a conservative grass-roots equivalent of MoveOn.org. “God has spoken to me,” he said. “I listen to God, and what I’ve heard is that I’m supposed to devote myself to rebuilding the conservative base of the Republican Party, and I think we shouldn’t be underestimated.” He said that Republicans should spend their impending exile reminding themselves what they stand for. “I see this as a cleansing process, where you can return to your principles, which are order, justice, and freedom—the basic principles of the conservative movement. We have to redefine government based on conservative principles, we have to win the war against our culture, and we have to win the war on terror.”

Reasonable people will look at this and right away know that DeLay has no credibility and isn't going to be able to pull off being the savior of the Republican Party. But here's the problem. Enough people will support him that he will be encouraged to continue his efforts, thereby weakening the Republican Party by continuing to bring disgrace upon it. And his invocation of God will also continue to bring disgrace upon Christianity. Though I am neither Republican nor Christian, I find both outcomes extremely upsetting.

We cannot have healthy debate in this country when the only credible participants are the Left and the Center. We really need the Right to have its act together and be capable of engaging rationally in the conversation. And unfortunately, too many members of the right wing are convinced that every Republican crook that is taken down is actually a martyr for the cause, particularly when so many of those crooks claim to be Christian. Those individuals – the same types who continue to prop up the Christian Republican Bill Sizemore as a credible spokesman – are never going to be open to legitimate debate and efforts to work together as Americans so long as they are convinced that no other point of view has any validity. When their martyred leaders encourage them to stand firm in their rightness, and particularly when they indicate that's what God wants them to do, they become immune to reason and incapable of participating in a democracy.

For that reason, I do not believe for a second that the voice in Tom DeLay's head is that of God. It is much more likely that he's hearing the whispers of that old un-converted power-hungry conniving Hot Tub Tom – the one he thought was safely squished down into a dark corner by the shiny new peaceful born-again Tom DeLay. That bad boy wants to be important again, but knows he's got to make the new Tom and all his loyal sheep feel morally good about it first.

Posted by Becky at 12:48 PM |

May 29, 2007

Too Much Attention Being Paid to Native American Issues …

Joe Bodell of the Minnesota Monitor noticed something very interesting in Monica Goodling's testimony last week.

But the piece de resistance of Goodling's testimony may have been her claims regarding former Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger's work: She testified she "heard" that Heffelfinger was on a list of attorneys to be sacked because of his work on Native American issues.

…[W]here else have we seen Native American issues popping up in Bush administration scandals? Oh, that's right: Jack Abramoff bilked Native American tribes out of millions of dollars, along with his buddies Ralph Reed, Michael Scanlon, and Grover Norquist. Several Republican lawmakers were involved with that little scam.

A number of people have been speculating about whether the firings were related to investigations of Republicans that the Bush Administration wanted squelched. Here we have an attorney's name added to the firing list specifically because he was too interested in Native American issues and at the same time, a big investigation is underway of a scandal involving Native American tribes and prominent Republicans with deep ties to the Bush Administration. Coincidence? I'm not so sure it is.

Posted by Becky at 03:40 PM |

An Amusing Little Mess Down in Alabama

A very interesting situation is developing in Alabama, where the state chapter of the Christian Coalition has split into two groups and is now engaged in a messy lawsuit with plenty of finger-pointing and questionable activity to go around.

The former leader of the Alabama Christian Coalition, John Giles, is being accused by the new leader, Randy Brinson, of stealing the organization's assets when he left to start a competing organization, Christian Action Alabama (Giles did, in fact, take all the organization's assets). Brinson says Giles is setting a bad example for Christians. Giles says Brinson's lawsuit is "frivolous and baseless" and says the real bad example is being set by Brinson, who, by supporting electronic bingo at the dog tracks in Birmingham and Mobile, has placed himself in the "palm of gamblers." Brinson counters that allowing the expanded gambling at the tracks was part of a deal that also limited expansion of gambling to new locations. Giles says of course expansion is limited because the bill is really all about making the owner of the race track more wealthy. Brinson is being represented in the lawsuit against Giles by the track owner's attorney, so Giles may well have a point. But at the same time, Giles's group had ties to the Choctaw Indians, who operate two casinos, stemming back to that Grover Norquist/Americans for Tax Reform/Ralph Reed/Christian Coalition money-laundering-to-screw-the-tribes scheme, so Giles isn't lily white, either.

I don't know whether to pity the judge who gets this case or envy him or her for getting to sit in on what is sure to be a very entertaining little slug-fest.

Posted by Becky at 03:28 PM |

What is Norquist Up To With This?

The values- and morality-challenged Grover Norquist, who, in addition to his proclivity for money laundering, is also suspected of being a client of the DC Madam, was asked recently by Rolling Stone to comment on the concerns people have over whether any of the Republican presidential candidates will win the approval of people like James Dobson and religious "values voters." In my book, that's the equivalent of asking Ted Kennedy to comment on whether the Democratic front-runners would be successful in winning over members of MADD. Nevertheless, he had some interesting observations – made even more interesting by the fact that his observations are at odds with his own record.

Norquist first defined social conservatives and then argued that James Dobson's opinion of the candidates is not, in the real world, particularly relevant:

What brings social conservatives to the Republican party is not some list of 20 things that James Dobson would like to see. It’s a much lower threshold. Social conservatives are best understood as a parents-rights movement. They don’t like guys throwing prophylactics at their kids in public schools. They don’t like their faith being made fun of, they want to be able to send their kids to private schools or home school. They are worried about raising their kids in their own faith and being left alone. On the abortion issue, pro-lifers need the same thing the chamber of commerce wants: serious judges. If you promise them that, credibly, you can have their support. And each of the Republican candidates passes that threshold.

You can make the argument that some candidates would be more enthusiastic about going further on the social conservative agenda, and some may well excite the leadership of the social conservative movement, but I don’t believe that it moves votes. Take a look at how McCain and Giuliani and Romney are polling. Who are the three top guys? Pat Robertson sees two pagans and a Mormon. Everybody’s heard that Giuliani dressed up in drag. If my analysis was wrong, would he be polling as well as he is? Romney is a Mormon, which evangelicals see as theologically flawed, and McCain picked a public fight in 2000 with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are the three Republicans polling the best!

If 40 percent of the GOP base truly had Dobson’s 20 point test then a candidate such as Huckabee should be one of the frontrunners. He’s not, and that’s why I think my analysis is the correct one. The press is going to want to talk about and solicit quotations from self-appointed leaders about how unacceptable certain of these candidates are. I don’t think that translates. You have to convince people that one of these candidates would work actively against their privacy zone on faith and childrearing. And I’m not sure that anyone of them is going to fail that test.

If I may summarize, Norquist's point is that while religious "values voters" might not be elated with any of these candidates, all the perceived unhappiness of the Christian Right with this election is actually just a lot of blustering by their leaders. The reality is that the candidates with whom they should be the least happy are ahead in the polls and the reason is that the concerns of the religious right - primarily that they be left alone - can be satisfied by any of the candidates. My intuition says that this has got to really gall a lot of Christians, who are no doubt still incensed that Norquist dared to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans back in 2005.

I'd like to believe that Norquist is right (it's easy to find many others who would immediately say he is wrong) and move on. But something about his mixture of talk on the Christian voter issue and dissing of John McCain in virtually the same breath is all too familiar. But I'm getting ahead of myself just a little.

See, Norquist had no sooner brushed aside concerns about Christians' acceptance of a Republican candidate than he returned to attacking his old nemesis, John McCain:

Our friend McCain’s challenge is, having been elected as a Reagan Republican and running in 2000 as a Reagan Republican, he — for reasons I don’t understand, but it looks like pique at Bush — voted against every one of Bush’s tax cuts. Now he says he wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and never would vote for an increase. So that’s the big question mark. He’s not running as a candidate who’s against lower taxes. But in the last 6 years he kind of went AWOL on the fight. But now he wants to run as a guy who won’t raise your taxes and supports the tax cuts.

Don't forget that Norquist's feud with McCain is all about campaign finance reform – stopping people like Norquist from doing that which they specialize in doing. Norquist and his allies have a well-deserved reputation for using the Christian Right's networks to spread their influence, and James Dobson has been all-too-willing to allow it – and to criticize John McCain for the same campaign finance efforts that Norquist opposes.

The question I find myself asking is why would Norquist on the one hand be so obviously working with James Dobson to try to build his own conservative voting coalition (see "I Smell Grover Norquist") and then on the other hand act as if James Dobson's views on the appropriateness of Republican presidential candidates for the Christian Right really isn't all that important? There are many tantalizing possibilities … and I would not expect that his reasons are anything less than meticulously well thought-out.

Posted by Becky at 02:50 PM |

May 24, 2007

In which Oliver Willis takes our conservative friends to school

Blogger Oliver Willis answers a series of questions on Iraq posed by conservative Dale Franks.

Its best to go over to Oliver's place and read them.

For those conservatives who still find themselves supporting the War in Iraq and the President's foreign policy--this is your chance to really learn why so many others do not.

Posted by Carla at 01:58 PM |

I'm a Good Girl, I Am!

As I listened to Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, I was absolutely spellbound. I understood her, I understood how she got there, and I understood why she was saying the things she was saying. Sure, I never had a law degree and I never rose to that level of importance, but in many, many ways, I once was her. Some today are making fun of her naiveté and lack of experience, and mimicking her little girl voice. A lot of people are talking about what her testimony means in terms of the culture of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, as well as how it fits in with allegations of impropriety and lawbreaking. As a former naïve, fervent, right-wing Christian "good girl" myself, I saw something that nobody is really talking about. And I think it is an important piece of the puzzle.

For those who are unaware of my own experience, I will tell my story briefly. I was raised a conservative Christian. I attended private Christian schools from 3rd grade through college. I was a "good girl" who did everything I was supposed to do to the best of my ability. I was not exposed to pop culture and only associated with others of my faith. I was always the valedictorian in my class. I graduated from high school with a 4.0, was elected student body president, was co-editor of my college yearbook, won awards and honors and excelled at everything I set my mind to. From what I understand, Goodling had a background that was similar in many ways.

According to what I gleaned from my upbringing, "good girls" were Republicans. So I was as good and as fervent a Republican as I could be. When we moved to Oregon and started seeing the things Bill Sizemore was doing and how he was being persecuted for it, he became my hero, my idol. When I had the opportunity to work for him, I simply could not refuse. At the time, I had not been a Christian for a few years, but Sizemore, who was a Christian, soon had me back in the fold. Fervently. Because I was a "good girl." I was thrilled to be working alongside a Christian advancing a moral cause that would help people have more freedom and stop the onslaught of immoral liberalism. Goodling says she, too, was driven by the desire to help people.

When I began to notice that things were maybe not so perfect at Oregon Taxpayers United, I was not willing to let go of my illusions and assumed I must just be misunderstanding what I saw. I assumed the people around me were as "good" as I was. Of course, I was very naïve, and not only about others but also about myself. I am betting that Goodling had a very similar experience. I gradually slipped into engaging in activities that were illegal, but to me it felt more like speeding when you know there aren't any police around to give you a ticket, and always it was to advance a worthy cause that I believed in with all my heart, and not for any personal gain. Like Goodling, "I don't believe I intended to commit a crime." I never meant to break the law or hurt anyone – in fact, I was convinced that I was doing just the opposite. As Goodling said yesterday, "I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn't mean to."

Like Goodling, I one day found myself in a position where I was having to take the Fifth and be granted immunity in order to testify. I know exactly what that feels like. I also know exactly what it feels like to realize you're damned lucky you aren't in jail, though a lot of people think you ought to be there, and at the same time to be bewildered because you always thought jail was for "bad" people and you're not one of them.

Unlike Goodling, who I don't believe has had enough time to really think her situation through, I am several years down the road now and have spent a lot of time trying to understand how a "good girl" like me, who only wanted to help people and never meant to break the law, got into the middle of such a huge mess. I think what I've learned is something very important about the conservative Christian culture. I know this applies where women are concerned, and can only assume it also applies to men.

Kohlberg nailed it in his theory of the Stages of Moral Development, which is further described here. Kohlberg doesn't really look at the morality of a person's decisions, but rather at the complexity of the thought process through which a person goes in making moral decisions. The stages of development are as follows:

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment

The earliest stage of moral development is especially common in young children, but adults are capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment.

Stage 2 – Individualism and Exchange

At this stage, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was whichever best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

Stage 3 – Interpersonal Relationships

Often referred to as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, this stage is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being ‘nice,’ and consideration of how choices influence relationships.

Stage 4 – Maintaining Social Order

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights

At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

Stage 6 – Universal Principles

Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

I believe that people like Goodling (and formerly myself) are locked in at Stage 3. They are stuck in the "good girl" phase. They do what their peers expect them to do, and often they are rewarded for it. They also know the rules and want to please others. But because their moral reasoning is no more complex than this, they make poor choices when they find conflicts between what the rules say and what their peers want. The overwhelming need in such a position of insecurity is to retain their self-identity – that of a "good girl." So they look to their superiors, do what they are asked to do, and get their reward. This is how they can break the law and still view themselves as being a "good" Christian.

How is it that the brightest and most sincere Christian women are being locked in at the third phase of moral development? Why do we see these women rising all the way into positions as high as Secretary of Defense and yet still being locked into the morally stunted position of honestly having a good girl self-image while at the same time doing very bad things? I think the best answer to that is to look at the final stages through the eyes of fundamentalist Christianity and conservatism.

Stage 4 – Maintaining Social Order

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

If there is one thing the fundamentalist Christian is taught, it is that they are not "of this world," but rather are members of the "kingdom of Heaven." These Christians associate with each other and eschew their culture and their society as a whole. In my case, I lacked exposure to the movies, television, music, food, and other activities that the rest of my peers enjoyed. When you are that separate from your own society, you never really learn to consider your society as a whole. You follow the rules of God, you do your duty for God, and you respect God. You learn what those things are from the leaders around you and how they interpret the Bible. It becomes very easy for those leaders to lead you into violating the rules of society because you do not see yourself as a part of society. As a good girl, you do what your godly leaders tell you to do. And because of the traditional male-female roles that are taught in fundamentalist Christianity, if you are told to do things by a man, you are even less likely to question things.

Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights

At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

The fundamentalist Christian may reach Stage 4, but will only rarely reach Stage 5 because the values, opinions, and beliefs of non-believers are contrary to the clear, black and white proclamations of God and are never, therefore, valid or worth considering. You are tempting evil if you try to understand sin, and anything that differs from what you believe is God's truth is sin.

Stage 6 – Universal Principles

Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

To the fundamentalist Christian, the only truth is God's truth as expressed in the Bible. There is no need to reason through it or understand it. There is no need to examine a situation to know what feels right. If God says homosexuality is sin, then it will never enter the person's head to consider how the homosexual feels about his ostracism, or his lack of freedom, or his fear. One can be heartless to the homosexual and still view herself as a "good girl." If God says black people bear Ham's curse and are intended to serve others forever, then it does not matter if that person is separated from his family or beaten or has no human rights. One can own a slave and still view herself as a "good girl." If God wants people to have lower taxes so they have more money to take care of their families, if God will take care of his own people, and if only lazy people are receiving government benefits, then it does not matter if cutting taxes takes food away from poor children and the disabled and abused women and liberal-indoctrination centers (a.k.a. public schools). One can "do whatever it takes" to advance a limited tax agenda and still be a "good girl." And if God wants his people in key positions in the government so as to restore godly principles to this Christian nation, then it does not matter if competent and fair attorneys are fired to make way for conservative Republicans who will do the President's bidding. One can break the law by asking political questions of applicants for career appointments and still be a "good girl."

Posted by Becky at 12:42 PM |

May 23, 2007

What Keith said

For those of you like me who are completely frustrated and angry with the Democrats in DC over their complete and total bendover to Bush on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill...

I give you Keith Olberman.

It's best if you can watch Keith deliver this scathingly brilliant commentary--but if you can't, Crooks and Liars has a transcript which you can read at the link.

Olberman has cemented himself as the political commentor of our time.

Posted by Carla at 07:58 PM |

Anti-Gay Students Protest for Speech Rights

A conflict has been brewing for a month now at San Juan High School in Citrus Heights, California over the suspension of dozens of students who wore anti-gay T-shirts to school in protest of the Day of Silence (which is designed to promote tolerance for gays and lesbians). For the past month, the students and church members have been holding multiple protests over the suspensions, claiming their First Amendment rights are being infringed, and picketing has even occurred in front of the principal's home and his church. I am surprised that the matter has come to this point, actually, and am very interested to see what ultimately comes from this case in terms of students' freedom of speech on public school property.

The shirts contained texts from the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. One shirt read, "Don't touch God's rainbow," which was a protest of the use of the rainbow by homosexuals as a symbol of diversity. Or, as WorldNet Daily describes it, "he was offended homosexual activists had stolen the biblical symbol of promise and turned it into an icon of perversion." Other shirts read, "Sodomy is Sin" and "Homosexuality is a Sin." The school district decided that a shirt that is offensive to anyone cannot be worn. Not surprisingly, a Catholic news service described the ongoing conflict in an article entitled, "School supports Sodomy."

Last night, the students submitted the following resolution to the School Board for consideration:

As Christian students enrolled at the San Juan Unified School District and members of student religious clubs, we seek to resolve an ongoing conflict regarding free expression on high school campuses. To this end, we respectfully submit this request as follows:

Whereas, there is an ongoing disagreement between students and District administrators, teachers and staff, regarding the rights to free expression on high school campuses;
Whereas, Christian students have worn clothing and distributed literature which the District asserts offends students who are homosexual or otherwise identify themselves as "gay" or "lesbian";

Whereas, students who have engaged in expressive conduct have been subject to discipline, including suspensions;

Whereas, students who have been subject to discipline for peacefully engaging in expressive conduct have protested in front of school campuses;

Whereas, Christian students who engage in peaceful expressive conduct on matters of contemporary moral, political and social topics are acting in accordance with a long tradition within the faith community;

Whereas, proposed laws addressing issues directly related to homosexuality are currently being debated in California;

Whereas, attempts to silence students by punishing or otherwise censoring them has served to aggravate the disagreement between Christian students and the District;

Whereas, as people of faith it is our religious and civic duty to not be silent on important issues;

Whereas, we will continue to exercise our rights of speech on District campuses, both as individuals and through student clubs;

Whereas, as Christians we also seek to live at peace with all of our fellow students and District employees;

Whereas, we believe that all peaceable students are entitled to educational opportunities regardless of their beliefs;

Whereas, students should not be subjected to bullying by other students, discipline by administrators, or academic punishment by teachers merely for what they believe and for peacefully expressing those beliefs;

Whereas, the students and religious clubs are desirous of obtaining an agreement with the District which both protects student speech and maintains an atmosphere which is civil;

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board of Trustees direct District administrators to draft general guidelines for expressive conduct to be presented for review to the Board at the next board meeting. In view of this, the Christian students have these requirements for the guidelines as follows:

- permit students to speak to moral issues and conduct;

- permit quotations from religious texts such as the Bible; and,

- create a safe, educationally sound, environment for all students regardless of belief.

An interesting aspect of this story is the involvement of the "underground" Church of the Divide, which meets in members' homes rather than in an official church building.

Dick Otterstad and son Luke, leaders of the 20-member El Dorado County congregation, have staged dozens of demonstrations in recent years to expose what they view as Christian persecution.

They've taken to Wal-Mart parking lots dressed up as Santa Claus to warn shoppers about the company's use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They've donned red devil suits and picketed the "imposition" of gay tolerance at school workshops. And they've attracted media attention -- from outlets as big as CNN and USA Today -- at almost every turn.

The Otterstads and their church brought those tactics to Sacramento … orchestrating rallies against Dave Terwilliger, the San Juan High School principal …

Ever since, rallies in front of San Juan High have become a routine part of life, with supporters using bullhorns and cardboard signs to make their case. …

The Otterstads entered the fray … by taking the protests a step further -- to the principal's home and house of worship … Celtic Cross Presbyterian Church in Citrus Heights. As Terwilliger worshipped inside, the group hoisted signs labeling him a "hypocrite" and called for his excommunication.

After the service, the group followed Terwilliger to his home on Pomeroy Way, where the rally continued. The group distributed flyers to neighbors that, according to Dick Otterstad, essentially read: "Your neighbor is persecuting Christians. You need to confront him over his tyrannical behavior at a public high school."

Local church officials, school leaders and even one supporter of the suspended students said Monday that such tactics mark a nasty, personal turn in a debate that's so far remained peaceful.

"It's extreme, I would say," said Peter Ganchenko, a self-described Christian conservative who has organized many of the high school demonstrations. "I don't know why they would do that."

Dick Otterstad said the Bible calls on adherents to expose sin and what they see as perversions of biblical truths. If that means protesting at someone's home or church, so be it.

His church has done it before. In February, Otterstad and church members protested outside the First Baptist Church in Davis to call for the ouster of a member of that congregation, Freddie Oakley, Yolo County's clerk-recorder. The protest targeted Oakley's decision to issue "Certificates of Inequality" to gay couples who wanted to marry. The certificates have no legal basis, but Oakley said they were intended to highlight the unfair treatment of gay couples under the law.

Otterstad, who wants public schools abolished and sodomy laws reinstated, owns a company called "No Gay Gear Inc." that sells anti-gay materials such as T-shorts and magnets. Last year, his company provided T-shirts that the students wore to school in a similar protest.

Trent Allen, a spokesman for the school district, says the shirts aren't about religious belief, but rather are targeting homosexuals and implying they will go to hell. "We don't want an intimidating environment where students feel harassed and persecuted because of one of their identifying qualities." The district says it supports the students' First Amendment rights – just not at school.

And the First Amendment is really what this dispute comes down to. The Illinois First Amendment Center links to several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that lay out the extent of students' expressive freedom on public school property. One of the more important cases is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In that case, the Court said, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court also stated, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Another pertinent case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, summarized previous cases as stating that students "cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises … unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will 'substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.'" Nevertheless, "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission,' … even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." Determining what speech is appropriate is the responsibility of the school board. However, the Court said in Hazelwood, the school's ability to restrict student speech is limited to school-sponsored speech, such as "publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that … bear the imprimatur of the school." The school cannot "silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises."

GLSEN has addressed the matter of First Amendment protection in the debate of homosexuality between students at schools very well at its website. The group offers a link to consensus guidelines that were designed to help deal with conflicts over views of homosexuality in light of the First Amendment. One item in those guidelines reads:

Be careful that you do not discriminate against student clubs or expression simply because the political or religious message is unpopular or potentially offensive to some. Educators can and should require that all viewpoints be expressed in a respectful manner, but they may not exclude some views merely because they don’t agree with them. To do so constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

In short, schools cannot impose a religious viewpoint in the matter of homosexuality, but they also cannot prevent students from expressing their religious beliefs on the matter. So long as the exchange remains peaceful and non-disruptive, it must be allowed. I am surprised the Citrus Heights area's school board is not being advised by an attorney to drop the suspensions and allow the students to wear their shirts, despite the fact that they are offensive. On the other hand, the situation appears to this outsider to potentially be disruptive and contributory toward an unsafe atmosphere for some students. So I will be very interested to see if this goes to court, and if so, how it flavors the overall interpretation of First Amendment protection for student speech.

Posted by Becky at 10:43 AM |

Fox tries to pander to the Christian market

I'm probably the last person to notice the Fox Faith Movies site. But better late than never, eh?

Undoubtedly, Fox believes it can pander to Christians who don't want to view sex on the big screen. The film they're currently pushing is rated PG for "thematic elements, some violence and language". So apparently you can knock somebody around or use a swear word or two (no "F" bombs, one would think--I doubt that would pass muster) and still be chummy with the Christian viewership.

No tits and ass, tho.

Posted by Carla at 08:39 AM |

May 22, 2007

Rudy: It's Clinton's Fault

In case you thought that going to war in Iraq was Bush’s decision and Bush’s mistake, it turns out that, like everything else that’s gone wrong in this country, it was actually Bill Clinton’s fault. So said Rudy Giuliani last night on the Late Show with David Letterman. He reminded Letterman that a lot of Democrats initially supported the war and praised Bush for deciding to attack Iraq. Of course, he neglected to mention that their support was based on trusting that the President was telling them the truth.

It was the policy of the Clinton administration to have a regime change in Iraq, so in a way, George Bush carried out what Bill Clinton wanted to do and didn’t get the opportunity to do.

Hmm. "I have never heard that before. And I have heard some pretty absurd theories."

Posted by Becky at 06:42 PM |

"Corrupt, Inept, Mendacious and Venal"

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru, writes, "the Bush dictatorship is the domicile for many monsters cloaked in human attire" in a piece on Pravda entitled, Ignoring evil in America." And, he says, though the "Bush dictatorship" is "corrupt, inept, mendacious and venal," Americans are, for some reason, suffering from "a great reluctance to use the term 'evil' when describing the cabal of thugs, hypocrites and war criminals who stole the White House in 2000 and 2004." Hoffman apparently feels quite passionate about his subject matter. If you can see past the wild, inflammatory rhetoric, however, he makes a good point.

“Why are Americans so willing to acknowledge the presence of evil when it comes to foreign governments, but so unwilling to acknowledge the presence of evil within their own government?”

Hoffman offers four reasons:

1. "[T]he 'arrogance syndrome.' Americans want to believe they are somehow more 'civilized,' and therefore less gullible, than other nations of the world."

2. "[T]oo many powerful people profit from it."

3. "[T]he uncanny ability of human beings to rationalize anything.

4. "[T]he terms 'good and evil' often take one into the realm of religion. When science and logic fails, faith often prevails."

In Bryan Singer’s remarkable film The Usual Suspects, a character named Verbal Kint remarks, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Sadly, this trick will continue to be effective as long as Americans refuse to acknowledge that their nation is being controlled by people who are “purely and simply evil.”

It looks to me as if Hoffman is saying Bush is the Devil (though not literally, of course). He wouldn't be the first to find a diabolical connection. For example, did you know that Bush is the AntiChrist (also known as "the Devil's Spawn")? In fact, irrefutable proof exists that he worships Satan. And that scary thing is, he is not the only one. Thank goodness we have a few very sincere people out there with no life who are hard at work compiling meaningless data that can make us chuckle as we consider the very discomfiting fact that the Bush Administration is being increasingly described around the world as "corrupt, inept, mendacious and venal" - and even "evil."

Posted by Becky at 02:58 PM |

When Do Schools Cross the Line in Sex Ed?

A series of recent incidents in which school children have been provided with information about sex and drugs from a very open-minded perspective has got me thinking about just how much schools should defer to parents when it comes to such delicate topics. When kids are not provided with information, whether due to inattention by their parents or religious and moral belief systems, they can end up in trouble because they failed to recognize danger and/or did not know how to avoid it. On the other hand, if you give kids too much information, they might think they have carte blanch permission to do anything or, for those who always want to push the boundaries, go further in their experimentation than they otherwise might have gone. Some kids are already in the process of rejecting their parents' beliefs or perhaps are afraid to tell their parents about their sexuality and want information their parents will not give to them. The question is, at what point does the public school system cross the line in providing information on sex and drugs to children without their parents' knowledge or permission?

One of the recent incidents involves an assembly at Boulder High School in Colorado where a psychology professor told students as young as 14 to go ahead and have sex and use drugs "appropriately" because they were "going to do it anyway." A partial transcript puts the comments into better perspective, but is still disturbing to me as a parent – even though I have had somewhat similar (but less explicit) conversations with my own children. Except for that drug part. I mean, is it really a healthy thing to tell high school students that there is even such a concept as using drugs "appropriately," particularly when by saying so you are encouraging illegal behavior? I think the assembly, if allowed at all, should have been optional and parents should have been invited so they could have had the opportunity to engage in follow-up discussions with their children.

The reason I question whether the assembly should even have been allowed is explained best by this:

Priscilla White [an upset parent] told [school] board members it's inappropriate for such a message to be delivered by a public school. She was reading excerpts of the presentation to the board when board President Helayne Jones told her to stop, because the language was inappropriate.

If adults in a school board meeting are offended by a transcript of the presentation, then clearly the presentation should not have been made to the students. I understand the generational differences in attitude toward these topics and the desire to overcome the hang-ups that caused problems for today's adults. So to say this was "Strike 7,867,960,071 Against Public Education" is a bit over the top. But I also think high school is too early to expose kids to viewpoints that are completely contrary to their parents' beliefs without their parents' knowledge or permission. That should wait until college when they are adults.

I'm a little less, but not much less, offended by a recent seminar held at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass. that explained to students how to know if they are gay, where to meet other gay kids, and other related issues. The problem was not that it taught "the homosexual agenda," but rather that parents were banned from attending the seminar. As a parent, I find that absolutely galling. At the same time, I understand some parents are so radically intolerant of homosexuality that they would deny their children the sort of information that could help them live emotionally and physically healthy lives.

A third recent incident occurred at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, where 14-year-old students were required to attend a seminar on homosexuality that basically, if we're being honest, was an effort to de-program their homophobia. Again, I don't personally have a problem with this. My kids have developed their own views on the matter and are pretty locked into them, and we have discussed it a number of times. The catch here was that the students had to sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell anyone what was said in the seminar – including their parents. That makes me wonder how explicit the information was – and if it was explicit, why the school thought that information was necessary to give to straight kids.

I am not a big fan, to put it mildly, of locking parents out of the information being given to kids who are still minors. Healthy family relationships are built on trust and honesty, and to ask kids to hide something from their parents that they normally might want to discuss with them is flat out wrong.

As for the Christian parents who are having so much trouble with the modern approach to this entire topic, I really cannot blame them for increasingly pulling their kids out of the public school system and putting them into private, religious schools. But for the rest of us, I believe we need to know what our children are being told. It isn't so much a matter of "rights," as in our kids being our "property." Rather, it's a matter of our responsibility to our kids to do our best for them. Parents know their kids better than anyone else, know what they're ready to learn, and have a set of values they want to pass on to their children. All of that should be respected.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

May 21, 2007

Gingrich Wants to "Convert All of America"

This weekend brought us another reason to be afraid of Newt Gingrich. Speaking to Liberty University's graduating class yesterday, Gingrich said, "A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights." If that had been all he said, I would have yawned and moved on. I mean, this sort of rhetoric is as trite as it comes. But after his speech, Gingrich said a most breathtaking thing: "Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created." (Emphasis mine)

Posted by Becky at 02:12 PM |

The Press is Being Rather Nice to Teachers

I'm trying to figure out why Dan Brown has a problem with the media's reporting of pedophile teachers, but I don't get it. Brown seems to think there is some sort of conspiracy to defame teachers because every time he Googles "teacher" on Google News, 20 to 30 percent of the headlines he pulls up involve scandals (usually sex scandals and usually involving children).

This is bad. With similar methods in how the media has skewed and perverted perceptions of the dangers and criminality of African-American men, teachers are in the crosshairs of disproportionately sensational, negative reporting. This kind of coverage preys on people's fears and weaknesses, and it poisons an ostensibly informed citizenry.

I support the First Amendment wholly, and am not calling for certain egregious incidents not to be reported, but here in the blogosphere, I must shout into the amorphous vacuum of media interests: Why the hate on teachers?

Brown then goes on at length about how wonderful teachers are and all the wonderful things they do for America and decries the lack of media coverage of all their goodness. It's just plain a silly assertion. Media doesn't cover the goodness about anything as a general rule because goodness is rarely newsworthy. But Brown seems to think that with all the stories of pedophile teachers, people are beginning to view teachers as creepy (Catholic priest-type creepy). I can only say, "Wow."

I have plenty of reason not to trust teachers. I have two family members who actually were molested by teachers, one male and one female. My son's 6th grade teacher lost his job after two girls (not from the school, but of the age he was teaching) accused him of molestation. I once was friends with a girl who started dating her husband back when he was her 6th grade teacher. Creepy, I know, but true story. But even with all that, I still believe in teachers. I know my kids' teachers and the way they have positively influenced my kids' lives. In no way do I see teachers as creepy.

Brown then tries to claim that because people are beginning not to trust teachers not to molest their kids, they're also no longer trusting them to be able to teach their kids.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002, soon to be up for renewal, is based on a tacit mistrust of teachers. Within the legislation, virtually all accountability is defined through a very small number of high-stakes standardized tests, forcing teachers and students to endure rigid, test-centric, "teacher-proof" curricula.

Does Brown honestly believe that parents will begin to distrust teachers' ability to teach because they've heard of a few cases of molestation? Isn't it more important to publicly shame pedophile teachers and force them out of the profession? I think the statistics are such that we're not giving the problem of pedophile teachers anywhere near the attention it actually deserves.

A 1999 report found that many teachers who were caught having molested kids were able to play the system and get teaching jobs elsewhere, undiscovered by their new employer. Many actually got help from their former bosses finding a job in another district or state (it's called "passing the trash"). Only rarely do pedophile teachers actually pay the price they ought to pay. In fact, when students report sexual abuse by school staff or teachers, the teachers only resign 38.7% of the time. 17.5% are "spoken to informally," 15% are terminated or not re-hired, 11.3% receive a formal reprimand, 8.1% are suspended and resume teaching, and 7.5% are said to have "not meant it." All but 1% of those who resigned, weren't rehired, retired, or were fired actually retained their teaching licenses. When the press does their job and reports these people, it is easier to prevent them from hiding from their past.

Brown says the news coverage of pedophile teachers is disproportionate, but statistics say otherwise. As many as 5% of teachers sexually harass or abuse students, and rarely does it occur only one time. Most of these cases are never reported. A 2002 Department of Education report estimated that from 6 percent to 10 percent of all students in public schools would be victims of abuse before graduation.

After reviewing the statistics, Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft said, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” Richard Dangel, a child psychologist in Dallas, said, “Only about 4% of offenders get busted. The other 96% don’t.” If the media was out to smear teachers, then why are we hearing so much more about Catholic priest abuse than we are about teacher abuse? Maybe it's because too many of us have that Dan Brown attitude that teachers are perfect and lovely and can do no wrong. I think the papers are being very subdued in their reporting of this problem, specifically because they don't want to destroy the public's faith in our school system. It's a difficult balancing act when your putting children's futures on the line.

I mentioned four cases I knew of involving teacher molestation. In one, the teacher was asked to relocate, but kept on teaching. In another, it was never reported and the teacher became "Teacher of the Year" not long afterward. In the case of my son's 6th grade teacher, the school was aware of the allegations the entire year my son was in his class, but we parents were never told and he was allowed to stay teaching. Only during the summer following school did the information become public knowledge. I have not heard any more about what happened in that case. And my friend who married her 6th grade teacher? Why, of course nobody knew that she had been having sex with the man since she was 11 years old because she was in love and never told on him.

In the end, I don't think revealing pedophile teachers denigrates the entire profession. If we cracked down on these people and got them in jail where they belong, instead of shuffling them around to new schools and waiting for them to be re-discovered, then the teaching profession would be seen as even more credible and worthy of trust than it is now.

Posted by Becky at 01:59 PM |

May 20, 2007

Harry Reid shows off his new cojones

And they are a thing of beauty.

Posted by Carla at 01:48 PM |

Convicted for convictions

Members of the military blowing the whistle on the Bush Adminstration unfortunately get the shaft:

A military jury recommended that a Navy lawyer spend six months in prison and be dismissed from the service for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees in an unmarked Valentine's Day card.

Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday at his court martial of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.

"Injure the United States" is a pretty heavy-handed charge..especially given that nothing he sent was marked classified.

Further, according to the woman that received the information--many of the names sent by Diaz were already listed with human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

In other words, Diaz was sending information that was likely already available through non-military channels.

Imagine a military attorney so distraught by what he's seeing in the name of his country that he's willing to risk his career and his freedom by telling what he knows.

Then imagine the right wing excuse machine applauding his sentence.

The fucked up priorities of conservatives in this country never cease to amaze me.

Posted by Carla at 01:29 PM |

False Patriotism Endangering America

Missy Beattie responded to the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani in last week’s debate the same way I did – with deep concern over the audience’s blind acceptance of Giuliani’s cowboy mentality and rejection of Paul’s warnings. Beattie points to a woman she saw on television a few days after 9/11. The woman was asking, "How could they do this to us when we are so good?" I wondered that myself. "They hate our freedom" was an answer that felt good, but it was the wrong answer. It wasn't until I read Chalmers Johnson's "Nemesis" that I really understood it. Sadly, too many Republicans so deeply believe that to be a patriot, one must believe America can do no wrong, that they reject out of hand the notion that we have done wrong and that the chickens are coming home to roost. To talk about blowback to a Republican is to risk being called a traitor. They don’t seem to realize that their “patriotism” is putting this country in grave danger, and those who are raising alarms are doing so because they are patriots who want a bright future for this country!

If the citizens of this nation don't examine the role our conquest-driven foreign policy played in bringing terrorism to our shores, then, we will elect politicians who will continue the strategies that inspire terrorists, thus, denying our children and grandchildren a peaceful world.

Ron Paul suggested we listen to what the people who attacked us had to say about why they did it. Beattie offers a few excerpts from bin Laden’s fatwa and many other brave, patriotic Americans have done the same. Interestingly, just as Paul said, our bombing of Iraq, along with the imposition of sanctions that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, really was part of what led to 9/11. And it isn’t traitorous to say so. In fact, it’s downright patriotic to tell the truth if we want to build a better future for America.

Posted by Becky at 12:08 PM |

May 19, 2007

Another GOP perv gets caught

At least this one isn't a minister:

A former South Dakota lawmaker is accused of molesting his own foster children and legislative pages.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking.

Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter.

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself.

Over at Digby's blog, Tristero notes the laundry list of predictably austere legislative offerings from Klaudt:

establish certain legislative findings pertaining to the health and rights of women, to revise the physician disclosure requirements to be made to a woman contemplating submitting to an abortion, and to provide for certain causes of action for professional negligence if an abortion is performed without informed consent.

clarify the application of certain provisions pertaining to the sale of pistols.

provide for recognition of certain valid nonresident permits to carry a concealed pistol.

provide for limited confidentiality of certain firearms information.

establish a task force to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration.

prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.

In support of free religious expression in public schools.

Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election an amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the definition of marriage. [The proposed amendment:: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota."]

revise certain provisions regarding the performance of abortions on unemancipated minors and those found to be incompetent. [The bill required a 48 hour delay after notification of a parent befor an abortion could be performed, with certain exceptions noted.]

prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.

The only plausible conclusion I can reach with this guy is that he recognizes his twisted, deviant soul and has used his legislative position to assuage the guilt he feels for his perversions.

Given the excesses of religious extremism against sex by the likes of the disgraced Ted Haggard and Paul Barnes--the picture is clarifying.

Sometimes they're just trying to hide from their homosexuality.

Or those individuals who move to the extreme fringe preaching against healthy, normal sexual activity by consenting adults are often tasting the forbidden fruit of their own deviant sexual urges.

Either way, its about covering up for things they hate about themselves.

Posted by Carla at 10:45 AM |

May 18, 2007

The "War on Christianity" Claims Fall Flat Again

It looks as if another effort to scare Christians into believing the end of the world is right around the corner has fallen flat. Yesterday, Christians around the world were warned that Hong Kong was on the verge of banning the Bible because of its "indecent" contents, which some 1406 people told Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority "made one tremble" because of its stories of rape, incest, cannibalism, and bestiality. So desperate were the scaremongers that they were forced to quote someone who posted on an Internet message board to ramp up the fear: "Wow, another excuse to try and remove Jesus or anything about Him from the world, so to speak. The Enemy is hard at work in these last days." Alas, the Television and Licensing Authority refused to bite, saying, "The Bible is a religious text which is part of civilization. It has been passed from generation to generation," and refusing to submit the Bible to the Obscene Articles Tribunal for classification.

Posted by Becky at 04:59 PM |

So maybe I'll register as a Republican

Now that Jerry Falwell has done the mortal coil shuffle, James Dobson has decided once and for all to take the reins of Christianofascism and ride it like the Rocking Horse Winner.

That Dobson really is a piece of work:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.

In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.

"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.

"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

Just the idea that Giuliani's candidacy would thwart the efforts of Dobson and his minions of intolerance-bordering-on-insanity...is almost enough to make me run down to the local elections office and switch my voter registration to Republican.

I might even consider giving the guy money, too.

Posted by Carla at 02:47 PM |

Act Now to Protect Organic Standards

Democracy in Action is gathering e-signatures as fast as it can in an effort to stop the perversion of organic standards by the USDA.

The USDA has announced a controversial proposal, with absolutely no input from consumers, to allow 38 new non-organic ingredients in products bearing the "USDA Organic" seal. Most of the ingredients are food colorings derived from plants that are supposedly not "commercially available" in organic form. But at least three of the proposed ingredients, backed by beer giant Anheuser-Busch and pork and food processors, represent a serious threat to organic standards, and have raised the concerns of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as well as a number of smaller organic companies and organic certifiers.

Specifically, the OCA disagrees with the "Budweiser exemption," allowing conventionally grown hops, produced with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, to be used in beers labeled as "USDA Organic". Also, OCA strenuously objects to the USDA's proposal to allow the use of conventionally raised factory-farmed animals' intestines as casing for sausages labeled as "organic."

Adding salt to the wound, the USDA has indicated the public comment period will not be the standard 30-60 days. Although the USDA has been working closely with industry on these proposed changes as far back as 2002, the agency will only be accepting public comments for seven days.

If this makes you as angry as it makes me, please do as I did and go sign the petition!

Posted by Becky at 11:41 AM |

Fear and Torture Changing America's Character

Two former military leaders have penned a great piece on fear, torture, and who we are as Americans. Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. Their piece, "US policy on terror breeds new enemies," probably won't win them any friends in the White House, but it's a very insightful analysis of what the politics of fear has done to this country.

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night’s presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Their indictment of torture could not be more appropriately timed. A new survey shows that Marines are more likely than other soldiers to condone torture. Fewer than half would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian and 39% support the use of torture to gain information from insurgents. We also have disturbing testimony from a marine in a pretrial hearing in the 2005 Haditha killings and cover-up. Krulak and Hoar explain why Americans need an attitude adjustment forthwith:

Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA, but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

I would certainly like to see us return to the days when we could hold our heads high, knowing that we did not torture or abuse prisoners, but rather respected human rights and human life. If we lose that aspect of ourselves, then we have lost what makes America great.

Posted by Becky at 11:32 AM |

Gore Decries Television, Praises Internet

Time has an excerpt available online from Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. In it, he asks the question "Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?"

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong.

If you share that feeling, then you'll be very interested in what he has to say about it. He doesn't point at the President or the media or anyone else we tend to want to blame. He points directly at us and our addiction to television.

Our Founders' faith in the viability of representative democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry, their ingenious design for checks and balances, and their belief that the rule of reason is the natural sovereign of a free people. The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. Thus they not only protected freedom of assembly, they made a special point—in the First Amendment—of protecting the freedom of the printing press. And yet today, almost 45 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers. Reading itself is in decline. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television. … According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

I've got to tell you, before I even got to where Gore said it I already had concluded that the answer to this problem of reasoned public debate is the Internet. We need to get more people into reading and debating issues on the Internet, where they are actively engaged by speaking their mind, facing challenges to their views, and learning from each other. It is amazingly powerful.

Even more amazing to me personally is how my own view of Al Gore has been completely transformed over the past year. Although I don't agree with him politically in a number of areas, I have to admit the man is an incredible visionary who, through his activism in the development of the Internet and in increasing public awareness of global warming, has had an incredibly powerful and positive long-term impact on the future of this country and of the planet itself. He is the classic example of why the demonization of individuals whose politics are different from your own is so harmful.

Posted by Becky at 11:09 AM |

May 17, 2007

If Falwell Thinks He's in Hell Now ...

Nods to Jesus' General for noticing that Fred Pehlps's Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket Jerry Falwell's funeral. I guess he wasn't enough of a fag-hater to satisfy their god, because, as they now are saying, "God Hates Jerry Falwell" for spending his life "prophesying lies and false doctrines like 'God loves everyone'."

The "corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell" said a lot of things about homosexuals that one might easily mistake as having come from the mouth of Fred Phelps himself. For instance:

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

He also said 9/11was God's punishment for America's tolerance of "the gays and the lesbians."

The strange thing is that Phelps also criticizes Falwell for "warmly" praising "Christ-rejecting Jews" (when Falwell actually said some pretty harsh things about Jews) and "backsliders" like Billy Graham (when Falwell also came down hard on him). I nearly wrote a post the other day comparing Falwell to Phelps. I was thinking of doing a quiz with several quotes by Falwell and asking the reader to guess which ones were by him and which were by Phelps. I decided enough people had written about him that I'd let it go.

It looks to me as if the only legitimate complaint that Fred Phelps has against Jerry Falwell is that Falwell was at least sensible enough to distance himself from his fellow crazy hater. Falwell did, in fact, care about the "filthy lucre," whereas Phelps only cares about the hate. If there is, indeed, a Hell, I think Phelps's eventual arrival there - God willing, sooner rather than later - will make Falwell's eternal torment all the more unbearable.

Posted by Becky at 01:23 PM |

Comey is a Hero

If you have not yet heard or read the testimony that Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey gave Congress on Tuesday, you really need to check it out (I'm not linking to the video, but it should be easy to find). Comey tells of how he and Attorney General John Ashcroft, in March of 2004, had decided that warrentless wiretapping, otherwise referred to by Comey as "a particular classified program," was illegal. Ashcroft decided he would not provide a signature certifying its legality and allowing the program to continue. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft was hospitalized and Comey became the acting Attorney General - and the person who had the difficult job of telling the President that the program would not be re-certified. Comey then tells of how, on March 10, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card, at the direction of President Bush, decided to circumvent Comey's authority and visit the hospital bed of the gravely ill John Ashcroft to try to convince him to allow the continued use of the program. The drama that unfolded is so astounding that it reads more like a movie script than an actual occurrence. Needless to say, Comey's testimony has reignited the investigation into the warrantless wiretapping program.

What strikes me about this is the fact that Comey is a Republican who, if you listen to him speak and pause and struggle with his testimony, is clearly very upset at having to push down the pillars holding the roof over this Administration. He has had to make the very difficult, gut-wrenching choice to do the right thing even though it will harm his Party and perhaps even efforts he supports. The pressure coming down on him for this must be incredibly intense. I, for one, have a profound admiration for his courage and integrity.

Posted by Becky at 12:16 PM |

FEMA is no Longer About Aiding Disaster Victims

Republicans are constantly harping these days on the need for limited government and self-reliance. To that end, they attack the social safety net of Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, the food stamp program, etc. When government steps in, they say, charity goes down, and if the government backed out of these programs and let people help each other, then efforts to help the needy would actually cost less and be more effective. These efforts should be an activity of churches and neighbors and families, they say. So why it is that with a Christian Republican president, our government is actually turning away volunteers who want to help the victims of disasters?

A very compelling account of one group's efforts to help the victims of the tornado that flattened Greensburg, Kansas on May 4 shows how entirely heartless and anti-volunteer FEMA has become. The group, like all volunteers who were bringing food, supplies, and manpower to Greensburg, was denied entry by armed guards at checkpoints set up outside of what was left of the town – because those were FEMA's instructions. It was a week before Americorps was given permission by FEMA to establish and coordinate volunteer efforts.

This sounds all too similar to FEMA's actions after Hurricane Katrina, where volunteers were turned away from helping victims who were trapped in their homes. FEMA also turned away water, aid, and fuel and cut emergency communication lines – all in the name of security and safety. Would-be volunteers told of days upon days of sitting in tents while people were dying, waiting for permission to enter and provide assistance. But until the city was "secured," FEMA would not let them in. And the same thing happened this month in Greensburg.

Shortly after the tornado, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took control of the recovery efforts in Greensburg. The United Way became the coordinating organization for relief volunteers but, after orders came from FEMA, halted the flow of volunteers into Greensburg. FEMA demanded that Greensburg needed to be “secured” by the National Guard before the area could be opened to real recovery efforts.

So, as hundreds of recovery volunteers were told to not come to Greensburg by the United Way, hundreds of police from dozens of Kansas jurisdictions were mobilized to enter the city and establish “control.” …

FEMA’s mission was to safeguard the property of businesses in the area and offer “low interest” loans to property owners affected. The National Guard was on hand along with the local police, to act as the enforcement mechanism for FEMA, while occasionally hauling debris and garbage out of the city.

In another similarity to FEMA's actions in New Orleans, legal firearms were confiscated from residents of Greensburg.

Something stinks pretty badly here. Once again, we have a devastating disaster hitting a poor area, FEMA rushing in and blocking all volunteer assistance efforts while doing little or nothing itself (rumor has it that all FEMA has done for those people is mail a packet of information to them – which, of course, cannot be delivered as their homes and, therefore, mail boxes, are gone), destitute people looting, and those whose stuff is being looted being disarmed, only to finally receive help when they have reached a state of utter desperation. Why?

It is tempting to think of this as an effort to get Americans to distrust the government's ability to be there for them in their time of need and then to dismantle the safety net, but I don't think that's what's going on here. Just two months ago, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., wrote a piece for the free market Heritage Foundation upholding the role of the federal government in disasters. Rather than concluding the federal government should butt out, as you might expect, he said it plays an important role in providing national assistance in disasters. But, he said, federal assistance should be supplemental to local grassroots responses because "community-centered disaster preparations are far more effective than Washington-centric planning."

[A]s the scale of the disaster increases, so does the likelihood of confusion and ambiguity. Under these conditions, improvisation and adaptation are crucial to eliciting an effective response, particularly in the first hours and days of a catastrophe before organized responders can reach the scene. Research has found that the communities themselves are the best source of innovation and ingenuity, and the stronger the community, the more resourceful and robust is the nature of its adaptive qualities.

And of course we know that. Volunteers have always turned up in droves - loaded up with food, water, fuel, medicine, blankets, etc. - to help disaster victims. And it has always been the local churches and civic organizations that coordinated volunteer responses. Until FEMA became part of Homeland Security and its counter-terrorism efforts in 2003. And that leads me to what I think is going on here.

FEMA's entire angle has been changed. It is treating natural disasters as it would terrorist attacks. That is why before any assistance can be provided, it must first disarm and establish military control. Only then, after lives have been needlessly lost, can volunteers be allowed in to help the victims.

Posted by Becky at 11:52 AM |

May 16, 2007

Odds and Ends from Last Night's Debate

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates offered numerous ironies, some comedy, and some moments that simply made you say, "Huh?" Here's a recap of the portions I didn't specifically highlight elsewhere today:

Mitt Romney, a member of the spend, spend, spend Republican Party, tried to pretend his party hasn't become the party of big government and fell back on the "limited government" blather that the faithful lap up like the thirsty dogs they are:

MR. ROMNEY: We need to have fundamental change in the way business in Washington is carried out. What that means is we're going to have to have leadership that can reorganize the government. We're going to have about 40 percent of the government employees turn over in the next couple of terms. And if we can -- we can reduce the employment there, but more importantly, is to go through all the agencies, all the departments, all the programs and cut out the unnecessary and the wasteful.

John McCain, who understands the big government problem, had perhaps the funniest answer of the evening:

SEN. MCCAIN: We didn't lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq; we lost it because we in the Republican Party came to Washington to change government and government changed us. We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor, although I never knew a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of my colleagues.

Mike Huckabee, who quipped that Congress has "spent money like Edwards at a beauty shop," said he wanted to eliminate the IRS, thereby eliminating the $10 billion per year expenditure for operating the IRS, and change the entire tax structure.

MR. HUCKABEE: … If we had a fair tax, it would eliminate not just the alternative minimum tax, personal income tax, corporate tax, it would eliminate all the various taxes that are hidden in our system, and Americans don't realize what they're paying.

Rudy Giuliani boasted about the report that the infamous (at least around here) Club for Growth put out on his fiscal behavior while mayor of New York City and said if he could reduce taxes there, he could certainly do it in Washington, DC because "Washington is easier than New York City to deal with!" His plan:

I'd do Reagan-like across- the-board budget cuts 5 to 20 percent. And there's a great opportunity that we have coming up. About 50 percent, just about 50 percent of the federal employees are going to retire in the next 10 years, during the term of, maybe, one of us. And we have the opportunity of not refilling all those positions. And I would pledge not to refill 50 percent of them.

When asked how he would prevent rising gasoline costs, Sam Brownback, whose daughter apparently has a lead foot, attempted to straddle the fence on energy and the environment while also trashing the latest bogeymen:

SEN. BROWNBACK: How I'd prevent that is us getting more supply in the system through biofuels for one thing, like ethanol from Kansas or maybe Iowa would be a nice state, too, for it to come from -- (laughter) -- biodiesel. Us being able to drill more at home here in the United States, and we can do this in places like ANWR safely, environmentally sound, but get the supply up here. And, we have to in the future work on more conservation here. My family, we have a hybrid car. In that car you can get up to 42, 43 miles to the gallon. Now my 17-year-old daughter does about 25 on it, so it does matter how you drive it. But the point of it is, is you can do better, and we can do better. And we can do this through technology, and we can do this through increasing supply here. And by that mixture we can become energy-secure in North America in 15 years, which I think should be one of our key objectives, so that we're not held hostage to a guy like Chavez in Venezuela or Ahmadinejad in Iran. We can do better, and we need to do better than $4-a-gallon gasoline.

Tommy Thompson bragged about his "over 1,900 vetoes." Ron Paul said he would eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security. Tom Tancredo expressed what can only be summed up as embarrassment at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican-led Congress.

And Jim Gilmore positively baffled me with this statement:

MR. GILMORE: … I looked back at the California debates, and I think that some of the people on this stage were very liberal in characterizing themselves as conservatives …

He promised to talk about who he meant by that today on his website today, but I'll be damned if I can find it. Perhaps he changed his mind in light of the fact that later he was asked to "name names," and pointed to Rudy Giuliani for his abortion views, Mike Huckabee for his "dramatic" tax increases while governor, and Mitt Romney for his health care stance. John McCain felt "left out," particularly in light of Gilmore's earlier "Rudy McRomney" comment.

Gilmore wasn't the only one making baffling statements. Giuliani said of Hillary Clinton:

… there's something I think really big at stake here. We're looking at a race here in which the leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America. That's a quote -- or that's a quote she agreed with. She's also said, with regard to taxes, that we have to take money from you in order to give it to the common good.

What's baffling is how a credible candidate could say something like that. That is a message targeted squarely at the far, far right. Since when did the mainstream Republican Party ever stand for an "unfettered free market"? And if taxes aren't meant to support the common good, then what are they for?

Mike Huckabee showed some balls, in my opinion, on the tax issue:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, you got slammed for raising taxes. How do you respond, sir?

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, it's a form of flattery to be attacked, but … the truth is I cut taxes 94 times when I was governor. Yes, we raised gasoline taxes in my state to build a road program that we desperately needed, but 80 percent of the people of my state voted for it. Do I apologize for going along with what 80 percent of the people of my state supported? No. Nor do I anyway apologize for building roads. Do I apologize for complying with a Supreme Court order to improve education in a state that desperately needed it? Of course I don't, because our education system did improve. But I don't also apologize for being a Republican governor in a very Democrat state and getting 94 different tax decreases, the first ever in my state's history, done. And I think that's a pretty doggone good record.

Mitt Romney also has run into trouble with right-wing Republicans over his governance record in a "blue" state:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. An in the -- with regards to gay rights, I have always been somebody who opposes discrimination. But I also consistently feel that it's critical to have marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. If you ever bought a suit and you look at it and you can't tell if it's blue or black, that's how blue Massachusetts is. And in that state I've had to stand up for life, and I have. I've had to stand up for traditional marriage, and I have. In that very difficult state, I stood to make sure that we could have English immersion in our schools, because I think kids should be taught in English. I fought for the death penalty. I fought for abstinence education. In the toughest of states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Giluiani was the only candidate to say anything I found interesting regarding immigration:

MR. GIULIANI: Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Congressman Tancredo for saying that I'm soft on anything. (Laughter.) That's the first time in about 20 years, since I was U.S. attorney, that anybody accused me of being soft. So it may help my reputation. The reality is, the focus on immigration should be to know everyone who's in the United States. We should have a tamper-proof ID card; we should have a database in which we can identify the people who are in this country. I know something about security. I think I've had more experience at having to secure a city, having to deal with security in the Justice Department, than, I would say, anyone on this stage. And the reality is, we've got to be sensible about immigration. If we do the kinds of things that some of the people here are talking about, this country's going to be in greater danger; it is going to be more insecure; we're going to face a situation in which terrorists like the Fort Dix people, three of whom were illegal, can find a big underground to hide in. So we need a fence. We need a technological fence; we need a tamper-proof ID card. And we need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper-proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.

And Ron Paul had some very interesting comments about our actions in the Middle East:

REP. PAUL: …We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Of course, Giluiani couldn't let that one slide, and had to take it to lengths that were ridiculous on their face:

MR. GIULIANI: … That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Fortunately, Paul has a brain:

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Next, McCain had to deal with the Confederate flag issue. First of all, can you believe this is an issue in this country? It's like those kids who only just this year had their first integrated prom. Anyway, McCain said that South Carolina's continued flying of the Confederate flag is OK because it's in front of the Statehouse as opposed to flying on top of the capitol and said we should all just "move on" on this issue.

And move on they did – to global warming, where Tancredo wandered into (and back out of) a coherent thought amidst all of his craziness. Well, sort of.

REP. TANCREDO: Okay. First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you it's happening and that it's our fault -- and they'll stack up to here in this reports -- I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite. I don't believe that -- well, I'll tell you this, I don't know whether or not we are responsible, we the human race, are responsible for global warming. It certainly could be happening, it certainly could be a natural phenomenon. If it's the latter, of course there isn't much we can do about that. If it's the former, there is something that we can do about it, and I'm all for it, and that is of course to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. If we do that, we automatically reduce the carbon emissions that people claim are causing global warming. And I'm all for doing that, because -- I'll tell you why. It's a national security issue. It just isn't an issue of fight over the science of global warming; it's a national security issue for us to move away from the use of petroleum products when they're coming from countries that want to kill us. And although my dear friend Ron here -- I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that -- whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

Romney was asked to talk about something where he changed his mind on an issue in opposition to the "base" and pointed to his support of No Child Left Behind.

Mr. ROMNEY: I have issues that take me in the same direction. One is No Child Left Behind. I've taken a position where, once upon a time, I said I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. That was my position when I ran for Senate in 1994. That's very popular with the base. As I've been a governor and seen the impact that the federal government can have holding down the interest of the teachers' unions and instead putting the interests of the kids and the parents and the teachers first, I see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference. So I supported No Child Left Behind. I still do. I know there are a lot in my party that don't like it, but I like testing in our schools. I think it allows us to get better schools, better teachers; allows us to let our kids have the kind of hope that they ought to have.

Somebody might want to tell Romney that No Child Left Behind isn't popular with the left, either.

What a night.

Posted by Becky at 04:57 PM |

Republicans Look to Be Next Jack Bauer

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates concluded with an imaginary terrorist scenario, a la an episode of "24," and asked the candidates how they would respond.

The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.

First, John McCain, himself a torture survivor, was asked "how aggressively" he would interrogate Guantanamo Bay prisoners in an effort to learn about the next attack, and earned back a bit of my respect.

SEN. MCCAIN: If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility. The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

When specifically asked about water boarding as an enhanced interrogation method, Giuliani was all for it:

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of –

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

Note the interruption by applause – the Party faithful apparently like torture.

Romney's turn was next. He focused on prevention – in other words, he did not want to talk about what he would do in such a situation, but rather how hard he would work to make sure that situation did not occur in the first place. And then he said something very, very shocking about Guantanamo, accompanied by more of that frightening audience applause.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, first of all, let's make sure that we understand that the key in electing the next president is to find somebody who will make sure that that scenario doesn't ever happen, and the key to that is prevention. We've all spent a lot of time talking about what happens after the bomb goes off. The real question is, how do you prevent the bomb from going off? And that's what I spent my time doing as a governor over the last four years, and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. And that means intelligence and counterterrorism. Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- (applause) -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

I wonder how they distinguish between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Sounds like semantics – or spin – used to ease the burden of the conscience to me. A bit later McCain was asked whether he thought "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture, and he said he did.

SEN. MCCAIN: … during the debate, when we had the detainee treatment act, there was a sharp division between those who had served in the milita