An age of energy uncertainty

Smirking Chimp has published an article this morning by Randolph T. Holhut entitled, "R.I.P: The hydrocarbon economy". It takes a look at the economic consequences of our reaching what's known as "peak oil".

These facts are not subject to debate. The world's energy-producing countries are operating near maximum production. Demand for oil is rising faster than production. And there haven't been any major new discoveries of oil in nearly three decades.

In other words, we may be at or very near what's known as "peak oil," the point where demand permanently outstrips supply. Depending on whose estimate you believe, it's either happening right now, or will happen sometime within the next 10 years.
...
Whichever way you slice it, the era of cheap, limitless energy is over. Dealing with this reality cannot be postponed or delayed any longer. The United States can't keep invading other countries to control their oil. It can't drill its way out of this supply crunch. It needs to commit itself immediately to a plan to conserve energy, develop new energy sources and find ways to make the transition away from a hydrocarbon-based economy.

The last time this nation had to face a drastic change in its energy consumption habits - during the 1972-73 and 1979-80 Arab oil embargoes - the results were astounding. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that the energy efficiency improvements made since the mid-1970s oil embargo now save this nation more than $400 billion in energy costs each year.

Of course the question of the hour is will we, indeed, change our energy consumption habits? I'm not optimistic. The current administration has sent the consistent message to the American people that selfishness is good and conservation is bad. In the meantime, I do what I can and I urge everyone reading this to do so as well. Conserve energy, folks! And give generously to those organizations working hard to wake our leaders up to scientific reality.

Native American Code of Ethics

I'm afraid I do not have a source for the ethical code I'm sharing with you here. It came to me by email a long time ago and I cannot vouch for its authenticity. Nevertheless, I think parts of it are very inspiring and thought provoking. I'm especially moved by #13.

NATIVE AMERICAN CODE OF ETHICS

1. Rise with the sun to pray. Pray alone. Pray often. The Great Spirit will listen, if you only speak.

2. Be tolerant of those who are lost on their path. Ignorance, conceit, anger, jealousy and greed stem from a lost soul. Pray that they will find guidance.

3. Search for yourself, by yourself. Do not allow others to make your path for you. It is your road, and yours alone. Others may walk it with you, but no one can walk it for you.

4. Treat the guests in your home with much consideration. Serve them the best food, give them the best bed and treat them with respect and honor.

5. Do not take what is not yours whether from a person, a community, the wilderness or from a culture. It was not earned nor given. It is not yours.

6. Respect all things that are placed upon this earth - whether it be people or plant. They are part of your worldly family.

7. Honor other people's thoughts, wishes and words. Never interrupt another or mock or rudely mimic them. Allow each person the right to personal expression.

8. Never speak of others in a bad way. The negative energy that you put out into the universe will multiply when it returns to you.

9. All persons make mistakes. And all mistakes can be forgiven.

10. Bad thoughts cause illness of the mind, body and spirit. Practice optimism.

11. Nature is not FOR us, it is a PART of us.

12. Children are the seeds of our future. Plant love in their hearts and water them with wisdom and life's lessons. When they are grown, give them space to grow.

13. Avoid hurting the hearts of others. The poison of your pain will return to you.

14. Be truthful at all times. Honesty is the test of ones will within this universe.

15. Keep yourself balanced. Your Mental self, Spiritual self, Emotional self, and Physical self - all need to be strong, pure and healthy. Work out the body to strengthen the mind. Grow rich in
spirit to cure emotional ails.

16. Make conscious decisions as to who you will be and how you will react. Be responsible for your own actions.

17. Respect the privacy and personal space of others. Do not touch the personal property of others - especially sacred and religious objects. This is forbidden.

18. Be true to yourself first. You cannot nurture and help others if you cannot nurture and help yourself first.

19. Respect others religious beliefs. Do not force your belief on others.

20. Share your good fortune with others. Participate in charity.

A sobering look at global environmental decline

An article by By Joan Lowy entitled, "A sobering look at global environmental decline" reports on an evaluation of the world's major ecosystems called, "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment".

The report -- an attempt to come to grips with the relationships between ecosystems and human well-being -- was written by 1,360 experts from 95 countries and reviewed by 850 experts and government officials.

About 60 percent of the planet's "ecosystem services" -- uses of the natural environment that benefit people, such as freshwater for irrigation or ocean fishing -- are being degraded or used unsustainably, the report said.

"Many of the changes under way to ecosystems are so intense that they are unprecedented," said University of Oregon marine biology professor Jane Lubchenco, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a contributor to the report. "We are really entering terra incognita here."
...
The report was underwritten by the United Nations Environment Program, the World Bank, the U.N. Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among other government and private organizations.

I've posted a lot of articles about the environment on this site so nothing in this article will be a big surprise to regular readers. I recommend that you read the whole article anyway. I think our awareness needs to be consistently stimulated and reinforced about the immense danger that has come upon us due to humanity's recklessness regarding its care of the earth. Ignorance will not help us. Tuning out this information will not protect us. Only by informing ourselves over and over and then taking action will make enough of a difference to save our species from the extinction that threatens us if we continue the way we are going.

Update: I just found another article on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which was published in the Independent/UK entitled, "The State of the World? It is on the Brink of Disaster". It is a longer and more thorough article and I really recommend that you read it.

Dissing Science - Part 3

I was fortunate enough to have studied biology in the 60s - both in high school and in college - during the golden age of science education in this country. I absolutely loved it. And I remember my biology professor in college saying very simply on the first day of class that faith was not the province of science and nobody ever challenged anything he taught for the duration of the course. I also remember seeing Inherit the Wind in those days and being truly grateful that we, as a nation, had moved beyond the misconception that evolution somehow contradicted religion. I can hardly believe that here I am in my 50s, here we are in the 21st Century, and science is doing battle with the fundamentalists once again.

The LA Times has published an article entitled, "Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science" on the so-called "intelligent design" theory now gaining a lot of attention. Here are some passages:

...[P]roponents of intelligent design are careful to never specify the true, religious nature of their theory and to insist that what they are doing is science. For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity."

But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. Lee Anne Chaney, professor of biology at Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995 article: "As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence…. I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable — there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective."
...
If intelligent design is not science, then what is it? One of its originators, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley, wrote in a 1999 article: "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism versus evolution to the existence of God versus the nonexistence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' "

So the objective is to get religious fundamentalism into the schools through the back door. This needs to be fought with all the fervor we can muster.

Oh my, please read this.

Last-Minute Message for a Time Capsule

I have to tell you this, whoever you are
that on one summer morning here, the ocean
pounded in on tumbledown breakers,
a south wind, bustling along the shore,
whipped the froth into little rainbows,
and a reckless gull swept down the beach
as if to fly were everything it needed.
I thought of your hovering saucers,
looking for clues, and I wanted to write this down,
it wouldn't be lost forever -
that once upon a time we had
meadows here, and astonishing things,
swans and frogs and luna moths
and blue skies that could stagger your heart.
We could have had them still,
and welcomed you to earth, but
we also had the righteous ones
who worshipped the True Faith, and Holy War.
When you go home to your shining galaxy,
say that what you learned
from this dead and barren place is
to beware the righteous ones.

by Philip Appleman
from New and Selected Poems,
1956-1996 (University of Arkansas Press)

What's going on?

I want to recommend today what I consider to be a very important article. Paul Krugman, of the New York Times, is one of the few progressive voices in the mainstream press who has a backbone and who is meticulous about doing his research. I admire him a lot. His most recent column is entitled, "What's going on?" and Krugman then proceeds to answer the question he has posed. It's a short article. Please read it in its entirety. Here's a taste:

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
...
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

By giving one example after another, Krugman paints a chilling picture of what is happening. We seem to be headed for a fundamentalist Christian version of the Taliban here in the United States. I, for one, am very alarmed.

Dissing Science - Part 2

Okay. It’s about Evolution versus Intelligent Design. It’s about the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania instructing biology teachers to teach non-scientific material in science class. It’s an AFP article entitled “Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town”. Right. Nothing new here. But something a local anti-evolution pastor said absolutely stunned me. The Rev. Ray Mummert was quoted as saying:

We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.

I’m not kidding, friends. Read the article.

Well, guess what, Pastor Mummert. The rest of us are being attacked by the unintelligent and the uneducated. And guess which one is harder to combat in Mr. Bush’s America???

So that’s Dissing Science – Part 2.

Stay tuned for Part 3 and Part 4 and…

Dissing Science

The Boston Globe has published an editorial on global climate change that once again illustrates how the Bush administration does not live in in the reality-based community. The article is by Derrick Z. Jackson and is entitled "Hot Air and Global Warming". It troubles me that the major news outlets do not report on this regularly. Somehow, by only occasionally calling it to our attention, they lead us to believe that the issue of climate change is just one story among many stories. In point of fact, this is the most important story in our world today because of the catastrophic consequences to the earth and its inhabitants if we don't do something soon.

Here's an excerpt from the Globe article:

Earlier in the month, the former chief scientific adviser to the British government, Lord May of Oxford, bluntly compared Bush to a modern-day Nero. Last fall, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, ''If what the science tells about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world. The science almost certainly is correct."

At the recent London conference, [British economic minister Gordon] Brown said, ''Environmental issues including climate change have traditionally been placed in a category separate from the economy and from economic policy. But this is no longer tenable. Across a range of environmental issues, from soil erosion to the depletion of marine stocks, from water scarcity to air pollution, it is clear now not just that economic activity is their cause, but that these problems in themselves threaten future economic activity and growth."

Nero and his fiddlers would hear none of that. Asked last month what the science was on global warming, [U.S. director of environmental quality James] Connaughton said on CNBC, ''There are many different views."

The science ceased to have many views years ago...

The facts are not swayed by ideology. Facts are facts and the neo-cons can believe until they are blue in the face that global warming is not a problem and climate change will still happen. It is already happening. The facts speak for themselves.

Easter - a fresh beginning

Happy Easter everyone! Regular readers of Child of Illusion are aware that we typically look at very painful material on this site. And I do not try to whitewash any of it because I believe that to do so would be to cultivate the mind poison of delusion. However, it is important not to drown in the pain and distress even though we do not shrink from looking directly at the way things are. Staying in the moment is the way to inner peace and emotional freedom and will keep us sane. Recognizing that the only constant is change helps us know that it is not necessary for anybody to be trapped or stuck - including those with power in our world today. And so I offer you a lovely observation on this day of new birth and fresh beginnings:

Every morning is a fresh beginning. Every day is the world made new. Today is a new day. Today is my world made new. I have lived all my life up to this moment, to come to this day. This moment--this day--is as good as any moment in all eternity. I shall make of this day--each moment of this day--a heaven on earth. This is my day of opportunity.

-- Dan Custer

More about the author

Oh the hypocrisy - Part 3

Why do I keep being surprised? I know the right-wingers have exalted hypocrisy as a great good. So when I come upon another example you'd think I'd say, "Right. Typical". But I don't. I'm appalled, horrified, scandalized. Because something deep inside me still believes in honesty and authenticity. Something deep inside me has not turned so cynical that I just naturally expect hypocrisy. I'm glad I haven't been utterly desensitized to hypocrisy that it no longer appalls me.

And so I was disgusted when I read the article by Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Plug-pulling hypocrite: In 1988, Tom DeLay let his comatose father die". I'm linking to the reprint in Smirking Chimp because you might like to read the comments section beneath the article. It seems to have stimulated a lot of posting. Here's an excerpt:

And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew - we all knew - his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way.

"Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

I'm trying to think if there's anything more vile than using a human tragedy and a family's grief for political opportunism. Especially when the politician involved has made the opposite decision in his own family that he is now advocating for political purposes. I can only add the snarky observation: IOKIYAR (It's OK if you're a Republican.)

It CAN happen here.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

-- Sinclair Lewis

Terri Schiavo and the Constitution

Finally I have found a thorough article on the Terri Schiavo case that takes a good hard look at the Constitutional implications of the Palm Sunday intervention by Congress. Entitled, "Brain-dead in D.C.: Has Congress gone around the bend?" it is by George Ochenski and is published by the Missoula Independent of Montana. Here's how it begins:

Recent actions by the United States Congress indicate it might be time to check the Capitol water coolers -there's apparently something in them that makes people go crazy. The evidence, especially since Republican majorities took over in the latest session, seems irrefutable. Gone are the checks and balances, gone are the House ethics rules, and now, with the bizarre congressional intrusion in the case of Terry Schiavo, gone too is the very Constitutional separation of powers upon which the nation was founded. When those who make the laws go so far astray, those who live by the laws must fear for the future of their country.

This week, for instance, the U.S. Senate is contemplating an overthrow of traditional filibuster rules -the single most powerful tool the minority (regardless of political party) has against the tyranny of the majority. A case in point is the so-called "nuclear option" to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. Given the power of federal judges, and the fact that they are supposed to render impartial judgment under the law, it makes perfectly good sense for the Senate to vet nominees with scrutiny and debate. Add to this the undeniable tendency of George Bush to appoint radical, right-wing ideologues to positions of immense power, and anyone can see the wisdom in our government's system of checks and balances.

A bit later Ochenski looks at what Congress did regarding the Schiavo case:

But hey, why stop with overthrowing the long-standing traditions of the Senate -why not go right after the Constitutional separation of powers that has served this nation so well for centuries? In fact, that's just what happened this week when, thanks to politically driven ineptitude, Congress waded into the complex case of Terri Schiavo.
...
Not a single U.S. senator had the guts to oppose what many view as a blatantly unconstitutional intrusion of the executive and legislative branch into judicial affairs. However, at least one congressman, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, hit the nail right on the head. "The American people have a distrust of excessive zeal, and some of the Republican leaders' determination to impose their religious views borders on fanaticism," said Frank. "They are playing God."

The people in power today in our government are not true conservatives. True conservatives think it is very important indeed to preserve the traditional rules of the Senate and the constitutional separation of powers. The people in power today are, rather, right-wing fanatics and the traditional conservatives among us are just as dismayed as are the liberals.

Mercury pollution

Molly Ivins has done it again. Minced no words about a horrible problem that is being made worse by the Bush administration. Her article, "Mercury rising" tells us just what is at stake and what is being done (and not done):

This is one of those stories that I'd really like to start with a loud scream to give people some idea of how terrible it is. As a newspaper story, it has no soundtrack and comes without pictures. It appears to involve some technical aspects of an environmental regulation, and that can be counted on to bore the shoes and socks off people.

But there is a picture, quite a famous one, that you should search out so you will know what is at stake. The picture, by the great photojournalist W. Eugene Smith, is known as "The Madonna of Minamata" and is of a Japanese woman in a hot bath with an expression of terrible sorrow and tenderness on her face as she holds the hopelessly deformed body of her daughter.

Smith's classic book, "Minamata: Words and Photographs," is about the site of a horrific 1970s case of widespread mercury poisoning. No one who sees Smith's photos can ever forget them. There was a years-long struggle between the townspeople of Minamata and the corporation responsible for the mercury poisoning, which did not want to admit fault. During that struggle, corporate guards beat Smith so badly he lost his eyesight.

I know that picture well. It is heart-wrenching. If you would like to see it go here and scroll down a bit.

Ivins goes on to describe how this administration is allowing industry to continue poisoning the environment with toxic mercury. She concludes by saying:

I often think I have exhausted my capacity for outrage with this administration. Sheesh, why let what it does ruin a beautiful spring day in Texas? But I know kids with ADD and low IQs and brain damage, and I've seen the pictures from Minamata. If you can't reach outrage over this one, you may be eating too much mercury-tainted fish.

Scientific website

I just discovered a wonderful website that explains the evidence for the mainstream scientific concensus regarding evolution and the age of the earth. It is called The Talk.Origins Archive. The site is really large and is fascinating to explore.

Here is a description from the welcome page:

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity.

I think it behooves those of us who are horrified by the current suppression and devaluing of scientific thought to acquaint ourselves with what science has actually discovered. Have fun with this!

Friday Cat Blogging!

These wonderful cats and bells are hanging on the wall in my office. Marilyn Bedford gave me this wall hanging for Christmas. I love it!

Photo by Cynthia Burgess

Please don't shop at Walmart's

The Guardian has published a really important article entitled, "Blood and coal: the human cost of cheap Chinese goods" about the lack of mining safety standards in China. Of course, the coal is used to power the factories that make the inexpensive products we import. We already know that Walmart's uses sweatshop labor. We already know that they discriminate against women. We already know that the medical insurance they make available to their workers is utterly unafforadable on the extremely low wages they pay. Now we learn of still another form of exploitation taking place because of the demand for low price Chinese imports:

More than 5,000 Chinese miners are killed each year, 75% of the global total, even though the country produces only a third of the world's coal. Working under appalling safety conditions, they are sacrificed to fuel the factories that make the cheap goods snapped up by consumers in Britain and other wealthy nations.

Faced with energy shortages this winter, the government has stepped up the pressure on mine operators to raise output. This has contributed to a spate of the worst disasters in the country's history. Last month, 216 miners were killed at Sunjiawan mine in north-east China in the most deadly accident in 50 years. Last October, another gas explosion killed 148. Last Thursday, a cave-in at a mine in Sha'anxi province killed 16 miners and left another 11 trapped underground.

Countless other accidents at small unregistered mines go unreported because the owners - often in collusion with local officials - buy off or threaten the victims' families. There is widespread anger that miners' lives are being sacrificed for economic growth. "It's said there is blood on every piece of coal in China," says one of the widows, Mrs Wang. "My husband used to talk about the danger all the time. But we are very poor. We have children. What else could we do?"

Why do we Americans feel so entitled to cheap goods? We are capable of paying a fair price for what we buy so that others have a living wage and decent working conditions. Remember what Gandhi said: "Live simply that others may simply live."

Less intrusion, more spine

Here's an article that's worth it for the title alone. It's called, "When the GOP wanted less intrusion and the Democrats had spine" and it's by Reva Rasmussen. Here's an excerpt:

Ronald Reagan said the scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Now we've got a Republican president and Republican majorities in the House and Senate who say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to make sure you understand and follow the Ten Commandments."

Read the article. It's short. Pithy. Really good.

Freedom of religion

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Oh the hypocrisy - Part 2

Molly Ivins has hit the ball right out of the park with her most recent column on the Terri Schiavo case. In her article, "Praying for a real miracle in Schiavo's behalf" she writes:

For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you. And if Bush is so concerned about the right to life, why didn't he give death-row inmate Carla Faye Tucker more than 10 minutes consideration and some cheap mockery?

The very Republicans who pushed for this arrogant, interfering bill, which if used across the board would take away everyone's right to make their own decisions in these awful cases, are the same people who voted to cut Medicaid, which pays for the care of people like Terry Schiavo across the country.

That the main player in this fiasco is Majority Leader Tom DeLay - who is in the midst of yet another scandal himself - is enough to make anyone throw up. This is a man whose sense of morality is so deformed that upon being chastised three times by the House Ethics Committee, his response was to change the rules and stack the committee.

I also want to call your attention to a Guardian article that refers to the Schiavo case entitled, "For Bush, Science is a Dirty Word". It is clear that in this case the medical facts were not considered relevant but what has counted is the current evangelical fervor for keeping an essentially brain dead woman's body going. Here's an excerpt that talks about other ways in which the administration disdains scientific inquiry and data:

Neal Lane, former science adviser to Clinton, has spoken of "a pattern of abuse of science" in policy making within today's White House. What they don't like, they suppress and distort. Official publications on the science of climate change have been brazenly replaced with drafts from utility lobbyists. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report linking industry emissions to global warming had to be withdrawn at the behest of West Wing advisers - not many of them noted climatologists.

Uncomfortable data on stem cell research has been rubbished. Scientific advisory panels have been vetted for presidential supporters. Public interest groups questioning air pollution plans have had their tax records demanded by pliant senators. And in the push to open up wilderness for energy exploitation, submissions from coal, gas or oil corporations are given greater credence than evidence from government scientists. No wonder last year 20 Nobel laureates warned that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented".

Nature can't be fooled, is not swayed by ideology. The chickens will come home to roost on this one. Sadly, we will all suffer as a result.

The Christian right is neither.

Harvey Wasserman has written an article entitled, "If Jesus returns, Karl Rove will kill him". I have been amazed for some time at how the right wing can claim to be followers of Jesus all the while taking no notice of what the man actually taught. Please don't be taken in by the hate-filled bigots who presume to speak for Christianity. Do read this article. It exposes the hypocrisy with biting clarity. Here's an excerpt:

In large part through the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus came to be viewed as Divine because he spoke eloquently for a gracious, loving God.

Karl Rove, Tom DeLay and their ilk believe George Bush and his corporate-fundamentalist minions speak to and for a very different kind of God, one with characteristics at war with those described by Christ.

Bush-Rove's Divinity is a nasty dictator, defined by hate and greed, intolerance and hypocrisy.

Christ kicked the moneychangers out of the temple. Rove-DeLay's Republicans have enshrined them.

Christ spoke of a God of compassion and joy. Today's so-called Christian fundamentalists worship one of greed-driven warmongering totalitarianism. The only way to salvation, they say is THEIR way, through a spiteful God that hates all Jesus preached.

It's bad enough that the right-wingers have turned the noble word "liberal" into an insult. They are also framing the word "Christian" to mean intolerant, judgmental and legalistic. There are still some of us, however, who believe that calling ourselves "Christian" has at least something to do with being faithful to what Jesus actually taught and stood for.