Read my thoughts on nuclear energy here. I'm glad to see a movement (however incohesive) opposing the further expantion of it, especially when it is supported by tax dollars.
The secret...
In Jesus name...
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Pink Elephants. A fun game! I call on everyone to join in.
So, the republican National Committee has a new line of products at the RNC online Store. The line is called Pink Elephants and I assume is intended to be marketed towards women. Now, I thought it might be fun to get as many people as possible to write to the feedback for the RNC online store and thank them for finally coming out with a product line which allows one to show both your gay pride and your Republican pride at the same time. Let's try to flood them and see how long it takes to for them to make a disclaimer, place a "for women" statement somewhere, or just remove the line. Join me. I already sent my feedback to them.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Nice try, no cigar
I went to the forum hosted by the Over the Mountain Democrats here in Birmingham last night. The topic was "Golden Rule Politics: Reclaiming the rightful role of Faith in Politics". The forum began with a film, created by the OTM Dems, in which a number of progressive-leaning clergy people and politicians discuss how religion has been mis-used by groups on the Right to garner political power.
One of the more interesting ideas in the film was put forth by Professor Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama Law School. She described the religious issues that the the Right tends to focus on as "low-sacrifice" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and says that the Bible does not describe a "low-sacrifice faith". In other words, it's very easy to oppose something like gay marriage if you're not gay or you don't have any gay friends. And, if you can convince yourself that such a belief solidifies favor with the Almighty, then all the better. In contrast, Biblically-based values such as helping the poor, cultivating a egalitarian society, protecting the environment (in order to practice love for your neighbors of future generations), are comparatively "high-sacrifice" values.
That reminds me of a line in one of Al Franken's books: "From what I understand, if you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you'd have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs in."
That's the gist of the film: the Republican party high-jacked Christianity to get power, make rich people richer, and that's wrong.
Here Here!
But, it occurred to me that the Question was never addressed: What is the rightful role of religion in politics?
Nobody came out and said it, but at several points, it seemed like the interviewees were coming dangerously close to saying, "the Republican brand of Christianity sucks, so what we need to do is inject our own interpretation of the Christian Faith into politics."
I don't like it. Political questions shouldn't be decided on religious grounds. Political behavior shouldn't be based on religious precepts. Period.
However, if, because of his adherence to Christian principles, a politician is inclined to want to help poor people, that's fine and good. My point is that the government shouldn't help poor people for religious reasons, for the same reason that it shouldn't prevent gay people from marrying for religious reasons. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for making religiously-based laws.
Ideology and dogma are dangerous political forces. Are laws that help the poor inherently good laws? Are they inherently Constitutional? Obviously not. But there is plenty of material in the Constitution to justify laws that "promote the common good".
I am aware that there is a kind of "Constitution dogma" at play in certain political circles today. It goes like this: "The Constitution is an infallible road-map to a Utopian Universe!" I don't believe that. I'm what you might call a "loose constructionist". But I don't think you can criticize Republicans for trying to inject their religious beliefs, however heinous, into politics and then propose that Democrats inject their beliefs, however righteous, right?
The question is, can Progressives win elections if their answer to the Question is: "There is no legitimate direct role of religion in politics."?
At one point last night, I felt like Artur Davis was talking in code. He talked about his vote in favor of The National Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as (I hate to even type this) "between a man and a woman". He said that (wink/ nod) "If I had voted against it, I would probably be unelectable". Hmm.
The politics of compromise have gotten us nowhere. Compromise is a slow slide down the slippery slope to increasing power for Corporations, for Corporate Religion, for politicians who feed on the fear and greed and bigotry of the weak. The only way to a better future is to do what's right, for the right reason.
One of the more interesting ideas in the film was put forth by Professor Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama Law School. She described the religious issues that the the Right tends to focus on as "low-sacrifice" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and says that the Bible does not describe a "low-sacrifice faith". In other words, it's very easy to oppose something like gay marriage if you're not gay or you don't have any gay friends. And, if you can convince yourself that such a belief solidifies favor with the Almighty, then all the better. In contrast, Biblically-based values such as helping the poor, cultivating a egalitarian society, protecting the environment (in order to practice love for your neighbors of future generations), are comparatively "high-sacrifice" values.
That reminds me of a line in one of Al Franken's books: "From what I understand, if you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you'd have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs in."
That's the gist of the film: the Republican party high-jacked Christianity to get power, make rich people richer, and that's wrong.
Here Here!
But, it occurred to me that the Question was never addressed: What is the rightful role of religion in politics?
Nobody came out and said it, but at several points, it seemed like the interviewees were coming dangerously close to saying, "the Republican brand of Christianity sucks, so what we need to do is inject our own interpretation of the Christian Faith into politics."
I don't like it. Political questions shouldn't be decided on religious grounds. Political behavior shouldn't be based on religious precepts. Period.
However, if, because of his adherence to Christian principles, a politician is inclined to want to help poor people, that's fine and good. My point is that the government shouldn't help poor people for religious reasons, for the same reason that it shouldn't prevent gay people from marrying for religious reasons. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for making religiously-based laws.
Ideology and dogma are dangerous political forces. Are laws that help the poor inherently good laws? Are they inherently Constitutional? Obviously not. But there is plenty of material in the Constitution to justify laws that "promote the common good".
I am aware that there is a kind of "Constitution dogma" at play in certain political circles today. It goes like this: "The Constitution is an infallible road-map to a Utopian Universe!" I don't believe that. I'm what you might call a "loose constructionist". But I don't think you can criticize Republicans for trying to inject their religious beliefs, however heinous, into politics and then propose that Democrats inject their beliefs, however righteous, right?
The question is, can Progressives win elections if their answer to the Question is: "There is no legitimate direct role of religion in politics."?
At one point last night, I felt like Artur Davis was talking in code. He talked about his vote in favor of The National Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as (I hate to even type this) "between a man and a woman". He said that (wink/ nod) "If I had voted against it, I would probably be unelectable". Hmm.
The politics of compromise have gotten us nowhere. Compromise is a slow slide down the slippery slope to increasing power for Corporations, for Corporate Religion, for politicians who feed on the fear and greed and bigotry of the weak. The only way to a better future is to do what's right, for the right reason.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Decline
There were several reasons for the decline and eventual end of the Roman Empire. Let's look at one of these reasons.
One reason was excessive military spending on an overstretched army, fighting on multiple fronts against "uncivilized barbarians." Due to the overstretching of the army and the lack of interest of the Roman citizenry to volunteer for the army, as they had in the past, the Romans were forced to more and more frequently rely upon mercenary soldiers to fight their battles. These mercenaries were both more expensive and less reliable than the professional, citizen soldiers had been.
Well, there you go. Sorry to bother you with some boring ancient history that has no relevance today. It's just Trey's post about blackwater made me think about mercenaries and I'm teaching Rome right now now, so my mind just kind of wandered in this direction.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
What does it take to get a Congressional investigation around here?
You've probably heard about the incident last week wherein mercenaries working for the security firm, Blackwater International, opened fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq, prompting the Iraqi government to suspend Blackwater's activities indefinitely and ask them to leave Iraq.
The State Department's inital report, detailed here in the Washington Post, describes a version of events that are considerably more favorable to Blackwater than initial reports from Iraqis at the scene.
That's probably not surprising. But yesterday, it was discovered that "The official [who wrote the State Department's official report], who declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigations into the shooting..." was an employee of... you guessed it... Blackwater International!
See if you can follow this: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for the U.S. embassy in Iraq's Tactical Operations Center, has outsourced some of its responsibilities to outside agencies, including Blackwater. After the incident in which Blackwater killed eleven Iraqi civilians and wounded twelve, while sustaining no gunfire, injuries, or casualties, a Blackwater employee, Darren Hanner, was charged with writing the official initial account of the event. Curiously, the document makes no mention of civilian casualties, and sites extenuating circumstances which precipitated the massacre, which can't be corroborated by eye-witnesses.
So, is it by design, or by incredible oversight, that a Blackwater Employee was put in charge of initial investigations into atrocities committed by his own company? It seems right in line with the sort of media manipulation perpetrated by this Administration. Hmm.
Read the story on CNN here.
This news is likely to make the Congressional hearings on Blackwater all the more interesting. Blackwater has (finally) come under Congressional scrutiny for several reasons: 1) Blackwater employees aren't subject to any law. They can't be court marshalled by the military, or tried in American or Iraqi courts. While the latest incident is the most heinous, Blackwater employees have committed many acts, which, had they been committed by American soldiers, would have resulted in a court's marshall. 2) The company is owned by Erik Prince, who was an intern under George H.W Bush, and continues to be a major financial supporter of Republican candidates, including Bush Jr. Notably, he is Vice President of the Elsa and Edgar Prince Foundation, whose sole purpose is to fund right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups, such as Dobson's Focus on the Family. Blackwater has been the recipient of no-bid contracts for security contracts in Iraq, leading many to question why a for-profit private company is hiring mercenaries, at around $100,000 per year, for security purposes in Iraq, all on the tax payer dime, when the U.S. military is much better suited for the task. Hmm.
Listen to Daniel Schorr's always-insightful commentary on the matter here.
I'm so tired of living in Bizarro World!
On Oct. 1, Pres. Bush declared it Child Health Day. From the proclamation: "My Administration supports programs that give parents, mentors, and teachers the resources they need to help and encourage children to maintain an active and healthy way of life." But, it seems that the Pres. doesn't think actual health coverage fits the deffinition of a program that does this. Because if he did, he wouldn't have vetoed the the Childrens' Health Insurance Plan, only the 4th veto of his presidency. Was the whole Child Health Day thing just a pre-emptive slap in the face cause he knew he was about to use the veto on this? Was it some kind of sick joke? Can I please wake up from the Twilight Zone episode my country has turned into?!?!
To add insult to injury, a recent defense bill, which was not vetoed by-the-way, is spending $2.4 billion on jets for the USAF, which are made in Texas. Of course, we can pay Texan defence contractors billions of dollars, but can't afford to provide health care to our children. And, to top it off (this is what really pisses me off), the Pentagon insists it has enough of these C-17 Globemaster jets. Are you kidding me?!?!?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
I can't believe I used to think of John McCain as a "Moderate"
September 17 is "Constitution Day"! So happy belated...
John McCain, in his increasingly shameless pursuit of pandering to religious weirdos, had a couple of interesting things to say in an interview with Beliefnet.com recently. First, he says that he would not vote for a Muslim for President because "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith." The statement has drawn criticism from a number of American religious and secular groups. Ho hum. Then later in the interview, he says that, "I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for President of the United States, absolutely not." Mit Romney is a Mormon. Mormons are not Christian, in the strict sense. So, let me get this straight, McCain thinks Romney's religion should "absolutely not" disqualify him, but if you are a Muslim, you should be disqualified? What gives?
When asked, "A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?", McCain responds, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
Both the question and answer are stunning. Let's be clear, the Constitution never once mentions God, the Bible, or Christianity. In what way, then, does it "establish" Christianity? Furthermore, the First Amendment famously says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How much more clear they could have been? Maybe "...no law respecting an establishment of religion... and we're fucking serious! NO OFFICIAL RELIGION PEOPLE!" would have been better? I dunno.
And then there's this gem from McCain, "We were founded as a nation on Judeo-Christian principles. There's very little debate about that." That is indeed a staggeringly common misconception, but "very little debate"?? I would say that such a contention is one of the more hotly debated questions of our time, though that fact is quite remarkable.
The statement "We were founded as a nation on Judeo-Christian principles" is abysmally vacuous, and depressingly ubiquitous. McCain sites the part of the Declaration of Independence (not a part of the Constitution) which says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator" [sic] as evidence of the integral influence of Christianity on the founding of America. This is the only example he sites. It may be true that one's religion may lead one to embrace notions such as the the innate equality of human beings, but the Bible does not implicitly put forth such precepts, often implying that women should be subservient, and that slaves should endeavor to serve their masters faithfully, etc.
And what of the 10 Commandments, which are often lauded as "the basis for our legal system" (usually when someone is trying to place monuments to them in a courthouse or some such travesty)? It isn't difficult folks. Just read them. Exactly two have any relationship, whatsoever, to U.S. law, specifically, the 6th (murder), and the 8th (stealing). Is there any civilization on Earth, Christian or otherwise, wherein stealing and murder are not against the law? So in what sense do the Commandments form the basis for our laws? I don't even hear the most extreme domestic proponents of Theocracy pushing for laws banning the coveting of one's neighbor's ox, for example. Also, American "Idol" has somehow managed to evade legal scrutiny in spite of the second Commandment forbidding idolotry. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly condones acts that are expressly forbidden by The 10. In other words, 8 of the 10 acts that are forbidden by the 10 Commandments, are protected by the Constitution. How then are the Commandments the basis for our laws? How spectacularly stupid!
While I was researching this post, I happened upon this site , which contains some rather interesting statistics, some of which I'll copy below for your reading pleasure. Happy Constitution Day indeed.
Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007″ national survey released today by the First Amendment Center. […]
Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000. […]
25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.
One in four Americans believe the First Amendment “goes too far”? Really? Ouch.
Looking though the detailed survey tables (.pdf), a few other noteworthy results jumped out at me.
* Most Americans don’t know what’s in the First Amendment. There are five freedoms — freedom of speech was the only one named by a majority of respondents (64%), followed by religion (19%), press and assembly (each 16%), and petition (3%).
* Asked if newspapers “should be allowed to freely criticize the U.S military about its strategy and performance,” a combined 37% of Americans said they shouldn’t.
* Asked if musicians “should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics that others might find offensive,” a combined 42% of Americans said they shouldn’t.
* Asked if people “should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups,” a combined 39% of Americans said they shouldn’t.
* Asked if people “should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to racial groups,” a combined 56% of Americans said they shouldn’t.
Happy Constitution Day. We have a lot of work to do .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)