The government and religion

The Pope said that churches in countries like the United States are dying out. He said it's like they're going out of business. You know why? People used to need churches to help them understand the word of God. But, see, now that job has been transferred to the federal government.

-- Jay Leno

Bush on "Intelligent Design"

Well, he wants it taught in schools.

Let's be clear. This is not science. Science is about testing falsifiable hypotheses. "Intelligent design" is a matter of faith.

The article is called "Bush: Schools should teach intelligent design" if you want to read it.

Sigh.

I don't know who said it but it's good

When you are in the hospital and about to have an operation, do you want your doctor to have gone to one of those creationist schools or one of those science schools?

Land that I love

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--
the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

-- Langston Hughes

An old war triggers fresh emotions

This morning I found myself reading an article on Beliefnet by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach called, "The Sin of Confederate Hero Worship". It is subtitled, "Why do Americans stand for Southerners idolizing the Confederacy, despite the evils of slavery and treason at its heart?" and it compares the cause of the Confederacy to the cause of present day terrorists - namely that of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Now what interested me is the comment section afterwards and I am reminded once again how we are still fighting that war. Here's a sample of what the Rabbi said:

Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. But his personal feelings about the institution are utterly immaterial. The only relevant point was that he used his military genius to fight a war that would have kept men, women, and children in chains. What on earth could make a man like that a hero? What could make a man like Jefferson Davis a hero in the eyes of the good people of the modern South, and what message are those who lionize this man sending to their children? That it is good to rebel against the United States?
...
It is high time for the United States to remove statues of Confederate leaders. And for those who say that removing such statues would be an affront to free speech, I would respond, are there any statues of Benedict Arnold in the United States? And would anyone dare erect one? And yet Arnold's treachery against the United States was child's play compared to the damage caused by Davis, Lee, and Jackson.

The great men of the Civil War were not the rebels, but those who fought to preserve the unity of this great nation rather than to tear it asunder. The great men of that terrible war were those who ultimately freed the slaves from bondage--most notably Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--rather than those whose victory would have had fellow Americans owned as beasts of burden by their countrymen.

Now I must admit, as someone born and partially raised in the South, that I cringed at the mention of Sherman. How anyone could condone his March to the Sea (also see here) filled with war crimes is beyond me. And it was just my emotional reaction that prompted me to go ahead and read the comments after this article. I want to share two with you - each representing opposite viewpoints. Here's one by a writer who agrees with Rabbi Boteach:

To romanticize over the Confederacy is a slap in the face to the nation as a whole.

Let's tell the truth: The Confederacy, no matter how "Christian", or how genteel, it perceived itself, was still an enemy (slave) state within the Union that had to be put in check militarily. All of which took a heavy toll on human life, from slaves to soliders.

I would say to my Southern neighbors: don't pine over the Confederate symbols and heroes as remnants of a "golden age", but to mourn over them as examples of human evil and treason against the common good. And after you mourn, learn from those examples to make this nation (and humanity) better.

And here's a comment by someone who believes in honoring the Confederate dead:

The War Between the States was not about slavery per se. It was about one group of people telling another group of people that there was only one way -- theirs. It was more about states' rights than slavery although admittedly slavery was a component. The industrial north with its greater population wanted to tell the rural south how to run its affairs. But what doesn't get said most of the time is that slavery not only existed in the North, it was common. Their house wasn't completely clean before they decided to clean someone else's. Even now there is little mention of northern slavery. Why is that? Because they "won" the war and only the victors get to write the history?

I honor Robert E. Lee because although he did oppose slavery he also loved his home and was willing to fight for it. He was also a man of honor and great faith. Should he be dumped in a hole and forgotten becuase he was on the losing side of a war? Or does one have to be on the winning side to be considered worthy of memorialization?

I can see it both ways. I really can.

Emotions ran very high on the message board. It gave me considerable pause for reflection because if we're still so divided about such a tragic episode of our nation's history that is now 140 years old, how can we hope to heal the divisions which currently rip us apart? The morning's reading has been very sobering indeed.

Health care for all

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir with this but here's another article outlining just why we need universal medical coverage in this country. The article is by Holly Sklar and is entitled, "Time for Health Care for All on Medicare's 40th Anniversary". Here's a passage that makes the main point:

Lack of health insurance is killing many more Americans than terrorism. As the Institute of Medicine documents, uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with insurance. They receive too little care, too late, get sicker and die sooner. For example, uninsured women with breast cancer have a 30 percent to 50 percent higher risk of dying than insured women. Uninsured car crash victims receive less care in the hospital and have a 37 percent higher mortality rate than privately insured patients.

One out of three Americans below age 65 -- 85 million people -- lacked private or public health insurance for all or part of 2003-2004. Millions more are underinsured.
Average family health insurance premiums will reach a projected $14,545 in 2006, more than double the 2001 average.

Much health spending is squandered on the mountainous red tape, profits and executive pay of private insurance and drug companies. As Dr. Marcia Angell explains in "The Truth About the Drug Companies," the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry relies heavily on taxpayer-funded research.

The National Coalition on Health Care, an alliance of about 100 corporations, pension funds, medical associations, insurers, unions, consumer and religious organizations, says, "Comprehensive health care reform is long overdue. Every year that reform is delayed, tens of millions of Americans live in peril, without health insurance; millions are harmed, and hundreds of thousands die needlessly, because of sub-standard care."

"The crisis in health care is the central economic problem facing America -- adversely affecting living standards, job creation and retention, wage growth, the adequacy and viability of pension benefits" and the global competitiveness of American business, says Coalition president Henry Simmons.

The Coalition calls for "health care coverage for all." It offers four different scenarios for universal coverage: employer and individual mandates and subsidies; expanding Medicare and other public health insurance; creating a new public program modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan; and establishing a universal single payer, publicly financed program.

If you want more facts about medical care realities in this country, I do recommend that you read the whole article. It's short, accessible and to the point.

John Roberts' age

You realize he is only 50 years old. He could serve on the court for the next 40 years. So he could still be there when we pull out of Iraq.

-- Jay Leno

Absence of irony; absence of shame

Last night I stumbled upon an article that is so well written, so insightful regarding the outlook of this administration as well as its effect on the nation and the world, that I want to beg you to click through and read it in its entirety. The article is by Hal Crowther and is entitled, "Shame is for sissies". The subtitle reads thus:

The Bush administration's contemptuous nomination of John Bolton to represent America before the world shows what happens when ignorant, arrogant people with no principles come to power.

Here are some other passages:

Bolton is simply the Republican fist with its middle finger held erect, a calculated insult aimed at the Democrats, the media and the world--a rude gesture of unprecedented arrogance and defiance. Is this a coarse joke, irony served White House-style? For America's most visible and sensitive diplomatic post, they offer the ultimate anti-diplomat, an obnoxious bully so incapable of diplomacy or common tact that he offends everyone he encounters, Democrat or Republican, ally or enemy.

"It is totally erroneous to speak of Bolton as a diplomat," said retired diplomat Frederick Vreeland, who worked with him under President George H.W. Bush. "He spoke of the U.N. as being the enemy."

I have some background on Bolton that isn't generally available, a report from a friend of mine (nameless unless someone doubts him) who was his classmate in military school.

"Short, non-athletic, arrogant, unpopular and highly intolerant of other people's opinions," Bolton's classmate recalls, "sort of Napoleonic but without any of Napoleon's talents for leadership. Making him ambassador is like thumbing our nose at the UN, and foreign diplomats understand that."
...
Pathology lurks. Somehow the whole country--the whole world--has begun to pay dearly for the fact that Bolton, Bush and Cheney were never the best or the brightest or the most beloved. The late Hunter S. Thompson was no unimpeachable news source, but he got my attention when he described George W. Bush as "a baffled little creep" who used to adhere to the fringes of the fast Houston cocaine crowd--and once passed out in Thompson's bathtub.

"He was nothing, he offered nothing, and he promised nothing," Thompson recalled. "He was insignificant in every way. He had no humor (my italics)."
...
Totalitarian thinkers, Hannah Arendt once wrote, are characterized by "extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of the man who can fabricate it." If you told me 20 years ago that a cocky free press, still flaunting Richard Nixon's scalp, could be reduced to groveling impotence by the likes of George W. Bush, I guess I'd have laughed at you. But the other night I saw some film of Syrian troop carriers leaving Lebanon, and the voice-over--this was CNN, I swear--said something like "another triumph for the president's master plan to liberate the Middle East."

It startled me like a slap in the face. When did Karl Rove plant his microchips in their brains? The Goebbels Network is ever-expanding...

Once again, I do urge you to read the whole article. I've given you just a taste.

I have no idea who Hal Crowther is but I intend to find out and track down other articles of his. I am very impressed by both his observations and his analysis. And I experience his writing style as simply riveting.

It really does take a village

Perhaps it has come to your attention that Republican Senator Rick Santorum has written a right wing "answer" to Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village. Santorum has called his book, It Takes a Family. Well Santorum was interviewed on the subject by George Stephanopoulos this morning and the transcript was then discussed on Eschaton, one of my favorite blogs. Here's a comment by Roddy McCorley that really got my attention:

And what does a family need, Rickster?

Lower wages, according to the Republican party. Less access to affordable health care, according to the Republican party. Fewer schools, according to the Republican party. More arsenic in drinking water, according to the Republican party. More mercury in fish, according to the Republican party. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the Republican party. Meat that has not been checked for contaminants like Mad Cow Disease, according to the Republican party.

According to the Republican Party, these are the ingredients for a strong family. And they're working hard to make sure each and every family other than their own has these things.

So who's not in favor of strong families, anyway? But families do not exist in a vacuum. By the way, Santorum, in his book, criticizes the Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control. That's right birth control. It just boggles the mind. So if you thought the right-wingers were just trying to take away women's abortion rights, think again. Birth control is next.

Hurricanes and global warming

The article is entitled "Study: Warming Is Intensifying Hurricanes" and here's a bit of what it says:

Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious? New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists call the findings both surprising and "alarming" because they suggest global warming is influencing storms now — rather than in the distant future.

However, the research doesn't suggest global warming is generating more hurricanes and typhoons.

The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows for the first time that major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent.

These trends are closely linked to increases in the average temperatures of the ocean surface and also correspond to increases in global average atmospheric temperatures during the same period.

"When I look at these results at face value, they are rather alarming," said research meteorologist Tom Knutson. "These are very big changes."

Knutson, who wasn't involved in the study, works in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

Emanuel reached his conclusions by analyzing data collected from actual storms rather than using computer models to predict future storm behavior.

I wonder how many people who "don't believe" in global warming have been or will be in the path of a hurricane. And I wonder if "not believing" in global warming prevents them from experiencing damage to life and property.

The causes of terrorism

I've admired the Toronto Star for several years now. Today I want to share with you one of its articles which is by Linda McQuaig and is entitled, "Terror Attacks are Response to Military Actions". Here are a couple of excerpts:

In the official, mainstream view of terrorism — the view trumpeted by western governments, think tanks and media commentators — terrorists are freedom-loathing zealots with an irrational hatred of our western lifestyle and culture.

But another view, polls suggest, is gaining ground with the public: Terrorism is actually a response to military interventions perpetrated by western governments.

These sharply diverging views are central to the question of how to deal with terrorism. Under the "irrational hatred" view, there's not much we can do other than ratchet up our security and hunker down for a long fight with a bunch of lunatics.

But under the second theory, some solutions may be possible. At least, it suggests we should carefully scrutinize what actions our governments are up to in the Middle East, to assess whether these actions are justified and, if not, to stop them. After all, if the actions aren't justified, we should stop them anyway. Right? Or should we continue to act unjustly — if that's what we're doing — simply so we can look firm in our opposition to terrorism?

The U.S. and British governments fear such public scrutiny of their actions in the Middle East. This isn't surprising, since any serious analysis would reveal a history of Anglo-American interventions that could best be described as imperialistic.
...
"(W)hat nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common," notes [Robert] Pape in his book, Dying to Win, "is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." Pape also observes that once a military occupation ends, the suicide terrorism tends to stop.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair went to great lengths last week to suggest that the recent London bombings weren't connected to Britain's role in the occupation of Iraq, but rather to irrational hatred of western culture.

Really?

If you attack your neighbour, kill several of his family members, ransack his house and steal his car, is it logical to conclude that your neighbour is in a rage against you because he doesn't like how you dress and what movies you enjoy watching?

It's clear that the attachment to the view of terrorism as "irrational" supports the refusal of both the U.S. and Britain to engage in appropriate self-examination. Sadly, I don't expect that to change.

Trembling for the country

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Decency

This comment was left on Eschaton by somebody named Luke:

It has become pretty obvious to me that Democrats are Democrats because most of them are too kind to think of keeping their fellow man without health insurance, food, jobs, education, decent wages, overtime, the right to declare bankruptcy from hard times, decent working conditions, safety rules in the work place, pensions -- decent lives, in other words.

What I don't understand is what makes people not want these things?

Climate change update

Here's an article from CBC entitled, "Scientists sound alarm on Arctic ice cap". Here's how it gets started:

Satellite data for the month of June show Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a record low, raising concerns about climate change, coastal erosion, and changes to wildlife patterns.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre in the United States uses remote sensing imagery to survey ice cover at both poles.

The centre says 2002 was a record low year for sea ice cover in the Arctic, since satellite observations began in 1979.

There's evidence that may have been the lowest coverage in a century.

Now scientists fear this year could be worse. June readings indicate the ice is at its lowest limit ever for that time of year.

This is devastating regarding the habitat of polar bears as it shortens their feeding season. And of course, it is just more incontrovertible evidence that global warming is real.

A truly righteous society

Sometimes I wonder if the Bible-thumpers have actually ever read what it says. Karen Horst Cobb agrees and outlines what a society would really look like if it were based on biblical values. Here are some excerpts from her article which is entitled, "Ye Shall Know the Truth: Profits of the New World Order":

The cry of many Christians today is a cry to return to the teachings of the Bible and to have a society which is righteous. I am in total support of a righteous society and have tried to imagine what it would be like. One of the first changes we would need to make is at the foundation, our banking system. Exodus 22 says that if you lend money to poor people you can not extort money from them in the form of interest. In Proverbs 28:8 the message is very clear, He says that getting rich by charging interest is wrong and that God will take his wealth and give it to the poor. Psalms 15 says that Yahweh will dwell with those who are righteous and do not charge interest on their loans. In Deuteronomy 15 it describes how all debts are forgiven every 7 years in the year of Jubilee. There are 22 times in the Old Testament which speak of the sin of charging interest on a loan. The sweat of one's brow is to be the measure of one's wage.
...
I am surprised that so many Christians who are fighting to keep the commandments on the wall are not fighting as hard to have them implemented. It takes a lot of searching to find scriptures which relate to homosexuality and abortion but one can hardly turn a page without reading about how to be a blessing to those in need. Today’s rich young rulers preach about the advantages of usury and exploitation. While they give lip service to moral issues they are preaching from the prophets of the free market. Upon reading about their social views, it seems that Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are the messianic visionaries who they believe will redeem the world. Self interest and compound interest are the way to salvation according to them. From Friedman, Pastor Ted says he learned that everything, including spirituality, can be understood as a commodity. And unregulated trade, he concluded, was the key to achieving worldly freedom. Is spirituality a commodity to be bought or traded? I thought that God’s love was free and his grace is unmerited favor.
...
God will not be mocked! His ways are not our ways! (Isaiah 55:8) we can not manipulate him into returning by fulfilling the prophesies ourselves at the direction of political think tanks. It seems that the free-market Christians are seeking to hire the masons to complete the temple. The bulldozers will crush whomever gets in the way. The water from Babylon will soon be surging through the privatized pipelines through Iran and Syria right into the promised land. The land, the air, the water and the labor will be in the hands of the ruling elite. The rich will determine how much uranium and radiation is enough. The rich will determine how gray the sky can be. The rich will determine who gets water and the rich will be the ones to discover the magical wage which allows for a laborer's maximum productivity just this side of starvation.

Let it not be followers of Christ who usher in these abuses. How far will the charlatans go to deceive. Perhaps they will project a hologram of Christ returning in the clouds to rally the Christian soldiers. Certainly the technology exists. In the last days we are told that many will be deceived. (II Tim. 3:13) There will be signs and wonders and they will do miracles in the name of Christ, but the love of Christ is not in them. I suspect many Christians are being used by the powers and principalities in high places to obtain massive resources for the rulers of an empire. So while the neo-Christians talk about decorations in our courthouses, the sexual identity of cartoon characters, and preach the good news of the free market. Let us pray that Christ will tarry until the church is no longer holding the banner of privatization and riding the beast of the free-market into the New World Order.

I've read this woman's articles before and I think she is truly prophetic in what she writes. One of her articles was entitled, No Longer a Christian. Hey, I get the title. I certainly don't want to be identified with the religious right myself.

Whatever your religious or non-religious beliefs may be, please know that the great themes of the Bible are not about selfishness and condemnation but rather are about justice, concern for the poor, radical truth-telling, and love for one's enemies. None of these is preached by the religious right today.

The complicity of the press

I stopped watching television news when we went to war against Afghanistan. It was at that time that the local news desks in Tulsa announced every program - including national news - with the slogan "America fights back" while waving flags covered the screen and patriotic music played in the background. The drumbeat to war was insidious and sickening. I remembered how I used to feel so sorry for the Soviets when I was a little girl because I had been taught that they only got propaganda for news. "Now I know what it's like," I thought.

Mike Whitney has written a penetrating article about this phenomenon called, "TV anchors: Field-marshals in the information war". Here are some excerpts:

Television news is the frontlines in the war on terror. That’s where the symbols of national pride merge with the logic of war and thrust the nation towards aggression. The same was true with Iraq. The anti-war voices were excluded, the pro-war advocates were celebrated, and the drumbeat was sounded from every corner of the country. The pre-war strategy for marshalling popular support was the most flawlessly executed public relations scheme in modern times; the thunderous music echoing in the background of carefully decorated sets, the persistent images of Saddam in the crosshairs, and a ready supply of tri-colored standards unfurling for the camera lens.

The entire campaign went forward without a glitch demonstrating the impeccable efficiency of a privately-owned information-system.
...
The TV news anchors play a crucial role in the media paradigm. They are the field-marshals in the information war; the face of the empire.

Is there a difference between Bin Laden and Brit Hume; between Tim Russert and Al Zarqawi?

Not a speck; they are cut from the same cloth and engaged in the same vicious blood-sport. At least al-Zarqawi can say he’s fighting to liberate his country from foreign occupation.

What does Tim Russert fight for? The unchecked power of the corporate media?
...
War does not materialize on its own. It requires its legions of advocates and apologists. Tom Friedman and Judith Miller are just as covered in blood as any mercenary kicking down doors in Kerbala.

The corporate boardrooms are full of murderers. They provide the imagery and lyrics for the pageantry of war. Without their skillful management the public appetite wanes and the lust for revenge vanishes. Their job is to keep the apparatus of misinformation sufficiently lubricated and chugging along at full-throttle.

The current information-system bears no resemblance to a “free press”. It is a model that has evolved from the necessities of private industry and special interest. It neither performs its mandate to inform the public nor strengthen democratic institutions. Its solitary objective is to find the balance between calculated diversion, fear mongering and patriotic claptrap.

Consider just turning off the television. Get your news from reliable sources on the internet. Or if you truly feel you must watch television news and read American newpapers, please read Media Matters every day so that you know what's being inaccurately reported or misleadingly reported. I also want to recommend the Guardian for responsible, unbiased news reporting. It is simply crucial that we take responsibility for what goes into our minds. Sadly, we cannot trust the mainstream news media to do this for us.

Great snark

The White House has now changed their slogan from the 'war on terror' to 'the global struggle against violent extremism.' That just rolls off the tongue, huh? Yeah, that's a good idea -- giving President Bush more syllables to pronounce.

-- Jay Leno

White House REQUIRES newspaper to give only one side

This is simply beyond outrageous. And we're talking about the Washington Post - that once great paper that exposed the Watergate scandal in the cause of justice. Here's what Media Matters says:

Complying with "ground rules" set by Bush administration officials, The Washington Post published a July 26 article that presented the White House's arguments for withholding documents written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. during his tenure as the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush -- without any Democratic rebuttal.

Under a purported embargo, which the Post said prevented reporters from revealing the administration's decision until midnight -- "too late" to contact Democrats for a response -- staff writers Peter Baker and Charles Babington quoted anonymous White House officials spinning the decision regarding the documents. But while other contemporaneous print media reports noted Democrats' previously stated arguments for full disclosure of the documents, the Post omitted them for the second day in a row.

The sad thing is, I'm not surprised. Just sickened as always.

If you want to read the entire report it is here.

If you typically get your news from the mainstream media I really want to recommend that you check into Media Matters on a regular basis for reliable fact checking and bias exposure. The situation I have just shared with you reminds me to do just that. I've been remiss lately.

Revisiting Ohio

It's been a long time since I've written about the election being stolen. But Echidne of the Snakes (one of my favorite blogs) has taken another look at Ohio so I'm linking you to her posting on the issue. She quotes columnist Matt Taibbi who, himself, is finally convinced. Here's a list of some of the reasons:

• As was the case in Florida, the secretary of state (Kenneth Blackwell, in Ohio), who is in charge of elections, was also the co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign.
• In a technique reminiscent of the semantic gymnastics of pre-Civil Rights Act election officials, Blackwell replaced the word "jurisdiction" with "precinct" in an electoral directive that would ultimately result in perhaps tens of thousands of provisional ballots—votes cast mainly by low-income residents—being disallowed
• Blackwell initially rejected thousands of voter registrations because they were printed on paper that was, according to him, the wrong weight.
• In conservative, Bush-friendly Miami County, voter turnout was an Uzbekistan-esque 98.55 percent.
• In Warren county, election officials locked down the administration building and prevented reporters from observing the ballot counting, citing a "terrorist threat" (described as being a "10" on a scale of 1 to 10) that had been reported to them by the FBI. The FBI made no such report. Recounts conducted during this lockdown resulted in increased votes for Bush.
• In Franklin County, 4,258 votes were cast for Bush in a precinct where there were only 800 registered voters.

He doesn't even mention the fact that predominantly Republican areas had plenty of voting machines while Democratic areas had so few that people who had to get to work gave up and left before voting.

The corruption of this administration cannot begin to be discussed in a single article. Keep reading. Keep striving to be informed. It's important. Otherwise the administration will control your mind in addition to everything else.

Friday Cat Blogging!

Here's Leroy just being himself:


Photo by Ellie Finlay