« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 30, 2007

Kevin Mannix: Big PhRMA's Whore

Freida Mae has a post up at Loaded Orygun that caught my eye. It deals with Kevin Mannix's latest initiative (I have not been able to verify this yet, as it isn't listed on the Secretary of State's website that I can see, but is also being reported here and has been expected). If Freida Mae is correct, the initiative would replace the current Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (which allows sick, hurting and dying Oregonians to legally find relief from their pain with natural marijuana) with prescriptions pharmaceutical synthetics. In other words, rather than allowing the sick and dying to grow their own natural remedies in the privacy of their own homes, Kevin Mannix wants to mandate that these sick and dying Oregonians buy chemicals that can cause panic attacks from Big PhRMA. If ever we had an indication of what Big PhRMA contributions can buy, this is it. And if ever we had an indication of where Kevin Mannix's loyalties lie (hint: it's not with fiscal responsibility or with the people), well this is also it.

Freida Mae certainly makes the case that this is not about fiscal responsibility. And Torrid Joe makes the Big PhRMA connection, too, pointing out that this is all about making money. So why would Mr. "Populist," friend of the tax limitation crowd, go for this? First, keep in mind that he can claim to be taking the moral high ground and get away with it because the sheeple believe pharmaceuticals are good and lovely and beneficial, that the pharmaceutical industry is a lot of brilliant and benevolent scientists whose sole goal in life is to help sick people get well, and that marijuana is an evil drug that will lead a person into an immoral life of heroin abuse and debauchery. But those who have been watching Mannix for awhile know he is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, as Kelly Steele pointed out at Blue Oregon back in April, 2005 when she linked to contribution reports showing $626,000 in campaign contributions he received when he ran for governor back in 2002.

In a nutshell, here is another clue that should tell you about who Kevin Mannix really is. He's a well-paid shill. In this instance, he's whoring for the pharmaceutical industry. That's all you need to know.

Posted by Becky at 02:39 PM |

Watch Those Organic Brands

I've written before about the efforts at the USDA to weaken the standards for organic foods under pressure from corporate lobbyists. Well now there is a new threat to organics: major corporate food processors like Heinz, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Hershey, Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills, and M&M/Mars are busily buying up all the successful organics producers they can get their grubby hands on. Could the next step be that the USDA will tell the public it is weakening organic food standards at the request of the organics industry itself – an industry which is increasingly corporate?

If you want to know whether your favorite organic brands are still independent, check this chart to see the remaining major independent producers who have not sold out to a big corporation. It is important to support these companies if we want to continue to have organic standards that are meaningful.

We know that organic produce is considerably more nutritious than conventionally farmed produce. We also know the breast milk of women who drink organic milk and eat organic meat is of higher quality than the breast milk of women who eat factory farmed beef and drink conventionally produced milk. And eating organic is also good for the farm workers who grow the food. For instance, right now Dole is being sued by Latin American banana plantation workers who were never told that the chemicals they were forced to use on the bananas would make the men sterile.

To keep up-to-date on all the important organics news, subscribe to the Organic Consumer Association's newsletter, Organic Bytes, here.

Posted by Becky at 10:27 AM |

July 28, 2007

The system IS rigged

I've tentatively settled on Obama as the person I want to be our next President. Mostly because he is the ONLY candidate who got it right BEFORE we invaded and occupied Iraq. But what John Edwards has been saying for the last four years about there being two Americans - one for the rich and one for the poor - absolutely resonates with me because all the evidence points to it being the truth! So when Edwards told Iowans this past week that "the whole system has been rigged by people who have the power and the money to rig it" I wanted to stand and cheer... even though I was driving my car when I first heard it.

Last night's Bill Moyers Journal discussed Congressional earmarks and how it's an apolitical game that our elected representatives play with our money.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, Democrats do it, too - and they'll be doing more of it now that they're the majority. In fact, of the 309 earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill now being considered in the Senate four of the top five earmarkers -are Democrats. That's just one committee in the Senate. Over in the House, remember, there are more than 32,000 earmarks to consider.

As Moyers points out, the number of lobbyists inside the beltway has doubled since 2000.

Unless someone can cite something authoritative indicating that the number of lobbyists has dropped since the Dems took control of Congress, which I don't believe has happened, then I submit to you that the only relevant "us versus them" in this situation is we the people versus our elected politicians. Precious few on either side of the partisan aisle seem interested in returning Congress to it's intended function of representing the people. Dave Obey (D) and Jeff Flake (R) appear to be virtually alone in fighting the rising tide of pork barrel squander of our tax dollars.

The whole system has been rigged by people who have the power and the money to rig it.

What are you going to do about it?

Posted by Kevin at 02:51 PM |

Rape is unAmerican

Native American women are raped on or near tribal lands, often by caucasians, and few can get a cop to investigate, fewer have their case forwarded to a prosecutor and even fewer have the prosecutor take any action.

WTF???

If white women were being raped and the perps weren't being held accountable it would be all over the news and politicians would be stumbling over themselves to express their outrage, feigned or real.

Why is this being allowed to happen in 21st century America???

As the father of two daughters and as one who has always insisted on gender equality this pisses me off!! That one of my daughters has a fair amount of Native American blood coursing through her veins is irrelevant to me. This is a travesty of justice, pure and simple. I for one want to know what the hell each and every candidate for federal office in 2008 proposes to do about it!

Posted by Kevin at 02:25 PM |

July 26, 2007

Tattletale Traitors Wanted

The FBI would like to spend $22 million to recruit more than 15,000 tattletales, I mean "informants" – people who will serve as little domestic spies, providing them with secrets about their neighbors. They don't exactly describe it that way, of course, but that's what it is. You know it isn't good because the FBI has also recently proposed expanding their collection and analysis of data on Americans, keeping our phone records for a year, and increasing "black bag" secret entry operations. All this spying on Americans would overheat the FBI's current database system, of course, so that has to be overhauled.

This phony "War on Terror" is setting us up for a very bad future, people. I would suggest that those who sign up to inform on their fellow Americans probably don't deserve to be called Americans. Their loyalty should be to the Constitution and to the people it protects – their fellow-citizens, not to the government, particularly when that government is in the process of trashing the Constitution and turning the people against each other.

Posted by Becky at 02:43 PM |

Maybe It's Time to Start Going Back to Church

What do you have when 400 people crowd into a building labeled "the Vineyard of Love" (with 600 others turned away after waiting in line in a thunderstorm to get inside), where they are seated, shoes off, on velvet covered benches in the midst of wine and rose leaves, then entertained by a female dancer in a skin-colored stocking and another in a little red dress crawling around on a rose petal-covered floor and dancing to saxophone music? Add to it that the crowd is instructed that the event is erotic, they should sit close, and then all in attendance anoint and massage each others hands and foreheads with oil and kiss and embrace passionately while being told to "live out" their "lust." Is it a pagan ritual? Nope. It was a Protestant liturgy, led by a barefoot, black robed vicar who instructed attendees to worship God with sex and said that pastoral sex before preaching makes sermons "lively, powerful and more spicy." Geez, those German Protestants know how to party.

Sounds more like they're worshipping Aphrodite, Venus, Shiva, or even Pan (though I suppose flute music would have been more appropriate there) than the Protestant God. I wonder, WWJD?

Posted by Becky at 02:34 PM |

That's the Ticket!

Some of the most jaw-dropping action yet to come out of the Bush Administration has been the testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Listening to some clips of it on the radio on the way home last night made me laugh right out loud – along with those in the gallery. Not because it was funny, but because it was so incredibly outrageous I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. Andrew Cohen from the Washington Post also found it appalling:

Forget about the politicization of the Justice Department. Forget about the falling morale there. Forget about the rise in violent crime in some of our biggest cities. Forget about the events leading up to the U.S. Attorney scandal and the way he has handled the prosecutor purge since. Forget about the Department's role in allowing warrantless domestic surveillance. Forget about the contorted and contradictory accounts he's offered before in his own defense.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous "pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on Capitol Hill? I cannot.

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill-- especially his miserable exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning-- can any longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and credibility.

If you didn't get a chance to hear it, go read Cohen's post because he has a transcript that will blow you away. For those of you who don't like to read lengthy articles, here is my own paraphrase of the testimony:

SCHUMER: Are we talking about just one, or more than one secret program confirmed by the president in 2005?

GONZALES: One.

SCHUMER: You told us last February there was no serious disagreement about the program the president confirmed, but Jim Comey told us that almost everyone was ready to resign over concerns about a classified program. You later confirmed in a public press conference that Comey's testimony referred to the same program you had earlier said caused no serious dissent.

GONZALES: I'm told I misspoke, but I went back and clarified it with the reporter.

SCHUMER: You did misspeak?

GONZALES: Yes.

SCHUMER: When did you clarify it with the reporter, and which reporter?

GONZALES: Dan Eggen at The Washington Post two days later.

SCHUMER: We'll ask him about that. So it was just one program?

GONZALES: The president talked about a set of activities...

SCHUMER: Yes or no. One program?

GONZALES: One set of intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: You're deceiving us. First you say there has been no disagreement, then Comey says the dissent rocked the Justice Department to the rafters. You said Comey talked about the program the president confirmed. Then you said you had misspoken and clarified it with a reporter two days later. How can we trust you when you keep changing the story so you can wiggle out of trouble? So what did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, you didn't? [LAUGHTER] OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don't know.

SCHUMER: I'll give you another chance: What did your spokesperson say?

GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

I am so tired of liars.

Posted by Becky at 01:22 PM |

July 25, 2007

Shakespeare and the Space Aliens

A mass UFO sighting in England has piqued my interest because of some interesting synchronicity. According to news reports, a crowd of 100 people stood transfixed for half an hour watching five flying orbs in the sky. The photos are very convincing, and officials say reports of UFO sightings are on a sharp increase. The War of the Worlds and Independence Day films certainly cast a pall of fear over the general amazement of the events. But here's where the fascinating synchronicity comes in. Apparently the UFOs spent that half hour hovering above Shakespeare's birthplace in Warwickshire. And you can find a lot of links between Shakespeare and space aliens.

Take this online video game, for example. Called "SOS Shakespear," the science fiction game features aliens attacking a marine ship named the Shakespear. Interestingly, a "literacy arcade game," 'Speare, which was designed to teach Shakespeare's work, has just been released. It is a Space Invaders game.

A BBC show, Doctor Who: The Shakespeare Code, features a trio of alien witches fighting to free their alien race, as well as a trip back to 1599 to meet William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's Alien is a one-man play in 2001 starring that veteran space explorer, Patrick Stewart, or should I say Captain Jean Luc Picard, playing Shylock, a character from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice." Speaking of Stewart, Ian Stewart at the University of Warwick (similar to Warwickshire) has written a book called "Evolving the Alien," which explores the science behind aliens and seeks to dispel the notion that aliens are terrifying monsters or ugly little green men.

You can buy a Shakespeare satellite receiver to listen to Sirius radio, which is also interesting because Sirius is identified with Shakespeare's character Romeo and the importance of Sirius during Shakespeare's time is key to understanding the play, Romeo and Juliet. Royal Shakespeare Company member and movie star Gary Oldman not only played Sirius Black in the Harry Potter movies (which are full of Hamlet references), he also starred in "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead," a film that focuses on two characters from Hamlet, and "Romeo is Bleeding," and has a number of alien-themed film roles under his belt.

Speaking of "Rosencrantz," The Rosicrucians, or at least this one, seem to think that Shakespeare's plays are "humanity's Lay Bible," dealing with man's inner and outer nature, the material and the spiritual. "They are direct communications from planetary centers of Divine Wisdom." Shakespeare's writings are just chock full of astrological references.

Other interesting synchronicities include the fact that Warwick makes an "Alien" 4 String guitar; the song, "I'm in Love With an Alien" includes the lyrics, "She came looking out babe for a Romeo"; Pylones makes "Alien Pet" dog toys, including a pair labeled Romeo and Juliet; Gregory Maguire wrote a book called Five Alien Elves (The Hamlet Chronicles); an episode of "Roswell" has the character Max turning into Hamlet, Alien Prince of Rosewell; X-Files Fox Mulder is said to re-enact the Hamlet myth in many ways"; and it just goes on and on and on.

In fact, it goes on so much I'm amazed I never noticed it before. So am I surprised that eye-witnesses claim five alien spacecraft hovered over Shakespeare's birthplace Saturday night in plain view of a hundred people for half an hour allowing themselves to be photographed? No, actually, I'm not. Of course, I don't have any idea what it means.

Posted by Becky at 11:53 AM |

July 24, 2007

The McMinnville Taliban

Sometimes when I read the news I feel like we're watching a perverse game of cat and mouse in which the object is to see just how disillusioned and angry we can make our young people feel about life in America.

Last month, fifth-graders in California who glued tiny plastic toy soldiers to their mortarboards to show support for the troops were forced to cut the weapons off the figures. Earlier this year, a Rhode Island boy was suspended for bringing a plastic knife to school in his lunch so he could cut cookies. In June, a Virginia 13-year-old was suspended for putting his arm around his girlfriend in violation of the school's strict no-touching policy. In 2004, an 8-year-old Virginia boy was suspended for ten days for carrying a butter knife to school with his lunch (his mother had packed his lunch so he could make his own sandwich at school). Also in 2004, a 10-year-old girl was handcuffed and arrested for bringing scissors to school, despite the fact she had not threatened anyone with them - they just violated the zero-tolerance rules about weapons. And now we have two McMinnville middle-schoolers being arrested and run through the legal wringer at great financial cost to their parents for having the audacity to swat some girls on the butt as they ran down the school hallway.

Excuse me for a moment while I scream and let the steam blow out my ears so my head doesn't explode.

Are we becoming the fucking Taliban in this country? Are we so unable to trust that human beings can manage their own behavior if given a little proper guidance that we are headed to a time when we will demand that for our own safety either women must be forced to wear burkas, lest the men be overcome with lust and rape them, or the two sexes must be kept entirely separate? Because that's the exact same mentality involved in so-called "zero tolerance" policies. I can't send an aspirin to school with my kid because it's a "drug." My kid can't draw a picture of a gun at school because Lord knows he might decide, as a result, to murder someone. It's patently insane and un-American.

God forbid one of my boys ever has a lapse in judgment and does something as immature as swatting a girl on the behind. Believe me, there would be repercussions and some serious discussion at home about respecting women. Granted, these boys admit they have grabbed girls' breasts in the past, something which I believe is a much worse offense than slapping a butt. They should have been suspended at the time and warned they would be expelled if they engaged in any such behavior again. But hell hath no fury like I would have if someone dared handcuff my kid and haul him off to jail at his tender age for something as relatively harmless as this. D.A. Bradley Berry ought to be arrested and charged with child abuse, as should the school officials who hatched the inane idea of calling the cops.

For a bit of irony, I would point out that on the very same page in The Oregonian as this story about boys having difficulty with proper contact with young women you find a little piece complete with photo about how the Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center was able to get 68 gay men to dress up as women and dance together in Pioneer Square downtown. So we're making sure that our straight youngsters are locked up without any sort of positive instruction about healthy interactions with the opposite sex at the same time that we are setting homosexual youngsters free by encouraging them to consort with cross-dressing adult males in the town square. Call me a prude, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Posted by Becky at 04:28 PM |

Is This How Good Friends Treat Each Other?

England is experiencing the worst flooding in modern history, with massive power outages, damage, water shortages, etc. It's a bona fide humanitarian crisis. And yet I have not seen anywhere any offer of aid from the U.S. to our good friend, England. What's up with that? Our President can't even get on TV and say, "Help is on the way"? Does he enjoy sitting on his hands and watching to see what people will do when they're inundated?

Posted by Becky at 06:54 AM |

July 23, 2007

"Good" War Maybe not so Good After All?

The Daily Mail in the U.K. has an editorial today by Craig Murray in which he looks at the involvement of Britain in the "good war" in Afghanistan (as opposed to the "bad war" in Iraq) and wonders whether the country's human losses have been suffered for the purpose of protecting Afghanistan's heroin crop. He's not buying the arguments that British servicemen are there to bring democracy, help establish order, fight the Taliban, and prevent the spread of radical Islam into Pakistan. The one accomplishment, the "one massive transformation" that has occurred in the country over the past 6 years, has been the 66% increase in the country's GDP. That "startling" increase isn't being trumpeted because it is the result of a bumper opium crop.

Isn't it fascinating that under the evil Taliban, the country's opium crop was virtually wiped out. Now that we've rid the country of the Taliban, opium is plentiful again, meaning the "only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London."

And here's the best part. Afghanistan has, under Western occupation, learned how to convert their opium into heroin before exporting it, thereby increasing profits. This heroin production is occurring "on an industrial scale," with the heroin produced "in factories" to which opium has been delivered by tankers and big trucks traveling on roads paved and protected by the U.S. and Nato, which look the other way.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

So who the heck is Craig Murray, how does he know all this?

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe. I watched the tankers of chemicals roaring into Afghanistan.

Incidentally, Murray also offers a fascinating explanation for what happened to Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent who died from polonium 210 poisoning. Upon further looking, I discovered he has written about it before. In a nutshell, Litvinenko discovered that government officials were involved in the heroin trade and made the mistake of telling Vladimir Putin, not realizing those officials were his friends.

How ironic that way back in January of 2003, before we invaded Iraq, Ian Roberts wrote on Common Dreams that "The US Economy Needs Oil Like a Junkie Needs Heroin - And Iraq Will Supply Its Next Fix." How interesting that back in 2002, Peter Dale Scott wrote a book about how drug-trafficking and oil shaped global politics in his book "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina." How interesting that just as Donald Rumsfeld was glad-handing Saddam Hussein back in the good old days, he was also spotted glad-handing the drug lords in Afghanistan back in 2003. How interesting that in 2004, Ted Galen Carpenter wrote for the Cato Institute that heroin was so crucial to Afghanistan's economy that we needed to "look the other way" about it so we wouldn't make the terrorists even more angry with us and hurt our efforts in what I increasingly believe is a bogus "War on Terror."

I don't know whether Murray is right or not. I'd hate to think our nations have sacrificed our soldiers' lives to open up the heroin trade again, thereby enriching close friends of Putin. On the other hand, maybe such a faustian bargain was necessary to keep Russia from helping Iran against us in the next war for oil?

Posted by Becky at 11:57 AM |

Norquist Shows His True Colors Again

Grover Norquist is showing his true colors again. It seems that all his talk of a flat tax, populism, and avoiding targeted tax cuts is pure bunk. As Dean Baker over at TPM Café explains, Norquist is really working to advance the interests of the wealthy.

One of Norquist’s current causes is the protection of the tax subsidy enjoyed by the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds. While people with middle class jobs, like teachers and firefighters, typically pay a 25 percent tax rate, and higher paid professionals like doctors and lawyers pay a 35 percent rate, fund managers are taxed at just a 15 percent rate on their earnings.

This special deal is the result of the fund manager tax break which applies a lower tax rate on compensation earned by the people who manage hedge funds and private equity funds than on other wage income.

As a result, these fund managers, many of whom earn more than $100 million a year, and some who earn more than $1 billion a year, pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher earning $50,000 a year. It is important to realize that this lower tax rate is applied to the money they earn as a manager. The tax code already applies a lower 15 percent tax rate to investment income, including investment income from money that fund managers actually invest in their funds.

Norquist is concerned because many members of Congress now want to tax fund managers like teachers and firefighters, subjecting them to the same tax code. Apparently, being subject to the same tax rates as ordinary workers will make life really tough for these fund managers.

I've written before about how Norquist's actions belie his words. I say again now as I did then, whenever Norquist has his way, the poor and middle class end up paying more and the rich end up paying less. By his fruits you can know him.

Posted by Becky at 10:49 AM |

Katrina, 22 Months Later

It's been 22 months since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the surrounding areas. And only now has FEMA finally decided that it is a waste of money to keep storing the millions of pounds of ice it couldn't seem to deliver to the hurricane victims. All that ice that should have been given to hurricane victims instead was shipped to 22 different locations across the country where it has been stored ever since, costing millions of dollars in storage fees. Finally, after wasting millions of dollars, and now that New Orleans is finally no longer in dire need of ice, FEMA has melted the undelivered 220+ million pounds of ice, ending one small story in a much larger saga of mismanagement in the wake of the Bush Administration's consolidation of 22 government agencies, including FEMA, into the Department of Homeland Security. At least the citizens are paying for their crimes during the tragedy. Bernetta LaShay Willis was recently found guilty on 22 counts for filing false claims for disaster assistance, theft of funds intended for hurricane victims, threatening a witness, drug and weapons charges, and lying to federal authorities. We can't be having that, now, can we? Such demonstrations of inhumanity are solely the right of those in power.

Posted by Becky at 10:28 AM |

July 20, 2007

Give Us Some Real Numbers, Please

I don't believe the numbers we're getting in the news about anything related to the President or the Presidential race are real anymore, and here's why. They're all a bunch of 33s.

Giuliani has the support of 33% of Republicans. In the recent University of New Hampshire poll, 33% of 333 Democrats polled supported Hillary and 33% of Republicans polled supported Romney. In a recent MoveOn.org poll focusing on climate change, however, it was John Edwards who won 33% support.

Obama raised $33 million during the last reporting period and Hillary has $33 million cash on hand. Mitt Romney was able to raise the same amount as Giuliani, even though he had only 33 days in which to do it.

President Bush's approval rating is holding at 33%. It's been 33 years since Nixon was impeached, and the House Resolution being brought forward to impeach Bush is HR 333. The latest polling shows more voters favor impeachment of both Bush and Cheney than don't, but considering that 33% of voters are Independents like me, and we're probably going to have a big impact on whether or not impeachment occurs, as well as who is voted into office on the next round, doesn't it make sense to provide us with the real numbers and information? Or is anyone even actually counting?

Posted by Becky at 12:14 PM |

Cucumber Demonstrations for Five-Year Olds

My very conservative in-laws are visiting us this week, so I've spent a good deal of time watching Fox News. And last night I got two of the best laughs ever. One was Bill O'Reilly trying to be "fair and balanced" by giving an example of right-wing hatred, citing Fred Phelps's having called him a demon-possessed messenger of Satan." Funny thing is, Phelps is a Democrat. Goes to show O'Reilly's bias – if someone is religious, he must be a right-winger. To think otherwise wouldn't go very well with his whole "Secular Progressive" meme. The second laugh of the night was the fake news story about Barack Obama's insistence that 5-year-olds should be taught about sex in public schools and that Mitt Romney is the good man who is trying to stop that. It was so ridiculous even my right-wing family saw right through it.

The story according to Faux News is that Obama said pre-schoolers should be taught about the birds and the bees, implying graphic descriptions of how it all works, and maybe even a little "Meaning of Life" classroom demonstration. But what Obama actually endorsed was teaching little kids that their bodies are their own and that sexual touching by an adult is not OK. What makes the whole controversy so funny is that all Obama is advocating is that kids be taught the same sex-ed program that Romney supported in Massachusetts, where he was governor.

Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson put it well in their ABC News article about the incident today:

"I was governor four years," said Romney. "I never had one person coming to me and say, 'You know what, governor, I'm concerned about something.' What's that? 'I'm concerned about sex education. I'm concerned my kids aren't learning enough about sex.' I never heard that."

Romney may have never heard that because Massachusetts -- the state where he served as governor from 2003 to 2007 -- has a decidedly progressive sex education curriculum. Under the state's non-binding framework, school districts can begin working towards the state's sex education goals as early as pre-kindergarten.

David Brody at CBN looks at Obama's stance and offers his opinion, comparing the plan to Oregon's sex-ed program.

They have the following guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3, which include "understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch, understanding the names for body parts, personal hygiene, and "refusal skills."

Obama says this issue is important to him because members of his family have suffered from some form of sexual abuse as children. He wants kids to have the understanding necessary to help them be less vulnerable to sexual abuse. That's why his campaign's explanation of his stance clears up this whole thing:

Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."

Brody says:

As for further details, the touching aspect seems to be the main idea here. Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only.

Gosh, it's just so reasonable. A simple thing like this, controlled by the local community, with an "opt out" for parents. You just have to wonder why Romney would be jumping on Obama for something like this right now. After all, right now Romney's not even running against Obama. He's running against Giuliani.

No word yet, by the way, on how Giuliani feels about those cucumber lessons in Kindergarden classrooms.

Posted by Becky at 11:41 AM |

July 19, 2007

Hamas Has Stolen Our Bees

Always entertaining, the Drudge Report today links to a report that we've all been waiting for, one that purports to explain once and for all where all the bees have gone. Reuters' "Planet Ark" news source says that a Spanish scientist has discovered the bees are all dying as a result of an "assassin" known as nosema ceranae, an Asian parasite (which a Fox News reporter called a sort of "bee AIDS"). Can you believe that? The Chinese, who have been trying to poison all our dogs and cats (not to mention our toothpaste), may have poisoned our bees, too?

Not so fast. The real problem with that crazy theory is that two months ago scientists were already saying that while nosema ceranae may be a factor, it could not be the sole culprit because some colonies infected with it still were thriving, while others that had been wiped out did not show any traces of nosema ceranae.

The mystery is no small matter; if we don't figure out where the bees have gone soon and get the colonies into recovery, we can kiss goodbye all bee-pollinated flowering food crops. That means goodbye to about 90 different types of vegetables, fruits and nuts. Even beef would be a thing of the past, as alfalfa relies on bee pollination. That bread and water diet might be all that is left in a land once flowing with milk and honey.

The weird thing is that unlike previous die-offs of bees, where the dead bee bodies could be found, this time none of the missing bee bodies seem to be anywhere. They've all just disappeared into thin air. It's like they passed through some portal or something. And they're only missing in Western countries. Eastern countries' bees seem to be doing just fine.

I think I know what has happened. Hamas's new mascot, the "Pioneer of Tomorrow" Nahoul the Bee, is really a sort of Pied Piper of Hamelin and has called all America's sweet little bees to himself. Soon he will fly away with them all to live in Bee Heaven in Saturn's giant honeycomb on its north pole.

The one thing Hamas has failed to take into account, however, is that Americans don't eat fruit and vegetables anymore. Ha! You all will just have to wait until we die of Cancer!

Posted by Becky at 03:33 PM |

July 18, 2007

Dancing the Two-Step

Johann Hari has just returned from riding along with 500 right-wingers on the annual "National Review" cruise to find out what American conservatives say when they don't realize someone is listening, and offers up his report of the trip in "Ship of fools," an article published Friday in the UK Independent. In it he says the "straight-talking, gun-toting, God-fearing Republicans" he joined on the cruise believe that "the Iraq war has been an amazing success, global warming is just a myth – and as for Guantanamo Bay, it's practically a holiday camp." Most interesting in his report are the casual comments he records here and there, the sort that shock you because it is so difficult to believe people would say such things out loud, let alone think them.

For instance, upon learning Hari had no children, one woman said, "You'd better start. The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe." Another says of liberals, "Of course, we need to execute some of these people. A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralize the country. Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get. Then things'll change." One lady says of the UN building in Florida, "They should suicide-bomb that place." Another lady says she gets on her knees every day to "thank God for Fox News." And a man says, "The quality of an immigrant is inversely proportional to the distance traveled to get to the United States."

The sad part is I've heard much of the same drivel many times in right-wing circles myself. It's a wonder my tongue still works, I've had to bite it so many times. But for me it is especially entertaining to see how different it all looks to someone who has never been a part of it. I think Hari has not yet figured out that the crazy things he heard are the crude expressions of concepts the masses have mastered, by rote, but to which they have given very little thought.

They're dancing the two-step. They know their dance steps, and when they are together, they perform them well, nodding in agreement, encouraging each other on, neither thinking nor straying from the choreography. The success of the dance lifts their spirits and gives them a sense of encouragement and rightness. Put a liberal like Hari in the middle of the dance floor, however, and they can lose their footing for a moment. He's dancing a waltz, and it doesn't fit their music.

I am quite sure the same sort of dancing goes on in all social circles – whether focused on politics, sports, business, religion, or any other type of music. Dancing the simple steps we know to the simple song we know is so much easier than trying to interpret the entire grand symphony of reality with any level of artistic mastery.

That's why you often find otherwise fully functioning and intelligent and even decent human beings making inane statements such as, "Republicans are the party of winners, Democrats are the party of losers." Or, "The coverage of this war is unbelievable. Even Fox News is unbelievable. You'd think we're the only ones dying. Enemy casualties aren't covered. We're doing an excellent job killing them." Or, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning." Or, "Nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo." Or, "If the Germans think they can take responsibility for the world [by trying Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes], I don't care about German courts. Bomb them." Or, "The civilized countries should invade all the oil-owning places in the Middle East and run them properly. We won't take the money ourselves, but we'll manage it so the money isn't going to terrorists."

And the music plays on.

Posted by Becky at 11:50 AM |

July 17, 2007

A Homer-Run for Advertising

A brief-clad, donut-weilding, 55-meter-tall Homer Simpson is strutting his stuff on a British hillside next to the Cerne Abbas giant, an enormous, well-endowed, club-weilding figure carved into the bedrock, and the Brits are not pleased. Fortunately, Homer was painted onto the grass with water-based biodegradable paint. We know this because, unlike the artists behind crop circles, in this case we know who did it: the publicity team behind the new Simpsons movie, which is premiering next week in the UK.

Historians tend to believe the carving at Cerne Abbas is a depiction of Hercules (probably because he holds a club) that was created in the second century AD. The giant is a well-known pagan fertility symbol. Pagans, who feel the Simpsons ad is disrespectful, are pledging to perform "rain magic" in hopes of bringing sufficient rain to wash Homer away.

The press is having a great time with the story. The Syndey Herald titles its article, "Homer-erotic mischief riles pagans," and a satire news service in the UK refers to "Homer Erectus." Personally, I think it's pretty darned funny and the pagans ought to lighten up. But then, I love advertising.

This is not the first time the Cerne Abbas giant has been involved in artistic controversy. Last year, Unilever hired Flightpath Media to paint a giant advertisement for deodorant on a field near Burstow, in Surrey, England, right in an airport flight path. The image depicted two nude women dancing around the giant. After much controversy, the company washed the design away. Now the same advertising agency has painted a new racy ad for a private lap dance company on the field showing a naked stripper doing a pole dance.

Oregon has its own little controversy going on over a nude painted on a hillside near Newport, though in this case it is purely for art's sake. Samuel Clemens has painted a 140 foot long, 55 foot high reclining nude portrait of his wife on a hillside along Highway 20 a few miles east of Toledo. Last year, he got a good deal of national attention for his much-tamer painting of the Mona Lisa on the same hillside. The controversy part has been the excessive number of people who park along the shoulder to look at the paintings, creating a traffic hazard on the winding stretch of highway. Funny that the nudity aspect doesn't bother anyone when it isn't advertising a product, but is just for "art's sake."

Posted by Becky at 11:06 AM |

July 16, 2007

An Interesting News Day for Ron Paul

Ron Paul is having a great news day, but lest you miss the more interesting elements of the larger Ron Paul story, note that some of today's news slips a little off the edge of "normalcy." The news that everyone is talking about is that he is reporting having raised nearly $2.4 million from April through June, putting him in a better financial position than John McCain. Where things start to slip into the interesting is with reports of his being honored by the folks who make Liberty Dollars with the issue of a new coin bearing his likeness. It slips even further with his most recent comments on the Bush Administration -- not so much for what he says, which so many are inclined to believe, but because of where he said it: on Alex Jones's radio program -- conspiracy theory central.

Paul isn't very high in the rankings in terms of potential for winning votes. But it is remarkable that by virtue of the fact that he is speaking out so frankly against this Administration and the war, he has been able to raise $3 million for the year. He raised more than Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tommy Thompson -- combined! It may only be a tenth what the front-runners have raised, but at the same time, holy moley! The spokesman of the conspiracy theorists has raised a full tenth of the record-breaking, astronomically oversized amounts that have been raised by the front-runners. Meanwhile, McCain raised less than he spent in the same period, leaving him with $3.2 million cash and $1.8 million in debt, and he is hemorrhaging staff.

The only explanation I can think of is that 9/11 has given conspiracy theorists so much amazing fodder that they are just plain on fire about it and digging deep to help Paul warn the rest of us. And warning us he is.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.

"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

"Every day we're in worse shape and right now there's an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq and we're quite concerned that the attack will be on Iran and that will jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we're in much greater danger than we even were four or five years ago," asserted Paul. …

The Congressman concluded by surmising that record lows in approval ratings for Bush, Cheney and Congress showed that, "The American people are alive and well and disgusted yet they haven't had good alternatives....it's justifiable, they are looking for true answers and options and quite frankly I think that's probably one of the reasons why our campaign is growing by leaps and bounds right now."

I wonder why Paul does not avoid such a marginalized venue, which only serves to foster doubt about every word he says. Surely he can get interviews on more mainstream programs. Why couldn't he say the same things on any other radio show? I mean, come on. Alex Jones? Is he out of touch with reality to such an extent that he cannot recognize how association with that show discredits his message? And if so, why are the Democrats praising him as if he was a legitimate spokesman for mainstream Republicans? Is the mere fact that he is a Republican badmouthing a Republican Administration enough to win Democratic admiration? Come to think of it, Charlie Sheen is another outspoken 9/11 conspiracy believer who is praised by Democrats and he, too, has been a guest on the Alex Jones show. Is the show now considered to be fairly mainstream and I'm just somewhat behind the times?

The answers to all of these questions might be easier if it wasn't for all that amazing fodder for 9/11 conspiracy theorists that is so thick and rich it can make even the skeptic secretly wonder. Perhaps, because of the Internet, a lot of people out there are becoming closet consumers of all those fabulous, intricate, spooky, and, yes, very convincing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Perhaps, as a result, their fear of sources like Alex Jones is being tossed by the wayside. Perhaps someday we will see an end to "normal" governance. I wonder what that would be like.

Posted by Becky at 12:40 PM |

July 13, 2007

Confirmed: Gay Yasser Arafat Died of AIDS

As if his putting the moves on Terry McAuliffe wasn't enough of a giveaway, the French have finally confirmed that the rumors were true all along: that sexual tiger, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, was indeed a homosexual and, as suspected, he died of AIDS.

Secretary-General of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command Ahmed Jibril says that P.A. Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told him that the French have provided a medical report stating that Arafat died of AIDS. So it would seem the man wasn't poisoned by Israel after all.

Lest you pity the man for enduring such a horrible death, bear in mind that the entire time he was out playing "tiger and hyena" with his body guard, other Palestinian homosexuals were being subjected to pretty much the most despicable treatment you can imagine. As Davi Bernstein wrote in the Yale Herald back in 2002, "The lucky ones are forced to stand in sewage water up to their necks or lie in dark cells infested with insects; others are simply starved to death." Israel, the only country in the region that tolerates the existence of homosexuals, is the place of refuge for many gay Palestinians who fear death or worse back home, either at the hands of the government or at the hands of their own fathers.

Did Arafat care about these persecuted individuals? His own people? Of course not. But then, that is no surprise. Neither is it a surprise that the homophobic Palestinians would hide the truth about Arafat's sexual orientation and allow the "Israel-poisoned-him" rumor to flourish.

Posted by Becky at 11:19 AM |

A Couple Quick Thoughts About Last Night's Hannity & Colmes

When I heard that Hannity & Colmes on Fox News were going to be bringing Ted Nugent on last night to respond to Hart Williams' "death threats" I just had to watch. They must have thought it was a mighty important story because they saved it for last. That meant I got to sit through the whole big to-do about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards commiserating about their desires to get the minor candidates out of the debates (much to the mock shock and horror of H&C and something that all major candidates of both parties pretty much always try to do); a ridiculous looped slide show of Miss New Jersey in "suggestive" poses whilst H&C interviewed some other beauty queen who was disgraced last year over the release of nude photos of her (she gushed that Hannity was a "great American" – apparently, Colmes is not); and a radio interview by Hannity of Fred Thompson, who, contrary to Hannity's lead, did not announce whether he would announce his candidacy and who clearly implied that war with Iran was imminent, but said that "this time" the government would need to "make sure the American people understand … what the deal is." Then came the big interview with the Nuge.

As soon as Hannity introduced the segment and described who Hart Williams is, I understood the angle and why these guys are harping on this non-story to such a degree. It's all about Larry Flynt, owner of Hustler Magazine, where Hart used to write. That anti-American Larry Flynt who is bringing shame down on the heads of philandering Republicans everywhere by revealing who they've been boinking when their wives weren't looking. Larry Flynt, who is so anti-American that a former employee of his actually said he wanted to assassinate that awesome god of rock and roll and hunting prowess, Ted Nugent, and said it in the Democratic Daily (it's not an official party website, but let's not confuse people with the facts).

Oh, wait, Hart didn't actually say that he wanted Nugent assassinated. Doesn't matter. They're riding this horse until it drops dead from exhaustion.

As I watched Nugent, it became clear to me that his reaction here is pure theater. He doesn't feel threatened at all. He's getting a big kick out of being on television and having the opportunity to make liberals look like radical nutcases. And Hannity is more than happy to give him the platform to do it.

Colmes, by the way, did a much better job this time of explaining Hart's actual point – a point that no self-respecting wingut would ever acknowledge, of course. Interestingly, just when I thought, "Wow, Colmes is showing some balls here," Nugent made some crack about his being weak and giving in to the liberal spin on the issue. Colmes, it would seem, can't win no matter what he does. If he stands up to the wingnuts, he's weak, and if he doesn't stand up to the wingnuts he's weak. I honestly don't know why anyone would put up with what he does on a daily basis. Maybe he's tougher than people give him credit for. Or maybe he just likes the paycheck. Who knows?

Ah, it's all theater anyway.

Posted by Becky at 09:07 AM |

July 12, 2007

Multicultural Abomination in the US Senate!

You knew it had to happen eventually. All this tolerance and multiculturalism in a liberal-dominated Senate was bound to result in some wacky brown-people's religion being treated as if it was as legitimate as the official religion of the Founding Fathers, Christianity. And sure enough, thanks to that liberal Senator Harry Reid, and despite the fact that our national motto says "In God we trust" and not "In gods we trust," a Hindu has actually been allowed to pray to the false Hindu non-monotheistic god in the Senate. Well, hellfire and damnation! You can watch the "abomination" for yourself here. Thank the good Lord three blessed and brave Christian soldiers were on-hand to stand up for Jesus, though the pagan liberals who are determined to sell out our country to the Devil promptly arrested the three brave protesters. What is the world coming to when Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid refuse to allow a Navy chaplain to pray "in Jesus name" but welcome Hinduism to the floor of the U.S. Senate!

Lord, I apologize for that. That was just plain disrespectful to all them good church ladies and gents.

Read just a little further and you will find out that the reason Reid would not allow the chaplain's prayer was because the chaplain was not from his district and the reason Clinton would not allow it was because the official Senate Chaplain, one Barry Black (a Seventh-Day Adventist), is usually the one who delivers the opening prayer on the Senate floor. They felt that adding another Jesus-prayer really wasn't fair to all those millions of Americans who pray to Someone Else and that since the good Chaplain, who is almost always the one praying, couldn't do it this time maybe it was a good idea to let one of those other Americans have a turn so their faith could be honored, too.

Rajan Zed, the Hindu in question and a resident of my hometown of Reno, Nevada, spoke of peace and prayed for unity in the Senate. He addressed his prayer to the "Supreme One," and prayed for comfort for the family of Lady Bird Johnson, who passed away yesterday.

Lest you "Christians and patriots" out there feel concern about the taint of Hinduism spreading to your elected Christian representatives, take note that only two senators – Reid and James Inhofe (who was there to make a speech on the Fairness Doctrine) – were even present. And what can you expect from that Mormon, Harry Reid, anyway. I mean, he thinks our blessed Lord is Satan's brother! There's your sign.

I don't think anyone could say it better than Jeffrey Dinsmore:

Hindus … aren’t those the guys who worship elephants with twelve arms and stuff? Well, guess what, pagans … YOU JUST GOT SCHOOLED BY THE POWER OF JESUS. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to believe that elephants have twelve arms. It just means that you can worship Jesus anyway you choose.

I do believe Jeffrey was joking. Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries, a pro-Israel Christian group, is not joking, however. In fact, she is really upset about it. She says we are "one nation under God -- not one nation under 300 million gods, small g." And then, confusing American history with Jewish history, and tying in the whole Falwellian terrorism-is-punishment-from-God meme, she says:

When Israel went straying and worshiping other gods, very, very serious consequences came down upon her. I think that America is at a turning point. The head of Homeland Security himself, [Michael] Chertoff, said he's very concerned about some sort of a major strike here this summer in America. And so instead of turning to the God who defends and protects America, just like Israel we go chasing off after other gods who cannot protect us.

Markell has a supporter out there in the blogosphere:

I bet their prayer booking for the year is about full. They probably have lined up Jane Goodall to pray the first Chimp prayer, the Pope praying in Latin that we all go to mass, Al Gore praying to Madonna to save the earth from Hillary, a Mullah praying for the overthrow of the United States and Jimmy Carter praying to be relevant.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Maybe not so funny for these Christians is the fact that it is very possible that much of what they believe about Jesus was actually borrowed straight from the Hindu religion. Oh, yes. I'm not making this up. Aside from the obvious similarities between the words "Krishna" and "Christ," numerous other striking similarities exist.

Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity. Both were called the Savior and the Son of God, were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man, were immaculately conceived after being fathered by a spirit, had adoptive human fathers who were carpenters, were of royal descent, and were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds who had been guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. And it goes on. Krishna was born while his foster-father was in the city to pay his tax to the king. Jesus was born while his foster-father was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed." Both were placed in a manger after birth.

As adults, both withdrew to the wilderness and fasted, were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head," were "without sin," existed prior to coming to the earth, were considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, performed many miracles including the healing of disease including leprosy, specifically were said to have cured "all manner of diseases," cast out demons, raised the dead, selected disciples to spread their teachings, were meek and merciful, were criticized for associating with sinners, encountered a Gentile woman at a well, celebrated a last supper, and forgave their enemies. Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Krishna came to bring about a victory of good over evil and to cleanse the sins of human beings. Ditto for Jesus. Some traditions have Krishna suspended from a tree, others nailed to a tree by an arrow, and still others have him crucified, leaving holes in his feet hands and side. Stories of Jesus' death include is crucifixion and his having been hung on a tree.

Both Christians and Hindus believe in heaven and hell, a day of judgment, a general resurrection, the need for repentance for sin, salvation through faith in the Savior, a believe in angels and evil spirits, a past war in heaven between good and bad angels, free will, a "new heaven and a new earth," "living water," fasting, and being born again. Both refer to God as the "Word" or "Logos." Both rely on religious texts that specifically mention that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture is profitable for doctrine," and "to die is great gain," among others.

Once again, it would appear we have found a basis for ecumenism. You see, dear Christian activists, you have no reason to be upset at all. Just combine Hinduism with all that sun worship stuff we have already discovered is shared by most of the world's religions and you get – voila! – Christianity!

Lord, I apologize for that.

Posted by Becky at 03:33 PM |

From Fear to Hope and Back in Less than 24 Hours

Last night, my very persuasive husband and I had a discussion about the War and President Bush that made me want to believe that the President means well and truly believes he is doing the right thing in Iraq. We then watched, for the first time, the Oliver Stone movie "World Trade Center," which tells the story of two of the Port Authority officers who were trapped in the collapsed buildings on 9/11 and rescued many hours later. If you have seen the movie, you know that it is very patriotic and brings back the emotions we all felt so deeply on that fateful day. So with an open mind and forgiving spirit, I looked forward to this morning's press conference with the President. I wanted to give him a chance to allay my concerns about the war and convince me that we were doing the right thing over there. I was deeply disappointed.

I won't get into the details here because I'm sure many others will analyze his responses, but in a nutshell what struck me was that the reporters asked all the right questions and gave the President every opportunity to address the doubts and concerns plaguing the minds of many Americans, but he repeatedly skirted the issues and dodged the questions, instead sticking to his well-worn script, which has been repeatedly shown to be pure fantasy. I was left with the sinking feeling that my cynicism - and my fear - were based more on truth than was my hope.

John Feffer has a lengthy, but powerful piece today in the Asia Times entitled, "The core misconceptions in the 'war on terror'" that seems particularly apropos. In it, Feffer offers the sort of hopeful approach I was looking for from our President this morning.

A just counter-terrorism policy would shift the focus away from military solutions, which have done so little to improve the security of the United States and have sent Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia into tailspins of insecurity. It would focus on strengthening homeland security and the international mechanisms that hold terrorists accountable. And it would attack the enabling conditions that are laid out in this document - economic inequality, the international health crisis, unjust dictatorships, and regional wars.

The Chinese have a saying: before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. The US pursuit of vengeance, rather than justice, has been similarly self-defeating.

Feffer makes many excellent points:

- An "artificially prolonged state of fear" has led America to misidentify terrorists, see dangers that do not exist, and jump to military solutions instead of engaging in diplomacy.

Even during the Cold War, the United States negotiated with the object of its worst fears. The current regime of fear is more theological in nature. "We don't negotiate with evil," Vice President Dick Cheney famously remarked. "We defeat evil." [4] In such a struggle against "evil", all means can be justified, as they were during the Crusades and the Inquisition. By putting the "fear of the Devil "into the American public, the Bush administration has acquired carte blanche to transform not only certain US policies but the entire policy-making structure.

- Terrorism is not the product of poverty, oppressive government, or religion. "The roots of terrorist support lie in despair … [which] derives from a combination of unjust economic, political, and geopolitical conditions."

- The widespread misconceptions that "we need a war in the first place, that terrorists represent a major threat to US national interests, [and] that terrorists are attacking 'our way of life'" must be addressed if we are to find a solution to this mess. Feffer addresses these misconceptions one by one, carefully setting aside irrational fear and looking at the issues factually, so as to dissipate the fear. I hope you will take the time to read what he has to say.

In case you don't pop through to read Feffer's article, his conclusion is excellent:

In his 1941 State of the Union Address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt talked about Four Freedoms. The first two - freedom of speech and religion - came directly from the US constitution. The third, freedom from want, derived from the experience of the Great Depression of the 1930s. But the fourth one, freedom from fear, spoke to a public facing the escalation of a world war that would, before the year was out, engulf the United States.

Today, the US government has forgotten that this fourth freedom is as precious as the other three. Fear created the "global war on terror." Fear propelled the invasion of Iraq. Fear plucked Maher Arar from the immigration line at JFK airport and consigned him to a year of torture and imprisonment.

Fear is the greatest weapon of terrorists. When it becomes our greatest weapon, too, what does that make us?

A similar statement was made by a soldier who recently returned from Iraq:

Sergeant Camilo Mejía, 31, from Miami, National Guardsman, 1-124 Infantry Battalion, 53rd Infantry Brigade. Six-month tour beginning April 2003

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Is it any wonder why, when our government blames outrageous acts on "terrorists," tells us about "gut feelings" about forthcoming "terrorist" attacks, tells us we must sacrifice our civil rights to protect us from the "terrorists," and refuses to address our legitimate concerns, many of us are increasingly inclined to view our own government with fear?

Posted by Becky at 12:02 PM |

One Fact Proven Doesn't Make the Entire Bible Accurate

Biblical archeologists are experiencing "unbridled joy" at yet another archeological find they say supports the historical accuracy of the Bible. In fact, it is being billed as "the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years." The find, by a professor from Vienna named Michael Jursa, is a small cuneiform tablet dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar III, 595 BC, on which is recorded payment by one "Nabu-sharrussu-ukin," described as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. Chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah refers to "Nebo-Sarsekim," who served as Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" - clearly the same individual. But does the find really prove that the Bible is historically accurate?

Reading "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman was an important step in my own spiritual journey. As this review of the book explains, it turns out the "Bible" (specifically, the Pentateuch, or first five books) was heavily influenced by political expediency, and historical facts were changed, added, and deleted for the purpose of advancing the goals of those in power at any given time. In other words, by the time it became the book we have on our shelves today, it was no longer a "true story." It was only based on a true story - in the Hollywood movie way. Obviously, some of the Bible is historically accurate, but not all of it is, as this enterprising individual has meticulously laid out.

The Bible is a useful and very important historical document in that it chronicles the history and culture of the Jewish people as their various leaders through time wished to portray that history and it offers some wisdom for the ages. But the claim that it is an accurate or reliable historical account is untenable. Proving that a minor character in the narrative actually existed really does not change that.

Posted by Becky at 10:50 AM |

The Pretty Side of the War

The U.K. Independent has published a story today that discusses a very disturbing article in The Nation magazine featuring in-depth interviews with 50 American soldiers returned home from Iraq. "In the interviews," the newspaper says, "veterans have described acts of violence in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity." One of the soldiers said, "I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi."

"You know, so what?... The soldiers honestly thought we were trying to help the people and they were mad because it was almost like a betrayal. Like here we are trying to help you, here I am, you know, thousands of miles away from home and my family, and I have to be here for a year and work every day on these missions. Well, we're trying to help you and you just turn around and try to kill us."

I know that is a sentiment that is shared by many here at home, too, and it is fostered by the fact that we, like the soldiers, are kept so emotionally separated from the Iraqi people that we do not see them as innocent human beings. Our soldiers have largely been kept inside compounds, leaving only for combat, and not interacting with the people they were sent there to liberate. The consequences of that emotional disconnect are unthinkable:

[According to a survey] conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant."

The Independent summarizes how the soldiers described covering up for their killing of innocents by planting weapons and other items to make the dead appear to be insurgents:

Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.

"It would always be an AK because they have so many of these lying around," said Joe Hatcher, 26, a scout with the 4th Calvary Regiment. He revealed the army also planted 9mm handguns and shovels to make it look like the civilians were shot while digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

"Every good cop carries a throwaway," Hatcher said of weapons planted on innocent victims in incidents that occurred while he was stationed between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005. Any survivors were sent to jail for interrogation.

My first instinct tells me that the behavior these soldiers describe is so contrary to our perceptions of the honorable soldier and to our culture that it must be reflective of an attitude that is prevalent higher up. The following tends to support that:

Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said.

Many of the soldiers have returned and are now speaking out against the war. Some of those interviewed explained what happened that woke them up and turned them against the war:

Lieutenant Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia, Marine Corps civil affairs unit. In Ramadi from August 2004 to March 2005

"We were approaching this one house... and we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it... So I see this dog - I'm a huge animal lover... this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, what the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words."

Specialist Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade. In Kirkuk and Hawija on 11-month tour beginning November 2004

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."

Specialist Patrick Resta, 29, from Philadelphia, 252nd Armour, 1st Infantry Division. In Jalula for nine months beginning March 2004

"Here's some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK47, decides he's going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you've ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds..."

Specialist Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry. In Baquba for a year beginning February 2004

"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."

The interviews are so brutally honest and so horrifying that you are left reeling. How long have we been told by this administration that we are only getting one side of the story in the media, and that the reality over there is much better than the war detractors want us to believe? And yet,

Many of these veterans returned home deeply disturbed by the disparity between the reality of the war and the way it is portrayed by the US government and American media. The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise…

In other words, the returning soldiers agree that we are only getting one side of the story. But contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, the side we are getting in the mainstream media is the pretty side.

Posted by Becky at 10:00 AM |

July 11, 2007

Calculating the Odds of Success in Iraq

According to a new study, it would appear at first blush as if the right-wingers must be correct when they blame our failure in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the peace protesters. The study claims to demonstrate that such a lack of public support is a "prime factor" in the failure of "military interventions."

Since World War II, the world's most powerful nations have failed 39 per cent of the time, according to a study by Patricia Sullivan, a professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia. Despite overwhelming military superiority, mounting human and material costs compel them to pull out their troops without achieving their political aims.

Since Vietnam, researchers in the complex field of conflict studies have focused on the outcome of wars, and have looked at how even low-budget insurgents can defeat the world's greatest powers by taxing their political will to fight.

But read further and you will find out that it is not so simple. In other words, the peace protesters have a very valid point, too:

It turns out that a major power is much more likely to fail when its war aim requires some sort of co-operation on the part of the adversary or the citizens on the ground, in order to change a despised foreign or domestic policy, for example, or quell sectarian violence, or prop up a regime that's on shaky ground.

Objectives that simply require sheer physical force – the purging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait in 1991, or the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 – have a high probability of success because no co-operation is necessary.

So long as we are just kicking ass, then, we can be virtually assured of a win. But if we have to actually be diplomatic and work with the people whose lives we are turning upside down, as in the case of a regime change, well, all bets are off. And while the model put forward in the study would have given the Vietnam war a 22% chance of success, the war in Iraq, it says, has but a 20% chance of success.

Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston (the military academy of the Canadian Forces) isn't buying the study because he doesn't believe in formulas and equations in determining the outcome of a war. Too many "variables," he says. He says something else that's very chilling, but I'll get to that in a minute. First, this:

One of the first researchers to examine the reasons why the political calculus changes and missions fail is Andrew Mack, who currently leads the Human Security Report Project at the School for International Studies at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C.

He wrote one of the first papers on asymmetric warfare back in 1975. It suggested that because powerful states are fighting a weaker enemy, it's a "limited" intervention, which diminishes the sense of national sacrifice. When the home nation is at no risk of invasion, there is more scrutiny of war tactics – torture, for example – and more of the "moral outrage" that can come with them.

Now here's the chilling statement by Delaney:

The challenge for the government is maintaining support for a conflict when people don't perceive a threat – of a failed state falling into the hands of extremists, for instance – particularly as Canadian deaths are rising, says Delaney.

It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago, he says.

"If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this is necessary."

Let's hope the good folks who brought us 9/11 aren't listening.

Posted by Becky at 02:21 PM |

Great Laugh for the Day

I'm practically doubled over in hysterics after reading Eva Liddell's post today on Counterpunch. She explores the question of whether Ann Coulter has the hots for John Edwards – and whether his spurning of her love has turned her into a "Fatal Attraction" character, noting the parallels between Coulter and Glen Close. You don't want to miss it.

Posted by Becky at 11:44 AM |

Ecumenical Schmecumenical

Pope Benedict has created an uproar in the Christian community with his declaration that, in essence, protestant ministers are phonies and their churches are not part of God's "Church." This comes after the Pope last weekend told Catholics they could ask for Mass to be held in Latin using a rite that describes Jews as blind to the Christian truth. Honestly, I don't know why people of other faiths give a rip what the Pope thinks of them. I mean, just about anyone who is committed to a particular religion believes they have found the truth and other religions are laden with error – or even spawned by the Devil. A lot of Protestants, for example, believe the Pope is the Antichrist, and all believe a human cannot act as the intermediary between man and God as the Pope and priesthood claim to do. Nevertheless, Protestants are expressing upset over the "offensive statements" and the "huge step backwards" in the ecumenical movement.

You've got to chuckle at the response of the Rev David Phillips, General Secretary of the Church Society, who said:

We are grateful that the Vatican has once again been honest in declaring their view that the Church of England is not a proper Church. Too much dialogue proceeds without such honesty. Therefore, we would wish to be equally open; unity will only be possible when the papacy renounces its errors and pretensions.

The Pope's declaration and the response by the Christian community was naturally followed by the usual liberal-bashing because, as we all know, whenever a dispute arises, a liberal must surely be at the heart of it. In this case, the liberal in the room is the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a group of "pretend Christians," who are decrying the damage done to ecumenism.

Their whining is to be expected. Liberal theology demands that all teachings, regardless of merit, must be sacrificed on the alter of "ecumenicism" so that eventually there'll be one, unified, (meaningless and useless) "church" totally stripped of any teaching that would offend.

As someone who doesn't have much use for rituals – honestly, I find them excruciatingly boring – I can't help but get a kick out of the entire ecumenical movement. I am with them on the destructiveness of religious conflict, but you cannot change what people truly believe. The only way to get everyone on the same page is to erase the underlying belief system, at which point you are left with a meaningless set of rituals which may be spiritually satisfying in some way to some people, but which is a complete waste of time, in my opinion.

Of course, we do have a precedent for ecumenism and it did end a lot of warring for a little while (before it launched a whole lot more warring) – and that is the combining of Nazarene Essenism with pagan sun worship of various types into one grand religion – Roman Catholicism. If you're a Catholic and find this sort of thing offensive, stop reading here. I don't want any posts calling me a liberal Catholic basher because I am nothing of the sort. I'm merely interested in truthful history.

You can find quite a bit of information on the pagan sun-worshipping influence on the Roman Catholic Church and even on Christianity itself on numerous websites. Some are especially good, while others give the impression of a particular bias that might put off some readers. You can find sites claiming that Christianity is really a modern form of sun worship and Judaism worships the true God, that Catholicism is the modern form of sun worship and Protestants worship the true God, and that Christianity and Catholicism are both really a modern form of sun worship and the original Nazarene Essenes worshipped the true God. Jehovah's Witnesses believe they have the truth, Seventh-Day Adventists believe they have the truth, Mormons believe they have the truth, Muslims believe they have the truth, Scientologists believe they have the truth, etc., etc., etc. Interestingly, all of these religions incorporate numerous elements and symbols of pagan sun worship.

You know, maybe ecumenism is possible after all. If we can get all these religions to recognize that they're already all worshipping the same god - that is, the sun - we can at last be unified and look backward to our pagan roots - sans the human and animal sacrifices of ancient times, of course. How lovely it would be to join with people all around the world bowing in prayer and homage to an inanimate (albeit large and essential) ball of molten gas and rock. Because we certainly would never want to waste our time looking forward in our search for the real truth about who we are, how we got here, and where we are going.

Posted by Becky at 11:15 AM |

Just Say NO to the Terror

When I heard yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was telling America that he had a "gut feeling" that we would experience a terrorist attack in the U.S. this summer, I was sickened. What the hell are we supposed to do with that?

Homeland Security is supposed to make the homeland (a very Nazi term) secure, not make the American people feel insecure. With no specific threat, no details, and no instructions we are left to simply do precisely what the terrorists want us to do: experience blind terror.

Of course, we are being asked to watch for "suspicious activities," but even there it's a crapshoot. If John Doe, fresh from the farm in Iowa, goes to the big city where he sees and reports as suspicious something that turns out to be normal behavior for people he knows little about (say, a group of traveling imams), he could find himself being personally sued.

The result of the mixed messages Americans are receiving is plain. Most people, if sufficiently confused and scared, will ultimately agree that further sacrifice of our civil rights is a necessary evil if we are to prevent another massive terrorist attack.

Our only hope here is that enough of us will REFUSE to submit to the blind terror.

Posted by Becky at 10:12 AM |

July 10, 2007

A Mother's Grief is not Narcissism

A few days ago, the mother of a Marine on the verge of being deployed wrote a heartbreaking letter to the Washington Post in which she recalled Lego sets, basketball games, a touching moment with her son at her father's funeral, and some other special moments. She called her precious son "a pawn in a senseless conflict" and wonders whether he will return home "unchanged by this experience," or return with "wounds that will not heal." And she wonders whether we, as a nation, will do all we can for him when he comes home. It is truly a mother's cry. Unless you're Michael Ledeen, who cynically views it as a "primal scream" that is "All About Me."

She's upset, and who can blame her? She's doubly upset since she thinks the war is senseless, and I understand that. She's triply upset because she wrote a Master's thesis some years ago at Columbia about Iraqi Kurds, and there she begins to lose me. And then she tells us about the view from her old office (of Arlington Cemetery), and about her grim feelings when she hears flyovers for the funerals there. Indeed, the whole thing is not about him at all, but about her. Her feelings, her politics, her history. There's really nothing about him at all (nor about his father, for that matter), except for dark thoughts about what might become of him. He'll be changed (of course he will), maybe he'll be wounded (the odds are against it, but yes, he might. He might be killed, as he well knows). In short, both she and her Marine are victims.

Not. He chose freely, he was not compelled to join the Corps. Why did he make that choice? Surely not because his mom told him to. And surely not, as so many would have it, because he's from the underclass and has no other way to earn a living. But he, the Marine, doesn't get a word. We get her memories of his early childhood, but nothing about the current man.

Narcissus running wild as he so often does in our world.

Ledeen is part idiotic and part dead-on accurate. The idiotic part is that he doesn't understand that the letter is supposed to be all about the mother and her motherly fears for the well-being of her son. I'm a little shocked he can't see this.

Ledeen's accurate observation is that chances are, her son is ready and willing to go to war and is not focused on his mother's tender sentiment right now - in fact, that sentiment could be laying a major guilt trip on him that he does not need right now. He'll miss his mama, of course, but he'll never miss her the way she misses him. In fact, he won't even comprehend the way she misses him until he has children of his own. For now, he's a tough, trained Marine. He's ready to do his duty for his country, to serve with his fellow Marines, and if necessary, to die in the process.

But that's his story, not his mother's story. And it is perfectly legitimate for a devoted mother's heart to break when her son goes off to war and to struggle with how to express and deal with her grief and fear. It's hard enough to send your children off into the big wide world, but to combine that with sending them off to war is the stuff of nightmares. So that's my take on Ledeen's post.

Chris Kelly at the Huffington Post has a less generous take on it. He paraphrases Ledeen thus:

Real patriots -- like the thin yellow line of heroes at the National Review Online -- have just about had it with the "mothers" of the "soldiers" in actual "combat." These dizzy dames are always complaining when we "kill" their "children." Can't they just shut their traps and get with the program?

And then Kelly asks a really great question: "Why can't liberals question the war -- it'll hurt the troops -- but conservatives can attack the soldiers' mothers? And why do they find attacking the mothers so irresistibly delicious? It can't just be because it's taboo. It's got to be something deeper than that. How else do you explain the Cindy Sheehan obsession?"

Kelly compares the number of times the National Review Online attacks Sheehan, a soldier's mother, as compared to references to other anti-war figures and Bush critics and finds it attacks Sheehan 274 times – more than all the others combined.

It's kind of reminiscent of the special hatred on the right for the 9/11 widows.

Like Kelly, I don't understand it. But I do understand that it's incredibly mean to attack grieving family members when their loved ones are paying the price for decisions that are made by politicians, whether those decisions are right or wrong.

Posted by Becky at 04:34 PM |

Dancing with the Devil

I've got to tell you, I am REALLY PISSED OFF at conservatives right now. I mean, rarely have I seen the level of pure bullshit from the Right as I have seen in the last two days, and it plainly demonstrates why the terminally stupid are going to take this country down. God help us because we apparently really are headed for a bloodletting. Specifically, I am talking about how a relatively unknown liberal blogger's expression of frustration over the fomenting of hatred by prominent right-wingers has lit a match to that kindling of hatred that is spreading yet another fire throughout the right wing-nuttery machine, including Fox News's Hannity and Colmes, Brent Bozell, WorldNet Daily, and a host of right-wing bloggers, not to even mention the ignorant masses of people commenting on their various websites. Why am I so angry? Because these people are hell-bent on destroying this country. They are literally drooling for a civil war that pits liberals against conservatives. And they don't seem to understand how utterly heinous that would be.

Last night when I arrived at home, Fox News was already blaring on our television and Sean Hannity was running a promo about his upcoming show, in which he would be talking about a liberal blogger who said he wanted to kill Rush Limbaugh. Of course they had to point out his past as a writer for Hustler magazine (I will at this point refrain from listing the MANY sexual indiscretions of Republicans that these same pundits excuse, though that would probably serve to prove that we are ALL THE SAME - human beings - and it's time we learned to get along). Hannity somberly said, "Should he be arrested? Should he be investigated? Should he be silenced?" And I wondered to myself, "Is he feeling intimidated?"

Brent Bozell, President of the right-wing Media Research Center, was a guest on the show and he, too, was quite somber about the supposed death threats leveled against Rush and Nugent. He wondered how it was fair that the liberal media pounced on Ann Coulter recently, "distorting" her comments to say she had called for the assassination of John Edwards "when she hadn't," but were silent on Hart's comments. The discussion that ensued overlooked entirely any context for Hart's statements until the nearly-worthless Alan Colmes timidly quoted a bit more from the piece.

If you want to watch the episode, here are links for watching it on Windows Video and Real Media Video. And here is an MP3 file.

First, I want to summarize what Hart's message actually was, because it was not an expression of a desire to get up right now and go kill Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent. Here is how I would paraphrase what Hart wrote:

Ted Nugent's liberal-hating letter to the Wall Street Journal was yet another example of how the right wing is fomenting hatred of the left. And the anger that is building on the right toward liberals is reaching such a degree that I do not know where else it can end up but in a bloody civil war. So if it comes to that, let me tell you right now that I am going to go after one of the chief instigators of this hatred that is dividing America: Rush Limbaugh. And if one of you wants to go after Ted Nugent, let me know so we aren't redundant in our effort to rid the planet of the people who are turning Americans against each other.

Though I agree that we are in serious trouble and if hatemongers on the right don't stop pushing buttons we could end up in a civil war, I would not have said what Hart said. But Hart did say it. And now he is getting some very negative attention.

Brent Bozell's blog is just brimming with rabid right-wing comments like these following the Hannity & Colmes discussion:

Bigtimer: "I have had my fill of these people."

Blazer: "Gotta love those crazy, crazy commies on the left, and how they love to swim in thier toilet bowls of irony, and hypocrisy. This folks is the kind of scum, that are pulling the Democrat puppet strings. … BRING IT ON SCUM!! "

Bassndude: "Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!"

The right-wing bloggers have also had some things to say about it. Here is a sampling:

1. "Another Civil War? The Moonbats are getting bolder and dangerously stupid. First we have Left Winger Blogger Hart Williams wishing for a Civil War so he can shoot and kill Rush Limbaugh and asking for a volunteer to kill Ted Nugent. Then we have derranged Anti War Looney Matthew J. Marren shooting Airman Jonathan Schrieken as his anti-wat statement. It seems that the Moonbats are developing a twisted pair of testicular organs. But it might backfire (pardon the pun) nastily. Their hatred of anything guns and military might be clouding their brains enough as to ignore that a section of law-abiding citizens are armed and may not sit quietly while they try to go on a rampage. And that group of citizens regulary train with guns so it is safe to assume that they are much better shots. Warning to Mr. Moonbat: We will shoot back & we won't miss." Adding to the understanding of this blogger is the header at the top of his web page, which reads: "'Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.' H.L. Mencken"

2. "Bring it, Beeyotch! The first shot that these anti-American asshats fire will be their last. Period. End of story. And not only will we NOT have to listen to them whine and snivel anymore, but we'll have that many less people trying to tear America down and turn it into a socialist shithole. So bring it, beeyotch. People like this are the domestic enemies I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against."

3. "Go Ahead: Make The Nudge's Day Knowing the title of his famous cookbook, Kill It And Grill It, the assassin wannabe might want to look his best… to become his next wall trophy."

Contrary to what these right-wingers believe, liberals do not have a lock on hate speech. Here are just a few quotes from some well-known conservatives:

1. Mel Gibson on Frank Rich: "I want to kill him. I want his entrails on a stick. I want to kill his dog."

2. Fresno City Council Member Jerry Duncan in 2003 wrote in an email that police should "Cap" members of the Human Relations Commission and wrote, "If I had one dirty bomb and I could eliminate all the liberals in Fresno at once." When his comments became public, Duncan said "The response I have gotten from the public on this has been 100% supportive."

3. Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for."

4. Senator Phil Gramm: "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

5. Rep. James Hansen on Bill Clinton: Get rid of the guy. Impreach him, censure him, assassinate him."

6. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

7. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

8. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

9. Bill O'Reilly: "[A]ll those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

10. Rabbi Daniel Lapin (good friend of Grover Norquist): "I am absolutely convinced that God is far from finished with the story of the United States of America. First of all, [there's] the matter of the little battle that must be fought, just as it was in the 19th century." Could he be referring to the Civil War? I think so, because he goes on to say there were at that time and are now "two incompatible moral visions for this country. We had to settle it then. We're going to have to settle it now. I hope not with blood, not with guns, but we're going to have to settle it nonetheless. The good news is that I think our side is finally ready to settle it. Roll up its sleeves, take off its jacket, and get a little bloody. Spill a little blood. We'll settle it. And we'll win. And then there's no holding us back."

And let's not leave out the lesser-known right-wing bloggers – here is a very small sampling of what can be found in the blogosphere:

1. This blogger in 2004 described a "fantasy episode" which "has a following in the darker parts of my mind." In it, a paramilitary group, the Christian Liberation Front, storms Washington, killing five Supreme Court Justices, 50 people at a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting, all Democratic senators from states with Republican governors – and names the 21 senators killed, then "proudly" confessed to police. " Would five extra conservatives on the Supreme Court and a filibuster-free Senate be worth the bloodshed? It is opposing evil, given some of the less-than-biblical decisions that have emanated from the court."

2. "Screw the Democrats and kill the liberals. IM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THIS TALK OF ETHICS IN CONGRESS AND CHARGES BEING BROUGHT UP AGAINST REPUBLICANS! THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT ITS DOING SO LIBERALS SHOULD BE QUIET! WE NEED TO ARREST AND KILL ANYONE WHO SPEAKS OUT AND HAVE THE FCC TAKE CONTROL OF ALL THE MEDIA AND REQUIRE LICENCES FOR JOURNALISM! LETS PRAY FOR TOM DELAY THAT HE GETS OUT ALRIGHT! AND THAT ALL THE DEMOCRATS ARE THROWN IN JAIL UNTIL THEY DIE WITHOUT TRIAL! THIS IS A WAR WERE IN! TRUST THE GOVERNMENT FOR ONCE OTHERWISE YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND A COMMUNIST TRAITOR! GOD BLESS AMERICA!"

3. This website is entirely devoted to hating liberals: "Liberals Will Kill Us.com."

There is more. Much more. Find out for yourself. Google the words "kill liberals" and be shocked.

Back in February of 2004 and again in January of 2005, a blogger at Orcinus wrote two very chilling editorials about the inevitable result of the "eliminationist rhetoric on the right" and where it would take this country. I highly recommend both of these articles, which you can find here and here. Through the years, I have been told by several right wingers that they were ready to take up arms against the liberals, a group now successfully dehumanized by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I wonder if they really understand what that would mean for this country, or if they are so completely lost in their own fantasy world about "the way things ought to be" that they would feel patriotic, inspired, and so very right in slaughtering millions of their fellow countrymen.

The dehumanization of the enemy, drilled all day long into the heads of their fellow countrymen through radio broadcasts, resulted in a brutal genocide in Rwanda. The right-wingers have no trouble understanding that evil. Why can't they see that they are themselves dancing with the very same devil right now?

Posted by Becky at 11:05 AM |

July 09, 2007

We Volunteer Here

When I read today that Portland, Oregon ranked 6th out of the 50 top cities in America for volunteering, with 35.8% of residents ages 16 and older giving of their time to help a worthy cause, my response was, "But, of course!" Volunteers are everywhere here. Seattle edged Portland out for the number 5 spot in the rankings, with 36.3% of the population volunteering, and Minneapolis-St. Paul topped the list at 40.5%.

Volunteerism tends to spring from a population that feels connected to its community, and Portland has worked long and hard to build community through its Neighborhood Associations, community planning process, and numerous festivals and community events. Other factors affecting volunteerism include home ownership, education, and commute times, all of which are linked with personal opportunity to give and are signs of a healthy community. Oh, and volunteering is good for your personal health, too!

Posted by Becky at 01:16 PM |

Fred Thompson Takes Another Hit

It hasn't been a good week for Fred Thompson. Today's news that he is denying well-founded claims that he lobbied on behalf of a pro choice group comes on top of a report that he tipped off the Nixon Whitehouse during the Watergate hearings to the fact that investigators knew about the tapes, but that Nixon was concerned that Thompson was "dumb as hell."

The L.A. Times is reporting that even though Thompson is today campaigning as an anti-abortion Republican, back in 1991 he accepted a lobbying assignment from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. He agreed to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to ease up on restrictions on abortion counseling at clinics where federal funding was being used.

The abortion "gag rule" was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.

The issue is quickly turning into a "he said, she said" sort of argument, but the fact is the paper trail and eye witness accounts support the family planning group and not Thompson in this argument. Predictably, all Republicans involved "don't recall" Thompson's lobbying efforts and the party faithful believe this is nothing more than a left-wing plot to discredit him.

But if Thompson did not actually do the lobbying he told the group he was doing on its behalf, then he is in trouble for fraud. As one blogger points out, this is exactly what got Jack Abramoff in trouble.

Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is serving over five years in federal prison for taking money from Native American tribes to lobby on their behalf and then doing the opposite.

Not that it will come to anything.

The danger in this early release of these two stories is that they will be smoothed over and forgotten by election day. After all, Americans were willing to elect a cocaine-using dry drunk who dodged the draft and went AWOL – twice. A "dumb" party loyalist who was smart enough to screw over a pro-choice group and who tried to protect his president back in the day could well be seen as a refreshing move back toward moral leadership.

Maybe it hasn't been such a bad week for ol' Fred after all.

Posted by Becky at 12:15 PM |

Stop the Presses! Hart Wants to Shoot Rush!

I had to laugh right out loud when I saw the blaring headline on Worldnet Daily, "Democrat blogger wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh, Also calls for volunteer to assassinate Ted Nugent." Said blogger is none other than Oregon's own Hart Williams, the guy who spent last year exposing the Howie Rich machine. Could it be retribution? Where was Worldnet Daily when Anne Coulter called John Edwards a faggot and later said she wanted him to be murdered by terrorists? Or when she called for New York Times editor Bill Keller's execution ("I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution")? Answer: Nowhere. They didn't mention it. She sells her books on their website, don't you know.

South City Mouth wrote about a similar hullaballoo almost exactly a year ago. He listed several outlandish quotes from right-wingers during the prior two weeks, including Coulter's statement on Keller above and these two calls for death:

July 18, 2006: "So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter." -Anne Coulter on The Times' receipt of a powdery substance in the mail that turned out to be corn starch.

July 13, 2006: "Couldn't he have killed Jerry Springer?" -Bill O'Reilly on mafioso Tommy "Horsehead" Scafidi, who allegedly was ordered to rub out Geraldo Rivera.

So, what was Hart's crime? He complained about an apparently ghost-written article by Ted Nugent that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the 4th of July – an article which Hart characterized as retroactively rewriting history for the purpose of burnishing Nugent's "conservative" bona fides. In that article, "Nugent" slams the "Summer of Love," in which "hordes of stoned, dirty, stinky hippies converged on San Francisco," rejected their parents' "work ethic and productive American Dream values" and "instead opted for a cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle." Hart takes great offense to the hatred displayed by Nugent for his own generation and his inability to appreciate the good that came out of the '60s. He sees it as part of an effort by people like the WSJ editorial board to turn Americans against each other.

"How we can remain 'civil' in the face of this is beyond my ken," wrote Williams. "I will only reiterate what I've said WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well ... I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently. But when the day comes that they have finally set brother against brother, and sister against sister in the name of their pocketbooks, I won't approach exterminating them with anything approaching remorse. They've already told me what they think of me, of my friends and of my peers. Now, I'm returning the favor. Put that in your pipe and have the WSJ editorial staff show you how to smoke it, Nugent."

Hart wasn't the only one to take offense at Nugent's article. Down With Tyranny has a great piece on the article, too, in which the pseudo-paragon of virtue is quoted having wished death on a few of his own pet enemies:

He was well-received when he spoke at the NRA's 2005 convention in Houston when he advocated killing suspects pulled over by the police. "I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

Okay, so can we agree that passionate creative people like Hart Williams and Ted Nugent have a tendency to use colorful language to express their points of view? Is it necessary for Worldnet Daily to publish an article attempting to personally smear Hart for his comments? And by the way, why did they do it, and yet refrain from expressing any indignance about Coulter's comments – or Nugent's own comments?

I can't help but think back to Hart's body of work last year, in which he spent literally months researching to uncover a small right-wing cabal's complex scheme to create the appearance of a massive grass-roots movement across several states in order to pass legislation they could not get elected representatives to touch. I believe they have been watching and waiting for their opportunity to discredit him.

I very much enjoyed Hart's response this morning: "Hopefully, we didn't make them cry."

Posted by Becky at 11:21 AM |

July 08, 2007

Shape up or ship out?

Cindy Sheehan has challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to move to Impeach Bush by July 23 or prepare for Sheehan to contest for her Congressional seat as an Independent.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

While I admire Cindy Sheehan's willingness to fight for what she believes in, I don't necessarily support her. And I'm not sure that I agree with all of her listed reasons for why Bush ought to be Impeached. I don't see Bush exercizing his Constitutional authority to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence as an Impeachable offense, for example. But it does seem to me that the rhetoric coming from many Dem candidates in 2006 isn't exactly being reflected in their official actions now that they got themselves elected. And I certainly support the right of constituents to demand that their elected representatives walk the walk after having talked the talk.

What do you think?

Posted by Kevin at 04:14 PM |

The Ultimate Conspiracy Theory

I just finished watching Zeitgeist the Movie, and though I was familiar with much of the information it presents, being fascinated as I am with conspiracy theories, I had not seen it all pieced together so well before. If you have a couple of hours, a good Internet connection, and an open mind (and are not afraid to have your most deeply held religious and political beliefs strongly challenged) then you will want to see this film. Sources can be found here. I found the film to be quite compelling and, at first blush, convincing, but of course it is not difficult to present information in such a way as to support a false pemise. This will take further thought and exploration. So if you've seen it, or once you've seen it, what did you think of it?

A note to Christians: While parts of this film will confirm things you may believe (specifically, Revelation prophecies of a coming one world government in which those who refuse to participate will not be allowed to buy or sell), others will not (specifically, the real meaning and origin of the Christian religion). Carla wrote about some of this before I joined this blog. My point is again, if you can't handle some serious challenges to your beliefs, don't watch the film. Consider yourself warned.

My first reaction is that if the premise behind this film is true, then truly we are living in something like the Matrix, and the result is that we have been rendered incapable of knowing who God really is or who we really are. We are eminently controllable and our lives serve no further purpose than to feed a few very wealthy and powerful families who really are in control. If that is the case, the question then becomes whether one would prefer to stay plugged into the Matrix, living the illusion, or to become unplugged and enter a more true, but far less comfortable existence.

The answer, for me, is not simple because I am, at present, quite comfortable.

Posted by Becky at 12:00 PM |

July 06, 2007

Drinking and Driving

Paul Proctor, a self-described "seasoned veteran of the country music industry" who has retired to write about social issues, has a new piece out about drinking and driving. Drunk driving is one of my hot-button issues because I personally witnessed a drunk driving accident that took the life of one family's grandmother. But I also enjoy going out with my husband fairly often for an evening of drinking, dancing and pool. Obviously, someone has to drive home. So we're always aware of how much the designated driver has had to drink and have even stayed out later to be sure we are safe to drive. But Proctor believes people like me don't exist.

He believes that bars ought not to have parking lots because it encourages drunk driving. And he bases this view on something that is utterly ridiculous on its face:

If it is against the law to drive an automobile under the influence of alcohol, which in most cases amounts to having little more than one or two drinks under your belt, why do establishments that primarily serve adult beverages provide patrons with a place to park their car while they become too intoxicated to drive it?

After all, how many of their customers stop by for just one drink or bring a teetotaler along to drive them home after throwing down a few? Are we to believe that those who have had too much to drink will sit there and sip water or drink coffee for several hours after tying one on until their blood alcohol level returns to normal? At least at a hotel lounge, drinkers can rent a room for the night to sleep it off - but how often do you suppose that really happens?

I have yet to hear of a single bar with a two-drink limit or free cab rides home for every customer who can't pass a breathalyzer test - but then that wouldn't be very profitable or practical, now would it? And frankly, I doubt there are even enough taxis in existence, much less on duty at any given time to fill such a need.

The fatal flaw in Proctor's logic is his idea of when people become too drunk to drive. "One or two drinks" does not make someone drunk. Lane Community College has a comprehensive web site with tables and guidelines that can help a person calculate how many drinks they can have before their blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit for driving. Insure.com has an even better site with a calculator into which you enter your weight, sex, number of drinks, and period of time over which you drank them and it calculates your blood alcohol level.

Proctor is applying extremist-style big brother thinking to the problem of drunk driving, assuming that everyone who goes out drinking is going to walk out of the bar drunk. Worse, he seems to be angling for laws that would prevent responsible drinkers from being able to enjoy themselves and then drive home.

There is a line between being a busybody and protecting society. It seems to me that our DUI laws have found where that line is. They allow people the opportunity to behave responsibly and they punish those who do not. If Proctor really wants to make a difference, he will pour his energies into calling for harsher penalties for repeat drunk drivers and leave responsible drinkers alone.

Posted by Becky at 11:09 AM |

"We" Versus "Me"

A reader at Blue Oregon linked to a very interesting editorial yesterday and I just can't pass up the opportunity it gives to discuss the differences between stereotypical liberal and conservative thought. In it, a right-wing conservative named Joel Turtel explains liberals' use of "their most vicious word, 'we.'" (in contrast to the virtuous use of "me" by right-wing conservatives). He is correct that the difference between the two extreme ends of the political spectrum can be described as "we" versus "me," but in a healthy community both of these concepts are embraced.

Turtel writes about how he became "almost physically sick" listening to the Democratic candidates in a Presidential debate because of all the "socialist, anti-American-values" things "we" need to do – provide health care to everyone, provide college educations to our kids, provide pre-school for all children ("especially minority kids"), teach parents how to raise kids, cure AIDS, pay for drug addicts' needles, pay for public schools ("that's like throwing money down a toilet"), solve global warming, fund alternative energy programs, end the war, stop companies from moving overseas where they can avoid paying taxes, pay for welfare, pay for farm subsidies, pay for employment programs for minorities, etc. He decried efforts to make the rich pay their fair share because it was "loot[ing] money from brilliant, productive businessmen who earn more than others with their superior ambition and hard work, and giv[ing] this stolen loot to less productive people who do not produce jobs for others." I'm sure some would agree, and some, like me, would find this view appalling. But he doesn't stop there.

“We” is the Democrats’ and liberals’ killer word. They mean that “we” are our brothers’ keeper, whether we like it or not. “We” must sacrifice our lives, our work, our hard-earned money to pay for any looters who want to take our money, courtesy of government-elected thieves.

“We” is an attempt to make you forget the word “I,” as in “I” earned my money and “you” don’t have a right to take it from me…

Let’s be clear on one thing. You are NOT your brother’s keeper, and no government you elect has the right to force you to be. “Compassion” enforced at the end of a government gun (taxes) is naked compulsion. Every program that looting liberals promote with their “we” forces you to be your brother’s keeper, whether you like it or not. In effect, Democrats tell you, “your money or your life.”

There is only one way to fight the Democrats’ vicious moral notion that “we” are our brother’s keeper. Like a prayer, keep repeating the words that you have the God-given right to keep every cent you earn. Your property is not someone else’s “resource” to spend as they please. Liberal looters who spout their “we” think your hard-earned money is theirs for the taking. They think of you as an expendable sacrificial animal. They think that your duty is to work for the money, but they have the right to spend it.

To fight the liberal looters, keep repeating like a prayer, “My money and property are mine—I earned it. No politician I elect has the right to steal my money to give away to others.” It’s as simple as that.

If you accept the Democrats’ deadly “we,” you fall into their trap. You accept the vicious socialist and fascist moral notion that you are your brother’s keeper. You accept the notion that the people you elect to office have the right to loot your hard-earned money to enforce that notion. You accept the fact that those you elect to office have the right to make you into a slave—to work your whole life for the benefit of others.

So the right wing is embracing the notion that we are not our brother's keeper and that the entire concept of attending to and protecting each other is a "vicious socialist and fascist moral notion." Meanwhile, the left wing is embracing the notion that we are our brother's keeper. Since Turtel references "God-given rights," I must ask: and Christianity aligns itself with the Right, why? This sermon provides biblical support for the concept that I am my brother's keeper. It goes further to supply texts that instruct Christians to "receive" others (as in welcome them in as guests), "edify" (improve the morals or knowledge of) others, "serve" others, "bear one another's burdens," forgive and "exhort" (advise and encourage) others, be considerate of others and be hospitable to others. These are not merely being pleasant. They are matters of active involvement – clear matters of "we." You can't bear another's burdens, for example, without giving up some "me." Neither can you turn the other cheek. And if the rich are so "brilliant," "productive," and "superior," why did Jesus say the meek would inherit the earth and that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven? Or rather, why do people who believe in the Bible still support the right wing?

The right wing likes to make statements like, "God helps those who help themselves." Many people actually believe that is a text from the Bible (it isn't). Of course, we all have a responsibility to care for ourselves and our families, and this concept is also found in the Bible. 1 Timothy 5:8 says, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." The Bible discusses husbands' and wives' responsibilities to each other and to their children, with an emphasis on love, respect, and guidance, and notably, in Proverbs 31: 13-19, praises the career woman who works hard to meet her family's needs. Romans 12:11 admonishes people not to be slothful (lazy) in business. Proverbs 12:27 criticizes men who eat meat they did not hunt. Many other texts condemn laziness. But the Bible also teaches we have the responsibility to look out for the interests of others. Exodus 22:1-31 provides at length the rules for making things right with your neighbor if your own actions cause him harm. And repeatedly it teaches that those who are hungry, naked, and thirsty are to be fed, clothed, and given water. Because many people simply cannot fend for themselves and it has nothing to do with laziness.

This idea of individualism over collectivism is really a debate between extremes and a false choice. We can simultaneously value and teach the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty while also valuing and teaching the importance of working together and watching out for each other. Luke 10:27 teaches Christians to love their neighbors as they love themselves. In other words, it places "we" on the same level as "me." And this really gets to the main point.

Where "me" is more important than "we" you find selfishness and greed. Where "we" is more important than "me" you find socialism, loss of value for human life, and loss of freedom. America has flourished because we value both the "me" and the "we." Those who are able to stand on their own two feet and take care of their responsibilities are valued. Those who are unable to meet their own needs are also valued. We know that to have a strong society we have to pull together, the strong pulling more and the weak pulling less, but each pulling all they can. The notion that greed is good, that selfishness is a virtue, is a concept that was introduced to America on a wide scale when the libertarian movement gained a foothold in the Republican party during the 1980s. The results are plain to see.

One more bit of wisdom from the Bible is found in Ecclesiastes 7:15=18:

15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.

16 Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself?

17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?

18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

I have always been fascinated with this text because it spoke so contrary to the legalistic teachings of the church in which I was raised. But over the years, with all my thinking about it, I have concluded that it means what I am trying to say here. People have a tendency to take their belief systems to the extreme, and no matter how well-intentioned they may be such extremes are never good. The same is true in considering "we" and "me." If we want a healthy society, we must grasp the one and not let go of the other.

Posted by Becky at 10:31 AM |

July 05, 2007

Paramilitarization of Peace Officers

A guy named Radley Balko is trying to call Congress's and the country's attention to the growing problem of police militarization – that is, the use by police departments across the country of "military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment." In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime a couple of weeks ago, he explained why the growing use of SWAT teams, armed with military equipment, is becoming a tremendous problem.

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

You will want to read his entire testimony. He links to an interactive map on the Cato Institute's website that includes cases in which paramilitary police raids were botched. The map includes five incidents in Oregon alone, two of which resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Such mistaken raids on American homes occur approximately once a week across the counry. All of them, of course, are "isolated incidents." Meanwhile, even where SWAT teams are used to raid the homes of guilty parties, the need for such high-powered, paramilitary force is questionable.

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.

Balko wants Congress to end federal incentives for these activities so that America's "domestic police departments [are] populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force." Cato, a libertarian think tank, has published a paper by Balko entitled, "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids," which expands on his testimony, catalogues abuses, and offers reform recommendations.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

You can buy Balko's report from Cato for $10. Or, if you like, you can confound your sensibilities by combining it with "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution" and save 20%.

Here are the heartbreaking Oregon stories that Balko highlights on his map:

On April 30, 1997 at 5:30 am, police storm the bedroom of Luis Carrasco-Flores on a no-knock raid, part of a larger raid on three apartments. Flores awakes to the site of armed men in his room. He then pulls a pistol out from his pillow, at which point officers open fire and shoot him dead.

Flores' relatives noted in media reports that the apartment adjacent to Flores' had been robbed the previous month, and a tenant there had been murdered, implying he had every reason to believe the men in his room were criminal intruders. Prosecutors would later concede there was no evidence Flores had commited any crime. Friends say he was trying to save enough money to move out of the crime-ridden complex.

No officers were charged or disciplined for the raid. The raid came just seven months after Salem police shot 63-year-old Salvador Hernandez in a no-knock raid. Hernandez also was not the target of the raid.

On August 2, 1996, police storm the home of 62-year-old Salvator Hernandez on a drug raid. The raid is part of a broader raid that morning involving 47 police officers and federal agents. Hernandez, who is nearly deaf, is making breakfast for himself and his friend, 54-year old Bortolo Pineda.

According to police, as they entered the home, Hernandez took the knife he was using to make breakfast and "lunged" at them with a "menacing" look on his face. According to Pineda, Hernandez didn't hear the police shouts, and had turned to get some sausage from the refrigerator. Police opened fire, and hit Hernandez in the chest five times, killing him.
Hernandez was a farmworker described by friends and his employer as a "good man," and a "good worker." He had no criminal record, and in fact had been a police officer in Mexico before coming to America. He was a grandfather of 21 and a great-grandfather of one. There were no drugs on his person or in his system.

Just days later, a grand jury would clear the raiding officers of all charges, ruling that they had reason to believe their lives were in danger. Salem police pointedly refused to apologize for Hernandez's death.

October 17, 2002: Police conduct a raid on three homes they suspect of growing marijuana. All three homes are owned by one couple, Marcella Monroe and Tam Davage.

On the morning of the raid, 52 police officers in full SWAT attire deploy flashbang grenades, and force entry into the occupied home without announcing themselves.
Police pull two couples out of bed and wrestle them to the ground. They put assault weapons to their heads, tightly handcuff them, and refuse to let the two women, who were partially nude, cover themselves (they also snap pictures of the women before allowing them to dress). When Monroe asks if she could dress, one officer puts a black bag over her head and tightens it to silence her. He pushes her to the ground and puts a boot on the back of her neck.

Police find no plants or weapons, and only "residue" of marijuana in a couple of plastic bags, for which the couple's tenant is issued a misdemeanor citation. Nonetheless, Davage and Monroe are charged with felony manufacture of a controlled substance, due to "evidence" consisting of fans, flourescent lights, plastic sheeting, timers, potting equipment, sandwich bags, a scale, 24 electrical outlets, and a shop vacuum. Police are aware of Monroe's landscaping business, Davage's jewelry business, and the fact that the couple is repairing their home from storm damage, but nonetheless proceed to cite the equipment as evidence of marijuana cultivation.

Police defend the raid as entirely necessary and appropriate, given the well-known danger posed by people who grow marijuana. The spokesman for one of the talk forces involved in the raid adds that "the community at large" approves of such tactics. The Whittaker Community Council later condemns the raid at a public neighborhood meeting and in a press release.

Davage and Monroe have since filed suit, alleging that police knowingly fabricated evidence and omitted exculpatory information in applying for the search warrant.

In August 1993, a battalion of police in SWAT gear storm a cul-de-sac on the outskirts of Portland, Oregon. Teams of police swarm several homes in the neighborhood, including the home of Dale and Penny Randall, who are pulled from their bed, naked, at gunpoint, and aren't permitted to dress. The team tears the Randall's home apart looking for drugs. The couple is subjected to an hour of screaming and obscenities, and is never given back nude photos of Penny Randall taken by her husband.

Just outside the Randalls home, a scrap metal worker named Johnny Senteno had come to haul some waste away from the rental, only recently occupied by the Randalls. As Senteno is talking to a neighbor, he turns to see a National Guard M-113 armored personnel carrier filled with armed personnel barreling toward him.

Two members of the Portland Police Bureau's Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) in camouflage and face masks, leap from the truck screaming obscenities.
Portland's alternative weekly PDXS reports:

"Before he could respond, Senteno was shot. The first impact struck his chest. The second shattered his arm, which he had held in front of his heart. Senteno describes the projectile which struck him as a "pepper bullet." It expanded to the size of a tennis ball. Upon impact it dispersed a burning talcum-like powder."

Senteno had been hit with a grenade launcher. Though described as "non-lethal," the weapon is intended to be used from distances more than 60 feet. Senteno was hit at a distance of less than 15. Senteno would eventually settle with the city of Portland for $100,000.

Though police found a small amount of marijuana in the Randall's apartment, the couple would later learn they weren't the actual targets of the raid. Police were after the home's owner, Robert Cozzi. Cozzi had recently moved out and rented the home to the Randalls. Cozzi had been fingered to police as a potential drug dealer by a confidential informant.

When a reporter from the PDXS paper attempted to contact the mayor's office about details of the raid, a spokesman said, "Generally, these things are left as they should be, to the management of agencies involved." A spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau wasn't forthcoming either, saying only that details of the raid would only be given out "on a need-to-know basis."

In December 1993, Medford, Oregon couple Jose and Esperanza Navarro won a $100,000 settlement after police erroneously raided their home. Five years earlier, police had obtained a warrant to search a home on a remote access road. They wrongly interpreted the ambiguous information on the warrant to be the Navarro's home, kicked in the couple's door, and searched their home at gunpoint.

I'd say Balko has reason to be concerned. If you haven't heard enough about the paramilitary police problem, this site has a running log of stories that I guarantee will upset you even further. Unless you're one of those evil progressives who rewrote the Constitution and allowed all this to happen, that is.

Posted by Becky at 12:27 PM |

Australians and Americans Have Something in Common

Yesterday's admission by Australia's Defense Minister that oil is a key reason why Australia is in Iraq has launched a tremendous amount of discussion around the world and prompted the Prime Minister to insist that oil had nothing to do with Australia's involvement in Iraq. The resulting commentary on Australian blogs reveals a shared frustration for this war between Australians and Americans.

Yesterday's news:

Speaking on Australian radio, [Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson] said: "For these reasons in particular ... , one of which is energy security, it is extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in ... our security interests to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security.

"The Middle East itself - not only Iraq - is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq," he added.

Today's news:

Prime Minister John Howard … denied any connection between Iraq's oil and the invasion and ongoing occupation four years later.

"We are not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil," Howard told Sydney Radio 2GB.

"A lot of oil comes from the Middle East — we all know that — but the reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy," he added.

Sound familiar? But both Australians and Americans are seeing right through it. For instance, in "Australia's Honest. They Are In Iraq For Oil," a post worthy of reading in its entirety, the writer observes:

The US stating it's only a coincidence that we are interested in Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela because we are concerned citizens is insulting to anyone with intelligence. It's a dance that is going out of style faster than the Macarena. …

We are there to secure the oil. Democracy and peace would be lovely too, as long as the oil keeps flowing.

And in another, "Australian Dishonesty About Iraq Oil," the writer says:

When someone in government occasionally makes an honest statement, like Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson (by now it may be former Defense Minister) they are immediately attacked. What kind of democratic systems are the US, Australia, and Britain, promoting around the world? Isn’t it time to clean up the political song and dance acts and inject a bit of honesty before trying to shove our system down the throats of people of other nations?

It would appear that not only are our governments allied, but also the American people have allies among the Australian people. Sadly, both our governments are going one way, while both our peoples are going the other.

Posted by Becky at 12:01 PM |

Content Control of Speech at Blues Festival

My family and I celebrated the 4th of July in downtown Portland at Waterfront Park, enjoying the sunshine and the fantastic music at the Blues Festival, taking advantage of free samples and spending way too much money on clothing and jewelry. It was mostly a perfect day, but one incident we observed reminded us that though we like to celebrate our freedom, it is a fragile thing.

A man was standing on the bridge overlooking the festival and holding up two signs. One read "Impeach" and the other "End the War." He was merely standing on the sidewalk showing his signs to festival-goers. He wasn't shouting, he wasn't in anyone's way, and he wasn't being disruptive. Nevertheless, two members of the festival security team began harassing him, one calling for backup on the radio and the other angrily talking with him. The man moved further down the bridge, but was gone a few minutes later when we looked again.

The problem could not have been loitering because throughout the day, many people spent a good deal of time standing on the bridge overlooking the festival and nobody bothered them.

Meanwhile, out front of the entrance to the festival, where everyone could see as they entered the event, stood another man. He was also holding a sign. It read, "Spare change?" Nobody asked him to move along.

If that isn't content-control, then I don't know what is. This sort of issue has been litigated time and again, and yet citizens must continually fight to preserve and protect the freedoms our Constitution guarantees to us. I do not know if the peaceful protester on the bridge understood his rights, but I hope that he did. We all need to become First Amendment experts if we want to keep that right in tact. Otherwise, it is too easy to cave in to the pressure applied by security personnel or police or other authority figures who want to disregard our right to free speech because they don't like what we have to say.

Posted by Becky at 09:43 AM |

July 03, 2007

I Feel Sorry for Vladimir Golovan

I can't help but feel sorry for Vladimir Golovan, who yesterday was convicted of forging signatures and stealing identities to help candidates qualify for the ballot under Portland's new public financing program. He's got the lefties celebrating because he embarrassed them over their new public funding for initiatives and because he has come to symbolize initiative fraud in a post-Sizemore racketeering Oregon. He's got the righties celebrating because he embarrassed them by engaging in fraud on behalf of their candidates and because he has come to symbolize what is wrong with public financing of campaigns. And all he did was behave in a way that would probably have been perfectly normal in his home country of Ukraine.

The level of corruption in Ukraine is extremely high and a well-recognized fact, and in many interactions with individuals from that part of the world I have seen an acceptance of dishonesty at a level that is entirely unacceptable in our culture. Bribery is so routine that only one other country – Ghana – averages higher in terms of annual bribes paid by households. How can we be surprised when someone coming from that environment doesn't understand that we do things differently here?

Golovan is probably one of the good guys back home. He's a conservative Christian who immigrated to the United States in search of freedom and opportunity, immediately began engaging in politics like a good citizen, and all of a sudden he's been convicted of forgery and identity theft – and he probably never saw it coming.

We must apply the law to Golovan, of course. He did wrong and he ought to have known better. But I can't hate him or gloat over his conviction. It's a real shame all the way around.

Posted by Becky at 02:55 PM |

The Product of Mass Self-Delusion

Yes, I know, everyone is talking about the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. But not enough are talking about the parts that I think are most important, so I'm going to chime in here, too. Two things are important: one, President Bush made a very shrewd move in commuting the sentence, but not pardoning Libby; and two, Republicans are once again gloating over a win for their team and ignoring the facts of the case, a pattern of self-delusion that is extremely damaging to our country.

Andrew Cohen, a lawyer who analyzes legal affairs for CBS News, writes today that "There isn’t a whole lot to say, legal analysis-wise, about President George W. Bush’s decision to commute the 30-month prison sentence of former White House official I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby." But, in fact, "legal analysis-wise" there is something to say. Because Libby's sentence was commuted, he still technically could be criminally charged in the future. He isn't out of the hot seat. Therefore, he can continue to claim the right against self-incrimination, meaning he cannot be called to testify before Congress about the roles that Bush and Cheney played in the Plame affair. Further, because technically now we still have an "ongoing investigation," Bush and Cheney can hold on to their rationale of not answering the press's questions. Had Libby been pardoned, he could be compelled to testify truthfully under oath, placing his fellow perpetrators in jeopardy.

In short, Libby took the fall for the outing of a CIA secret operative – something Bush, Sr. once called "treason" and an act which Bush, Jr. initially strongly condemned – and did not have to go to jail for it. The crocodile tears being shed by Republicans over Libby's lost job, $250,000 fine and disbarment are ridiculous. His people will certainly take care of everything and it won't be long before he's sitting pretty in a lucrative consulting position. (Meanwhile, several black teens who were repeatedly attacked by white teens and who finally retaliated in a typical schoolyard fight are now facing 22 years in prison in a case that outrages the sensibilities. Why doesn't the President use his "commuting" powers to step in and set legitimate travesties of justice right? Because he doesn't have to care.)

Now to point two – that Republicans, by treating politics as a team sport, are endangering our nation. Joe Kovacs at Worldnet Daily writes today about Rush Limbaugh's response to the commutation of Libby's sentence. Keep in mind that Rush is known to get the Republican talking points in advance so he can keep the flock well-controlled.

The decision came just hours after Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened-to radio host in America, urged Bush to exercise his pardon power now for Libby.

"It's time for this pardon, it really is," Limbaugh said. "I don't see how it could lower his standing in the polls."

Limbaugh said everything about the Libby prosecution and conviction seemed "senseless."

"I can't really imagine what it's like to be Scooter Libby," Limbaugh said. "He's got to think he's in a dream or a nightmare or 'The Twilight Zone' – and his family as well."
In a video Limbaugh said the case illustrates how the "legal system just appears to be broken irreparably."

A quick scan through the right-wing blogs this morning confirms that Rush's view that "it's time" is widely held. And I can't help but wonder what these people have been reading and why they are so incapable of understanding the serious crimes that occurred here. A good rundown of it is available here and an excellent article on it is here.

In a nutshell, here's what happened: A document claiming Iraq purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger surfaced (it was determined to be a forgery). Cheney asked the CIA about whether Iraq really had purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger, and the CIA sent former ambassador Joe Wilson, who had African diplomatic experience, to Niger to verify the story. Wilson's investigation revealed that it was highly unlikely that the purchase had occurred and he reported that to the CIA. The CIA repeatedly warned the Administration not to claim otherwise, but nonetheless, Bush included in his State of the Union address, as justification for future military action, the claim that Iraq had purchased the uranium and was attempting to build nuclear weapons. Wilson repeatedly attempted to anonymously warn the media that the claim was untrue, to no avail, and eventually wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times about the Administration's lying in support of the war in Iraq. Eight days later, in apparent retribution for Wilson's editorial, Robert Novak, based on information leaked to him from Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, outed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a covert operative on weapons of mass destruction. The outing also destroyed Brewster Jennings, a front company through which the CIA was keeping tabs on weapons of mass destruction acquisition efforts in the Middle East. As a result, the U.S. lost valuable eyes we needed to preserve our country's safety. A campaign of obfuscation and diversion followed, and thus we find ourselves where we are today.

If a Democratic president and vice president had ordered their staff to release to the press the names of a covert CIA operative and the covert CIA front group that employed that operative, thereby obliterating our ability to gain information on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East at a time when this country was actively engaged in a war on terrorism based in the Middle East by individuals intent upon obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and if that revelation was inspired as retribution for that operative's spouse's revelation that the Administration had lied this country into a needless war, thereby costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and impeding our ability to fight the real war on terrorism, and in addition to that if the Democratic Administration had spied on Americans without warrants, abused the use of signing statements, condoned torture, and repeatedly acted on the Unitary Executive theory, including allowing himself or herself to act as a virtual dictator in any "emergency" situation as Bush has done, not to mention all of the other scandalous behavior we have seen out of this Administration, Republicans would be up in arms and screaming for impeachment. They are not doing so because it is their team who has betrayed this country. Their loyalty is to their party, and not to America. They have been taught that this is patriotism.

Would Democrats be acting the same way Republicans are acting today in such a scenario? I don't know, but I suspect that many might. Nobody wants to believe their guy is wrong. Just as outraged Republicans heaved a heavy sigh of relief when Bill Clinton was gone and promptly overlooked the evil that Bush has done, so outraged Democrats could find themselves so relieved to be rid of Bush that they will be incapable of accepting the truth should their guy (or gal) wind up carrying us further down the path of self-destruction. I hope I am wrong.

We need to become Constitution-lovers and America-lovers, not partisans, and we're running out of time in which to do it. Having a Democrat in the White House will probably remove the blinders from the Republicans' eyes for awhile, but will it place those blinders firmly on the eyes of Democrats? Or have they been sufficiently shaken up that they will remain aware and unwilling to put up with this behavior any longer, join with the Republicans, and take back this country for the people?

Posted by Becky at 11:55 AM |

July 02, 2007

A "Disgruntled" Ex-Confidante Keeps Talking

Somehow, last week I missed this new information about the whole Neil Goldschmidt pedophile case, what Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto knew, and when they knew it. Even more interesting than the report in the paper is the actual written statement by former insider Fred Leonhardt that is prompting further looks at Giusto. The investigation could potentially cost Giusto his job and pit him against his own brother, Tom, whose own story of the cover-up of Goldschmidt's crime differs significantly from Bernie's.

You just can't help but wonder how such hideous people always seem to manage to climb into leadership positions. How does someone who was "proud" of having a flagrant affair with the Governor's wife and who held his knowledge of the Governor's rape of a 14-year-old girl (and potentially other equally egregious acts) over the Governor's head like a "hammer" to prevent him from doing anything about the affair and to gain opportunities end up being voted in as Sheriff? It's also hard to believe that when caught, such a person would have the nerve to say something like, "It’s 20 years old, and the relevance of it is zero" and "I am getting so tired of it that I don't know what to say to you." Does he think that the successful burying of the outrageous story for so many years erases its seriousness and the need to find out what really happened?

And why is it that despite knowing the allegations are true, the politicians' supporters, who value the benefits they reap from the victimizer more than they care about the victim, always follow the same tired script, calling the whistle-blower "bitter" and "disgruntled" and accusing him (or her) of not having "anything better to do than get his name in the newspaper"? You'd think as often as this sort of scenario seems to play itself out in the public arena, the immoral creeps and their amoral creepy friends would come up with something original once in awhile. You would also expect the local fish wrapper to actually report the news without being bought and paid for, and not do things like bury or ignore important stories, slant stories by omitting key facts, or cancel interviews with eye witnesses on an hour's notice without explanation and never call back again. It's really no wonder so many "disgruntled" ex-confidantes keep their mouths shut or become so "bitter" they finally give up and go away.

Posted by Becky at 02:05 PM |

A Native American Writes to Iran

I was drawn this weekend to an op-ed in the Tehran Times by an imprisoned Native American that has to be one of the most fascinating pieces I've seen in a long time. Rarely do so many conflicting threads run through a single item. This one includes issues related to religious freedom, prisoner rights, Native American citizenship and loyalty to the U.S. and its government, and the reasons for our military actions in the Middle East. It seems to me that for many people, particularly conservatives, the sort of routine, pat stance on any one of these issues could easily conflict with the standard stances taken on the others, and so I have been playing through all the related angles in my mind all weekend.

Many thanks to Ted Piccolo, whose unique insight helped me understand this better (Ted offered the perspective of a proud and actively involved Native American who is also a Christian and a conservative/libertarian-minded Republican activist).

The prisoner in question is Leonard Peltier. His is not a story I've researched to any degree, but his guilt in the slaying of two FBI agents in the early 1970s has been debated ever since, and his allies include Amnesty International. He was an active member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), which at the time was aggressive and even violent. Let me say right up front that if he did murder the agents, he is where he belongs. If he was set up, then his case ought to be reconsidered. I haven't taken sides here because I don't know the facts.

Peltier's letter is written to the people of Iran. Entitled, "No freedom of religion for Native American inmates," it begins:

“No human being should ever have to fear for his own life because of political or religious beliefs. We are all in this together, my friends, the rich, the poor, the red, white, black, brown and yellow. We share responsibility for Mother Earth and those who live and breathe upon her… never forget that.”

He concludes his letter to the Iranian people thus:

Yours in the struggle, Until freedom is won

Clearly, the letter is intended to tap into Muslim fears of persecution by a Christian nation. It is intended to enhance the notion that America's current interactions in the Middle East are a religious conflict, an extension of a Christian crusade that we have been conducting against the Native American people since Christopher Columbus brought Christianity to their shores. "For over 500 years our religion has been trampled on and disrespected by those who invaded our lands, and who have tried to take away our culture, our traditions, our language, our history, and our religion," he writes.

Quite clearly, Peltier does not see himself as a citizen of the United States of America, else he would understand that to many U.S. citizens, sending such a message of solidarity, in what he characterizes as a religious "struggle," to another country with which we appear to be ready to engage in war would make him appear almost traitorous. For many of us who, sadly, do not spend much time educating ourselves as to the experience of Native Americans, this could be very surprising and even shocking. I would expect this would particularly be the case for conservatives, who, in my experience anyway, tend to be less interested in accommodating other cultural beliefs and ways, and who equate their views with patriotism. Obviously, this is not a universal statement.

Ted pointed out another interesting angle on the matter of Peltier's having written to the Iranians:

I have a feeling that if he were found guilty in Iran for killing a member of their government that he probably would not still be alive today, let alone taking a sweat for four hours a week.

Which brings us to another angle in the letter relating to Peltier's ability to practice his religion and the purported disregard throughout the prison system for Native American religion. The conflict here is similar to recent conflicts we have seen over facilitating Muslim religious beliefs. Many Americans seem perfectly willing to allow airports to spend public dollars hiring Christian clergy to be on-hand to serve the public, but react quite negatively to the notion of installing foot washing facilities in airport restrooms to serve the religious needs of Muslim travelers. Similarly, banning menorahs from public grounds would seem fine to many Americans, but ban the display of a Nativity scene on public property and these people would cry "religious persecution!" And so we find many Americans who believe prisons ought to supply Christian chaplains, but if they allow a Wiccan priestess or a Native American shaman to have contact with the inmates, then surely the Devil himself has taken over the prisons. In other words, religious persecution against non-Christian religions is legitimate, but religious persecution as an ethereal concept is not.

This discussion is not complete, however, without taking a look at the specific discrimination that Peltier believes he is experiencing. He claims that the amount of time that Native American prisoners are allowed to participate in inipi ceremonies (in sweat lodges), talking circles and spiritual gatherings is limited, the ceremonies must be conducted in English, firewood for the ceremonies is rationed, tobacco for the sacred pipe ceremony is limited, and the traditional meal following the ceremony is not allowed, thereby undermining the sacredness of the ceremonies and displaying racism. Many people might dismiss these rituals as unimportant, saying that God is not impressed with form and ritual, but by the heart (rituals serve human needs, not God's needs), or that the inmates simply want a break from prison life for a day and want to smoke tobacco (an ignorant statement, of course). Every religion has its unique traditions and rituals. The more interesting question here is how much freedom inmates ought to be given to practice their faith. Should Christian inmates be allowed to partake of communion and celebrate Easter? Should Jewish inmates be accommodated in the rigors of Passover and be fed a kosher diet? Should Muslim inmates be served food that is free of pork and be allowed to wash their feet and pray several times a day? Many of the same individuals who would vigorously defend the Constitution would at the same time scoff at the notion of granting such rights to prisoners. After all, one must generally infringe upon the rights of another in order to land in prison.

Despite that seeming common sense, recent history demonstrates a very strong belief by both parties in protecting religious rights, even those of inmates. Oregon's treatment of two Native Americans and their religious practices back in the 1980s triggered a flurry of legislative activity. Their case was decided in 1990 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld Oregon's refusal to grant them unemployment benefits after their use of peyote resulted in a positive drug test, leading to their firing. Both Republicans and Democrats were so outraged they banded together in Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act making restrictions of religious worship extremely difficult, even when dealing with inmates. That legislation was later overturned by the Supreme Court, and Congress responded in 2000 by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which is itself working its way through the court system. More information can be found at the First Amendment Center, but here is a simple explanation as to why inmates' religious rights should be respected:

Let’s face it. Most inmates do get out of prison at some point. And the single best predictor of whether an inmate will do OK when they reenter society is whether they maintain community ties when they are in prison. There are many reasons why we should recognize the religious rights of inmates. Our country was founded on principles of religious freedom. Many people came to this country to flee religious persecution in other countries. As long as a prisoner’s practice of religion does not interfere with prison security, there is simply no reason to deny an inmate’s religious rights.

The site also links to information about several specific cases affecting Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

So are Peltier's religious freedoms being impinged upon? Again, Ted's insight was very helpful.

I know folks here who take a sweat and I know they don't take four hours. Some do, but I know many who don't. And the lodge is by the creek so they need to haul in their own wood, chop it and haul in their own water and everything. The point here is that I am betting a lot of Peltier's work is done for him before he takes his sweat. I am actually impressed that they are allowing him to do that. I think that definitely meets the criteria of being humane.

The sweat lodge is really a big deal here in Indian Country and I have great respect for folks that practice that element of our culture. To tell the truth I don't know anyone who smokes anymore. I'm not saying they don't I am just saying that it is not as big an element as the sweat. So again I think he is getting the extra mile here as far as some respectful treatment.

I have many more thoughts here than I possibly could find time to write. Thanks again for your lengthy response to my questions, Ted. I hope you'll chime in some more now that this is posted.

To maybe spark discussion, here are some things that come to my mind as possible conflicting beliefs that people might hold that are applicable to this story:

Religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms under the Constitution.

Mind-altering substances should be banned even when used in religious ceremonies.

Public funds should be used to accommodate Christian beliefs.

Public funds should not be used to accommodate pagan religions or Islam.

Religious leaders should be allowed to proselytize in prisons to help rehabilitate prisoners.

Native Americans and Muslims don't worship the "real" God; therefore, no rehabilitative benefit could actually come from accommodating the practice of their religion.

Native Americans are citizens of the United States of America and are protected by the Constitution.

Native Americans are citizens of sovereign nations whose interests, when at odds with the U.S. government, must come first.

Allying oneself with an enemy nation is treason.

Comparing one's own nation's perceived religious struggles to the perceived religious struggles of another nation at the hands of the same U.S. government is justified.

Prisoners justifiably lose their rights for having interfered with the rights of others.

Sometimes prisoners are unjustly convicted.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Becky at 12:36 PM |