Taking A Moment to Ponder

I'm going to take a break from the norm today, both from responding to letters to the editor and, hopefully, being as excruciatingly long-winded as I've been lately. I've been thinking a lot about the response I got from Jason [last name removed at his request] yesterday. Jason is only the second person to whom I've responded to have responded back. The first time, I was simply asked to remove the letter from the blog, which I did. This time, Jason jumped right into the fray. Good for him.

Admittedly, I might have been a little harsh on him at first. I initially found his response late last night, and late at night is not a good time for me to try and walk the line between spirited debate and overzealous ham-fistedness. I'm actually really glad he took the time to post here. He didn't just get angry that I'd responded to his letter, or shy away from the debate. I don't have a lot of patience for people who are so sure of their convictions that they can have those opinions published in the newspaper, but not sure enough to have anyone else critique them. Jason's got a firmer backbone than that, and that, at least, is commendable.

I guess what immediately set me off was Jason's need to label me as just another 'liberal.' I really feel that if one wishes to engage in political discussion, one needs to avoid labeling. Which, of course, I failed to do when I called him a neo-con. Maybe Jason's a member of Greenpeace. Maybe he sends an annual donation to Amnesty International. Maybe he belongs to the ACLU. I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't know.

I'm finding myself torn. On one hand, I really feel that if someone publicly supports the use of torture, or feels intelligent design belongs in biology class, or defends Bush's lying by saying, "Well, Clinton lied too," then that person deserves to be taken to task for it. Those of us who aren't radically aligned with one political extreme or another tend to be too nice, and I'm tired of being nice while they smear rational thought and reason. On the other hand, it's incredibly difficult to engage radicals angrily without resorting to the same undignified tactics. There's also an almost insurmountable divide between the radicals and the centrists; the radicals support a party line, while centrists look at issues. Unfortunately, it would appear that the difference between a radical and a centrist is that a centrist believes that what his party does should be dictated by what is right, while a radical believes that what is right should be dictated by what his party does. The latter is an incredibly dangerous mindset. Republicans should be angry that our party has created a nearly opaque administration with barely any oversight, and Democrats should be angry that their party won't grow a set and present a unified platform.

I really think we, as a society, have been tricked into this "Culture War." I'm a centrist Republican. I'm not a conservative, but I recognize that conservatives act from a sense of responsibility, which is commendable. I'm not a liberal, but I recognize that liberals act from a sense of humanitarianism, which is commendable. Neither group has all the answers, and the cold rationalization of one needs the cautious empathy of the other. The problem is, a whole lot of people have gotten rich by convincing you that your side is 'correct.' It's not. If humans had discovered the perfect system of government, we'd just implement it and be done with it, but we may have to accept that there is no perfect system of government. We've tried leaning too far to the left with socialism. We've tried leaning too far to the right with fascism. Neither option ended up being very appealing. Now, instead of trying to find the right balance, we're letting corporations and lobbyists run our government while we bicker amongst ourselves in a giant national pissing contest. You're never going to get a solid majority of Americans to fully support radical conservative policy, nor will you convince them to fully support radical liberalism. What we should all be able to agree upon, however, is that there is room for everyone, as long as we are focusing on the issues, and not letting our emotional ties to a party line cloud our judgment.

Eh, so much for taking a break from being long-winded. Sorry.

You Got Me Feelin' Emotion

To the Editor:

NBC has closed the book on the controversial religious drama, "The Book of Daniel." The American Family Association credited viewer's complaints, which forced the hand of the network.

What did the American Family Association prove? It proved that changes can be made if enough people object to an inappropriate TV program -- or some unreasonable city, country, state, or federal requirement -- and make their objections known by letters, postcards, e-mail or telephone.

To do nothing is to condone something that is wrong. By the same token, if something is good, an acknowledgement is in order.

John

When I first read this letter, my initial reaction was disgust. The controversy over "The Book of Daniel" strikes me as irritating. The anger seems to be over two suggestions made by the premise of the show: that the life of a pastor might be just as complicated as anyone else's, and that Jesus might be a compassionate shoulder to lean on. I will admit that I know nothing about the show other than what I've heard; I don't really watch television at all. (Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do download "The Office" and "Lost" from iTunes every week. The former is incredibly well-written, and the latter is simply friggin' addictive.) Regardless, I always have a problem with the argument that art (and yes, I am swinging that term a bit loosely to include network television) should conform to cultural mores. Great art is art that makes people think about and question their values, not art that simply reflects them. The censorship of art is always a sign of cultural stagnation and anti-intellectualism.

Be that as it may, I think The American Family Association is being a bit naive in claiming they were actively responsible for the cancellation of the show. First of all, the network is a business. If the show had been economically viable and had sold enough advertising based on viewership, it would have stayed on no matter how many calls the network had gotten from overzealous christerbators. The show was cancelled because it didn't get the desired ratings. That's the only reason any show gets cancelled, no matter how vocal the opposition became. If all it took to bring a show off the air were loud protests, there'd have been no chance for long-running shows like "Married with Children," "The Simpsons," and "South Park." Second, the protesting of "The Book of Daniel" wasn't really a moral argument. It was, from the very beginning, a political argument. For all the moralizing and judgment that comes from the extremist Christians, they're certainly not opposed to watching questionable programming in the privacy of their own home. Where does "Desperate Housewives," a show that depicts drug use, violence, and infidelity, get the highest ratings? According to Nielson ratings, the show does best in the Bible Belt.

After giving it a little thought though, I remembered another article I read today, this one from the New York Times. The story detailed a scientific study of human brainwave patters when presented with information that went against the person's political beliefs; specifically, staunch conservatives and liberals were presented with snippets of doctored remarks from Bush and Kerry, both sets of which were self-contradictory. Not surprisingly, conservatives railed against Kerry but let Bush off the hook, and liberals reacted harshly to Bush but gave Kerry a skip. More interestingly, the scientists found that, when processing the snippet by the supported politician, the majority of activity was not in the reasoning areas of the brain, but in the emotional and, more disturbingly, in the pleasure centers of the brain. The implications are obvious. The rejection of unwelcome political information is not only more of an emotional response than a rational one, but doing so flares the pleasure centers of the brain, creating habits that become hard to break.

So maybe I should try to put a check on those initial reactions. Yeah, a letter like John's angers me, because I immediately feel the need to lash out against those who want to impose any sort of intellectual censorship. Taking a deep breath and rereading the letter, however, there's not a lot to really get angry at John about. I still think he's a bit naive in saying the American Family Association proved much of anything, except that pseudo-religious political groups will take credit for anything they can claim any degree of involvement in. The thrust of his letter, however, is actually a valid point and something for everyone to consider. Whether or not the activist Evangelicals had anything to do with the cancellation of "The Book of Daniel," what they have proven is that through passionate, ceaseless vigilance, they can shift our entire culture dangerously to the right. People who would have been discounted as whackjobs 10 years ago now get regular face-time on cable news shows. The radical left are now considered the whackjobs, and indeed many of them are. The problem is, those of us in the center have a tendency to remain quiet. Because we're not extreme or radical, we tend not to be passionate either. This is our biggest failure. History shows what befalls a society when it veers too far in either direction. We strive to free ourselves from the dangers of emotional responses, though we certainly aren't immune to them. We believe that balance, cooperation, and compromise are the foundation of a great society, and we have reason and history on our side. We can afford to be passionate, and we must be, to rein in the corruption and decay that occur when one group completely eclipses another. Most of us are centrists at heart, even if we identify as liberals or conservatives. Many of us have simply been fooled into this "culture war" by those with the most to gain.

None of this means you'll see a radical shift in the content of this blog. I remain angry, and I believe anger to be a valid and constructive form of passionate involvement. I will try to remember who the enemies really are, however. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Conservatives need to consider their response to things like domestic spying and the situation on Saipan. If one supports libertarianism and small government, one cannot support a government free to spy on its citizens with no checks to the power, no matter how many times George Bush says it's okay. If one values human life and human dignity, one cannot support an American Protectorate where women are brought in to sweatshop conditions, pushed into prostitution and forced to have abortions, no matter how strongly Tom DeLay advocates it. Liberals need to be cautious too, despite and, perhaps, even because they are the current underdog. Trying to overcorrect by pulling too far to the left separates one from the mainstream, making it very difficult to effectively change mainstream opinion. Sticking to one's values is admirable, but being unwilling to compromise is not. If the neo-cons are the problem, they are the problem for their unwillingness to compromise and their desire to consolidate all power for themselves. Trying to do the same thing doesn't make liberals a viable option, it simply makes them appear to exacerbate the problem.

The point is, be passionate, but rational. You can make a difference, but don't do it because someone tells you to do it, do it because you believe in the cause. Fight for ideas, not for candidates. Follow your values, not political parties. I'll be attempting to do the same.

Straight from the "Expert Lounge"...

Sorry for the dearth of entries this week, gang. My job has me working long days as a trainer/marketer, which involves my being "on" for about ten hours a day. This is in pretty stark contrast to my regular editing duties, wherein the only thing that's on is my XM radio. What it boils down to is that I'm tired and grumpy and haven't had the energy to rant. This lovely little editorial, given central prominence on today's opinion page, snapped me temporarily out of my torpor. The entire piece can be found here, but I will, as usual, include snippets as I go along.

"The ACLU is taking the issue to court. While partisan attacks upon a president who is trying to protect the country are deplorable, it is reasonable to question the source of the president's authority. The allegedly 'non-partisan' Congressional Research Service claims that it cannot find any authority for the president's action. I don't think they've been looking very hard."

Okay, so the guy is basically admitting, right off the bat, that he is partisan. Anyone who is so blasé about calling the ACLU, an organization that has defended Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, a partisan group is doing so because they're used to hearing it done, most likely on Fox News and other "fair and balanced" sources. So, this guy may be a "Former U.S. Army security specialist," but he's also a staunch social conservative. Check.

Ronald then goes on to explain four reasons why the President's wire-tapping is just a-okay and peachy keen.

"The first source of authority is Article II of the Constitution. It is a long established principle that the president has certain inherent and inferred powers to act unilaterally in an emergency as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

...

The 9/11 attack was one of the biggest emergencies in our history. Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and our military headquarters in Washington. They also attempted to attack other targets. We lost more people in few hours on 9/11 than all of the people lost at Pearl Harbor in 1945. And we lost more people that day than we have lost in Iraq to date."

Okay, true, but we lost more Americans in the year 1953 than we lost on 9/11, at Pearl Harbor, and in Iraq COMBINED. If that point seems irrelevant to you, I argue it's no more irrelevant to your argument than Pearl Harbor and Iraq military deaths are to the attacks on 9/11. Of significantly more relevance to me is that al Qaeda inflicted far fewer civilian casualties on the United States than the United States has inflicted on the civilians of Iraq. When you start comparing apples to apples, it becomes a lot more difficult for us to pretend we have the moral high ground.

Regardless, I think this is indicative of the real problem here: a vague and indiscriminate timeframe. 9/11 was undoubtedly a serious national emergency. but it occurred four and a half years ago. When does it stop directly influencing our national policy? I'm not insinuating that there isn't a need to take national security seriously, but the idea that an event can offer unlimited power to the President for an unlimited period of time is a dangerous relinquishing of liberty. As supporters of "original intent" should well know, the framers of the constitution, having recently fought a costly war for independence from a monarchy, purposefully kept the power of the executive branch limited. While the president is responsible for national security, no single event should give the president immunity from the law for four and a half years, period.

"The second source of authority involves two acts of Congress. After 9/11, Congress authorized the president to use all necessary force to fight the war on terror. Using the military intelligence services in support of fast moving offensive and defensive operations can logically be inferred from the post 9/11 authorization."

This is a nonsensical argument. Tapping phone lines is not a "necessary use of force." Hell, bombing Iraq wasn't a "necessary use of force" in the so-called War on Terror. Phone surveillance is an act of espionage, not force. Assuming that the authorization of one equates to authorization of the other is just that: an assumption. It is also an assumption that even Republican senators who answer to libertarian bases have issue with. If congress meant to grant him the power to wiretap civilian phone lines without a warrant when they granted him the power to wage war, they probably would have passed his direct request to do so as well. As they did not, their collective opinion on the matter is obvious.

"In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) explicitly authorizes electronic surveillance without a warrant for a period of up to one year. This is contained in Title 50 U.S. Code Sections 1801-03, which explicitly defines 'international terrorist groups' and their agents as 'foreign powers.' To put it crudely, the spies who wrote the FISA law anticipated exactly this situation years ago."

Do you honestly believe this has been going on for less than a year? What a crock of shit. Just because they got caught less than a year ago doesn't mean they haven't been going about this since noon on September 11th, 2001. If there was any level of transparency within this administration, this might actually be a sticking point for critics of domestic espionage, but since nobody is so foolish as to believe this is a new development, the point is moot.

"The third source of presidential authority is 'the people.' According to the Fox News Channel, polls indicate that some 58 percent of the Americans support the NSA program even without warrants. Most people simply don't feel threatened because most people don't communicate with international terrorists outside the country."

Seriously, somebody in charge of the RNC should send out a memo. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate, don't quote Fox News as the source of your statistics. Scientists hired by the tobacco industry argue to this day that cigarette smoke is wholesome, nutritious, and contains nine essential vitamins and minerals. Everyone who is not employed by a tobacco company recognizes that these scientists are full of shit. Similarly, if you are attempting to support neo-con rhetoric with statistical information, don't get your statistics from a news agency that shamelessly shills for the neo-cons.

Why don't I trust those statistics? If President Bush started eating children on a regular basis, I would expect the majority of Republican senators to support the habit, and a large number would probably even begin advocating for child eating on a national scale. Over the issue of domestic wiretapping, however, most Republican senators who haven't come out opposed to the practice are remaining strangely tight-lipped on the subject. If common wisdom in Washington concluded that most Americans were in favor of warrantless wiretapping, there'd be no reason for so many of them to take their heads out of the administration's lap. More likely, Fox News conducted a survey that went something like, "Do you support unlimited warrantless wiretapping by the administration, or do you oppose long prison sentences for child molesters?"

"The president has acted responsibly to assure proper 'oversight' to protect Fourth Amendment rights. He notified appropriate members of Congress, the Justice Department and the FISA Court of his action.

The Justice Department has conducted periodic independent audits of 'the Program.' Further, there are numerous other 'oversight' mechanisms in place."

The Justice Department? FISA Court? My goodness! Those are certainly independent, unbiased oversights! Who else comprises the numerous "oversight" mechanisms in place? Does Karl Rove masturbate to risqué recorded conversations? Maybe Barb and Jenna play the tapes as mood music at their keggers. Regardless, I'm certain they display the critical thought and cunning independence of, say, an Alberto Gonzales.

"The fourth source of presidential authority is 'judicial precedent.' Numerous court decisions support the president's action.

In general, the courts have been very reluctant to interfere with the president in matters of war and foreign policy."

There again, Ronald is talking about our ongoing "war" as evidence of Presidential authority, but I will again argue that we're not at war. We are involved in the occupation of Iraq, but fortunately nobody is stupid enough to claim that the wiretapping relates directly to that occupation. No, that can be explained away by "The War on Terror"®. This presents two very pressing problems, however. First of all, this "war" doesn't fit the historical definition of a war. There is no front, there are no battles, there is no open conflict; there isn't even a clearly definable enemy. Saying the "War on Terror" gives the president emergency wartime powers is like saying The Cold War or the War on Drugs granted the same powers. Calling it a war doesn't make it a war. We Americans just like the terminology; we've been at "war" with one intangible enemy or another for decades.

Second, terror, or even "Terror", is not something we can defeat. Do you remember the time when everybody in the world considered America a great friend and ally? Neither can anyone else. It never happened, and it never will, though certainly the prospects are worsened with an administration that callously thumbs its nose at world opinion. When will this war be over? When will we wipe out Anti-American sentiment? When will we have an absolute zero chance of a terrorist attack on our soil? When will the president lose these wartime powers? The answer to the first three questions is never, as is the answer to the last if Ronald's argument is valid. That alone, frankly, invalidates Ronald's argument.

Finally, this is no longer simply a foreign policy issue. The administration certainly wants to frame it that way, but domestic espionage is, by definition, a domestic issue. Supreme Court decisions regarding war and foreign policy don't really apply. If you really need to fall back on this argument, let's think about some of those precedents. Internment camps for Japanese Americans. McCarthyism. The Hoover FBI. Nixon's tapes. Not exactly a laundry list of our proudest moments, is it?

I don't care what kind of résumé Ronald here has. This opinion has no bearings outside of the personal political leanings of the author, and certainly carries no level of authority or expertise. Why the Post Standard put this piece at center stage, and offered it far more space than most letter-writers receive, is nearly as mystifying a question as how a true Republican can support the kind of big, bureaucratic government necessary to carry out domestic espionage.

My Big Fat Unqualified Teacher

High school seniors in New York rejoice! There's no reason for you to spend time writing all those awful college essays anymore, thanks to a ruling from the New York State Appellate Court. The case was McConnell vs. Le Moyne College, and at stake was a private university's right to deny admission based on subjective criteria.

Story from the Syracuse Post-Standard

Scott McConnell hopes to one day shape the minds of young students. He applied to Le Moyne's school of education. Part of his submission was a paper that he'd written for a course he took prior to matriculation that not only displayed a mediocre grasp of the written language, but also detailed McConnell's desire to see corporal punishment brought back to the classroom, and a refusal to participate in integration or multicultural activities. Le Moyne College, that Jesuit Catholic bastion of rampant liberalism, denied McConnel matriculation.

Well, NO SHIT. He's unfit to teach. Why would a school of education admit him?

Well, as it turns out, because the New York State Appellate Court decided that Le Moyne must "reinstate petitioner into the program forthwith."

From McConnell's lawyer:

"The guy wrote a paper that was, frankly, politically incorrect. I hope (the decision) tells the colleges that they can't do this kind of thing. ... The colleges can't use their notions of political correctness. They have to use objective criteria for whether he's a good student or not."

Did you catch that? Evidently, a prospective teaching student can't be rejected from a program for such flimsy reasons as openly advocating an illegal form of classroom management and disavowing fundamental educational principles held by the school. Writing a paper that states one's disdain for the school's educational values and a desire to participate in activities rejected by the school, the law, and society at large is not a sound basis for one to be refused access to a teaching degree and certification. What if McConnell had written that he believed that teachers should be allowed to engage in sexual relations with their students, or that teaching literacy was unnecessary in the classroom? Would those be considered subjective and inappropriate reasons for Le Moyne to reject him from the program? Where would the court propose the line be drawn? Such things are apparantly missing from the decision.

Le Moyne's decision had absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". Being politically correct is simply a matter of semantics. Had McConnell called multicultural students "blackies, spics and slants", or expressed a desire to "whup some poor ghetto kid's ass", then he would be guilty of political incorrectness. Political incorrectness isn't about what you say, but how you say it. The issue here is that most educators, including the admissions staff at Le Moyne, would say McConnell's values make him suprememly unqualified to be in the same room with someone else's child, much less to become a certified teacher. The desire to hit a child isn't politically incorrect. It's a psychosis. Refusing to participate in multicultural education isn't politically incorrect, it's educationally irresponsible. Le Moyne was not only in their rights to deny him matriculation, but, as an institution responsible for training future licensed educators, upheld their responsibility to the children who will one day be charged to the teachers they graduate.

The greater issue here is that this decision sets a precedent that, if not overturned, basically denies the right of a private college or university to admit students based on anything but the most objective, statistical data. If a school can't refuse to admit a student based on the contents of a paper submitted to the school, how can they refuse admittance based on application essays, teacher recommendations, interview, or any other subjective evidence of the prospective student's ability to succeed at the school? Should the sum of a student's qualifying criteria be his SAT score and grade point average? This decision seems to imply that it should.

This is just another wake-up call to those of us who still value intellectualism and classical education. The social conservatives like to claim they're under attack, but they never seem to lose any ground. Universities are filled with highly educated people, and highly educated people are statistically inclined to lean slightly left from the center. This isn't a new development, nor is it an indication that social conservatives are persecuted. Private Universities offer an education, and are seldom reserved about revealing the values they prize. Why, then, do so many socially conservative students apply to liberal-leaning schools and then expect the school to change for them? Evidently because the legal system will side against the schools, against classical education, and in favor of right-wing nutbags who write papers filled with poorly-written brainpiss and expect to be welcomed with open arms.

This country, as a culture, has already turned dangerously in the direction of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. That an argument about "intelligent design" being taught as science could even occur is evidence enough of this, as is a trusted president who spent his days at Yale (as a legacy) drinking, partying, and earning "gentleman's C's" instead of learning to pronounce difficult words like "nuclear". This kind of swing to the far right has occurred before, but fortunately the university system remained unscathed, producing well-educated, open-minded critical thinkers who could correct the trend. Now the far right is after the Universities, and they're winning battles. The implications for the future are staggeringly frightening.

"I am still the same person I was the day I wrote that paper, and I'll be the same person until the day I die. I'll be more cautious when I write papers, but my views won't change. There's nothing P.C. about me." -Scott McConnell, January 2006

"My classroom management philosophy is based upon strong discipline and hard work. I feel that a child's main purpose of attending school is to learn, not play games or distract other students. I do not feel that multicultural education has a philosophical place or standing in an American classroom, especially one that I will teach. I also feel that corporal punishment has a place in the classroom and should be implemented when needed. I also feel that to maintain classroom management students should work by themselves, unless reading is involved. Also, I do not believe that seat work is busy work. I base my philosophy of classroom management upon the pre-1960's learning when discipline was present in the learning environment." - Scott McConnell, Introduction to "Philosophy regarding Classroom Management", April 2005 (grammatical errors his, emphasis mine)

Aside from being a paper that in no way exemplifies a college-level writing ability, especially from someone planning on teaching others, this makes it pretty clear that McConnell not only believes in these tenets, but plans to implement them in his classroom.

This idiot may one day teach your children, and there's nothing that a certifying school of education can do about it.

Anybody else making a mental note of where your suitcases are?

Cal's Gone Wild

You know, there simply aren't enough syndicated columnists with serious psychoses. I would love to read the weekly opining of a real multiple-personality, or perhaps a bipolar disorder sufferer, but alas, there are none to be found. Fortunately, there is a column written by a paranoid sociopath, thanks to the deranged mind of Cal Thomas.

Cal's most recent episode revolved around something he gets worked up about every other month or so. Cal firmly believes that all Muslims are involved in some shadowy conspiracy to infiltrate the planet through breeding. The entire column can be found here, but I'll provide a few key exceprts to facilitate comment.

"Beginning with the Revolutionary War when British agents and sympathizers attempted to derail independence, there have been people who have tried to infiltrate the United States for the purpose of undermining and destroying it. In modern times, communism and fascism have sent agents among us, but we discovered their plans and defeated them here and abroad.

Now comes what may be the greatest threat: radical Islam, whose "agents" may have established a base more solid and more dangerous than anything we've encountered before. The good news is they speak openly of their intentions. The bad news is that many of us are not taking them seriously."

Okay, now, we can't really hold Cal accountable for diverging a bit from reality. Yes, we all know that "communism" and "fascism" are not nations or organizations that employ agents. Yes, Cal is forgetting that we've discovered agents from democratic nations here as well. But remember, Cal's totally batshit.

Regardless, he's making a pretty serious claim here. I'm assuming I've never been around when the muslims I know break into their "taking over the planet" rhetoric, because if Cal says that Muslims are openly discussing world domination on a large scale, he must have a lot of solid evidence to support the claim.

"Last week at the beginning of the London trial of radical imam Abu Hamza al-Masri, evidence was presented detailing how he encouraged his followers at the Finsbury Park mosque to kill non-Muslims."

One guy, Cal? Just one guy?

"In lectures, recordings and writings, the imam said Adolf Hitler had been sent into the world to punish the Jews. Repeatedly, said the prosecutor, Abu Hamza told his followers they must fight for Allah and such fighting involves a religious mandate to murder Jews, kuffars (nonbelievers in Islam) and 'apostates,' such as leaders of Arab nations like Egypt."

Hmmm... now see, I find this interesting, perhaps especially since I've been forcing myself to suffer through recordings of "Justice Sunday III: Revenge of the Sith" for the last few days. The rhetoric? Not different enough to keep me from being one part embarassed and one part scared shitless about the continuing influence of the Christerbators.

Didn't Pat Robertson just say that God sent a stroke to Ariel Sharon as punishment for his policies on the occupied territories? I mean, if you're a nutbag who presumes to know God's intentions, you can claim that anything bad that happens to anyone you disagree with is "punishment". Conversely, anything bad that happens to yourself or your allies is a "test of faith". It's incredibly convenient, and inarguably crazy, but it's certainly not something unique to this particular imam.

As for the religious war nonsense, it seems to me that while the pseudo-religious right in this country don't draw quite so direct a line, they only employ one degree of seperation. They may not do the killing themselves, but they certainly support the occupation of a Muslim nation that was uninvolved in any direct actions against the United States. Since they believe God is undoubtedly "on our side" in this endeavor, the religious mandate to wage war is still present. Seems to me al-Masri is actually a pretty good example of a Muslim Pat Robertson. Personally, I'm more worried about the power grab being made by Robertson's people, since they're getting Supreme Court Justices on the bench while the radical Muslim bloc has only gotten... ummmmm... hmmmmm... I can't think of anything. Maybe I missed C-SPAN that day.

"[Prosecutor David] Perry said the document's 'execution section' recommends that Islamic agents be sent to any country intended as a target at least 10 years before jihad begins. This was the profile of terrorists depicted in last season's '24' series on Fox. In this fictional story, terrorist cells were established in a middle-class American neighborhood where they remained dormant and appeared peaceful until a signal was given to conduct mayhem."

Yeah, but did you see "Independance Day"? Aliens bent on world domination flew to Earth in giant spaceships and blew up entire cities with laser beams! Now THAT'S something to worry about. Kinda puts terrorist cells into perspective, eh?

Oh wait. A work of fiction doesn't really prove any theories, does it? Dammit, Cal, now you've got ME doing it!

"On one tape, Abu Hamza discusses the killing of tourists in Egypt in November 1997, describing them as satanic. He says the tourist industry should be 'Islamicised' and added that while children should not be deliberately killed, their killing is permitted if they are in the target area. Suicide bombings are 'martyrdom,' he says. They are permitted 'if the only way to hurt the enemies of Islam is by taking your own life.'"

Okay, all sarcasm aside, Cal, you don't have a moral leg to stand on with this argument, and neither does anyone else who supports the way we're carrying out the so-called "War on Terror". The United States just recently fired six missiles at a village in Pakistan on faulty intelligence that claimed al Quaida's number two man was there. The missiles destroyed 3 homes and killed 18 people, most of them women and children. Those children, just as precious as the children al-Masri referred to, were, according to U.S. spokesmen, tragic but unavoidable casualties. The United States command, with the support of millions of God-fearing Christian Americans, believes that 18 innocent casualties, including 5 young children, are "permitted if they are in the target area" of one terrorist leader. You can shove your hypocritical moralizing right up your hairy ass, Cal, because that dog won't hunt, won't fetch, and can barely muster up the energy to shit on the persian rug.

"Among the many problems with this twisted religiosity is that the West does not know how many share it. Instead, political leaders repeat the bromide that Islam is a "peaceful religion" and radicals are trying to hijack it. Are we being infiltrated by people who, on the outside, pretend to be peaceful and tolerant, but inside wish to undermine and overthrow our government?"

Are we being infiltrated by people who, on the outside, pretend to be peaceful and tolerant, but inside wish to undermine and overthrow our government? Yes, Cal, we are, but you know what? They're not Muslim. They're ostensibly Christians, and unlike radical Muslims, there are enough of them in this country to do real, permenant damage. They claim to be peaceful and tolerant, sure, but they want your children to be forced to read the Bible and pray to their God at school, regardless of your religious beliefs. They want the laws of this county to be secondary to their religious tenets, and they want each and every person in this country to be forced to live by those tenets. They want to install political leaders who answer to and take direction from their religious leaders. They want to turn this nation into a theocracy, and they have manipulated millions of underinformed, frightened Americans into helping them. They wish to "undermine and overthrow our government" of religious freedom and democracy for all set up by our founding fathers, and replace it with a puppet government of the radical Christian Right. Think I'm a conspiracy kook? Listen to recordings of "Justice Sunday III". Much like your tell-tale imam, they admit to their goals. When James Dobson asked the crowd if they would fight for Bible instruction in public schools, religious displays in state buildings, the abolition of abortion based on biblical interpretation, persecution of homosexuals, and politicians and judges who would make decisions based on their religious interpretations, the throng of attendees shouted in unison to each question, "YES!"

We have been warned.

You Can't Make A Silk Purse From An Immoral, Illegal Occupation

To the Editor:

Several letters have been written about support for the troops. I proudly display a yellow ribbon indicating my support for our troops and the mission they serve.

There's been enough troop interviews in print and on television that clearly indicate the troops believe their mission is good and that the Iraqi people are thankful for their efforts.

So, if the troops believe their mission is good and that they are doing good, how can you protest the mission and the effort and support the troops at the same time?

Michael

Oh. You proudly display a yellow ribbon. Well, Mikey, there's nothing that makes you a better patriot than using our armed forces as a fucking fashion statement. Thumbs up, douchebag.

If you truly believe that the majority of press about this war casts our occupation of Iraq in a positive light, all it proves is that you don't get your news from a respectable variety of sources. In the end, though, that's almost secondary. Your core argument is that because the soldiers believe in their mission, that supporting the troops equates to supporting the mission. Let me assure you, Mike, that such a notion is complete horse shit.

Did you know, Mike, that it is actually illegal for active-duty troops to speak against the mission? It is also against military protocol for them to speak out against the president or his policies, since he is their Commander-in-Chief. Regardless of the legal and career consequences involved with slagging the occupation they're carrying out, though, just imagine trying to do a job that required you to risk your life on a daily basis for a cause you didn't believe in. Could you do it? Well, we don't give them an option about doing the job, so they have to find a way to spin the mission in a positive light, not just for show, but to maintain their sanity. Basically, Mike, what I'm saying is that until a soldier gets home or gets killed, you're unlikely to hear about his objections to the occupation.

If you wanted to find out the long-term viability of a large company, would you get your information from factory line-workers? Of course not. So why do you think that the best place to get an idea of the situation in Iraq is with the soldiers? Don't get me wrong; the opinion of a soldier is just as important as the opinion of any other American. It is not more important, however, nor is it ultimately qualified to serve as the basis for our foreign policy.

The real point, however, is that it doesn't matter how well we're doing in Iraq. It doesn't matter if we introduce democracy and stabalize the nation. I don't believe any of that will happen, but in doing so, it would not cause me to support the effort retroactively. This nation does not work on a policy of the cause justifying the means. It's not okay to arrest a man without charge if you find out later he was guilty. It's not okay to release neurotoxins in urban areas if it cuts down on gang violence. It's not okay for our leaders to lie and manipulate evidence to raise support for the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation even if it spreads democracy. We have to hold our leaders accountable and insist they put their service to the people of this nation first and foremost by being honest and following the law.

You can use the word "mission" all you want Mikey. It's more honest than "war", but it's still a euphamism for "occupation". I protest this occupation because it was begun on lies and bad intelligence, it is being used to grant dangerous levels of autonomy to our executive branch, it damages our credibility on a global scale, and it hinders the viable struggle against radical Islam while simultaneously increasing the influence of radical Christians here. The thing is, none of those things have anything to do with individual soldiers. They are simply doing the job we ask of them, and we need them to be willing to do that. It is not their fault that have been ill used, and I hope and pray for their safe return home. Maybe the difference is, I support the troops as human beings, while your version of supporting troops sacrifices them for your own sense of nationalism.

Slow News Day

I guess I should appologize for not updating as often... this time, I just haven't had much to work with. Lunatics seem to have quieted down quite a bit, and there just hasn't been enough batshit ranting on the opinions pages. This is probably a good sign, but makes my job here that much harder.

I will take a moment to comment on the confirmation hearings today, because one of the more heavily-run clips really epitomized what this current batch of Republicans stands for that pisses the hell out of me. The clip is available here as of this writing.

Basically, Ted Kennedy called for the subpoena of records dealing with a conservative Princeton alumni group Alito belonged to. Arlen Specter's reaction is key. He flubs and says that he got a letter, then thinks better of it and switches the topic to Kennedy's never having mentioned it to him in person. Kennedy responds that Specter got a letter from Kennedy weeks prior, and Specter pretends to be highly offended, asking how Kennedy would know what he received, and starting an argument of semantics about the difference between knowing that one sent a letter and knowing that the intended recipient actually did receive the letter, and of course denying that he ever received the letter. This, of course, after completely flubbing and mentioning the letter before Kennedy did.

Arlen Specter sat there and lied. Just bold-faced, shamelessly lied. It's completely obvious what happened. Arlen Specter mentioned the letter before Ted Kennedy did, and then, when pressed about the letter, said he never received it. Any six year old could tell you he was full of shit. Then he got self-righteous about the matter... he wasn't content to just lie, but he had to attack Kennedy for even insinuating that he received a letter that he OBVIOUSLY RECEIVED.

This batch of Republicans aren't just liars. They're snot-nosed, crybaby liars. They lie to the American people, then pretend they're the victims when anyone points out the lies. Where does this trend come from?

Hmmmm....

But [Bush] termed irresponsible the "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people," as well as "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right." With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of twisting prewar intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised the issues of oil and Israel.

Of course, since so few Americans seem to care that the government is infested with parasites, they get away with it. Will Arlen Specter be called on his lying? Of course not.

Good News

As reported by CNN.

It's officially started. A recent poll shows that the tide of public opinion has swung definitively against the current Republican administration and the corrupt Republicans who've grown fat from ripping us off. People are finally waking up to just how much slime is oozing around Washington, and it looks like they'll be ready to do something about it come next November.

I truly hope this batch of Republicans get tossed out on their ears. Maybe next time when they come to power on a platform of anti-corruption, they'll stick to it.