Birthday Wishes

Today, Air America Radio begins its third year of being a week away from collapsing, at least if every conservative pundit can be believed (and really, when can't they be?)

April 19th, 2004
June 6th, 2004
March 2nd, 2005
April 28th, 2005
September 22nd, 2005
March 3rd, 2006
March 25th, 2006

Oh.

I used to be sort of embarrased that I listened to Air America, back when I was still a registered Republican. A bunch of us at work started listening to it a little over a year ago via XM Radio. Since many of us had previously been Rush Limbaugh listeners, it was definitely a change to hear political talk radio that wasn't simply three hours of one guy bloviating and taking phone calls only from gushing, vapid fans. Suddenly, we heard political radio hosts presenting verifiable, balanced facts. They injected humor into their discourse and didn't take themselves so seriously. They invited respected political opponents onto their shows for balanced debate. They seemed to have an actual value system and got on members of both political parties when they didn't live up to them, instead of simply pushing a party line. It was absolutely refreshing. I may not agree with everything they say, but I never feel expected to. It's never about being told what to think. Rush creates dittoheads. Air America informs. They certainly have a bias, but they are far, far more moderate than their competition on the right.

If you haven't listened yet, I highly recommend checking out the Rachel Maddow show, which airs 7am to 9am Eastern. Rachel isn't one of their celebrity names, but she is a fantastic host and one of the smartest people I've ever had the priveledge of tuning in to. Not only can she handle just about any topic, but she puts up with Tucker Carlson on a regular basis, which is a real feat.

I still tune in to Rush on occasion, just to see what he's saying, but not only is he almost always talking through his ass these days, but he's incredibly boring. Rush talking in a vacuum for 3 hours simply can't hold a torch to, say, Rachel Maddow debating with Rick Scarborough, creator of the "War on Christianity" Conference. Frankly, the only reason I can see for continuing to listen to Rush is to get three hours of someone telling you that your fanatical right-wing views and willfull ignorance are completely normal and justified, despite all real-world evidence to the contrary.

Happy birthday, Air America Radio!

John Podhoretz Overcompensating with Misogynist Machismo? No Way!

Sorry about the free-form ranting lately... it's not really my thing, but the newspaper has been lacking in insanity on the opinions pages of late, so I haven't had a lot of my usual source material to work with.

Plenty of people are pointing it out, but just to add another voice echoing the accusations of hypocracy, here's my take on Jill Carroll. Thank God she's okay. Thank God she wasn't abused. Thank God there's actually a good news story out of Iraq.

Of course, that's what the far right has been whining about for months, isn't it? That there's no good news coming out of Iraq? That the media only covers the bad news? Here's a positive story, being covered extensively, so the neocons should be pissing themselves with delight, right? Nope. As usual, the only thing causing the neocons to piss themselves is old fashioned stupidity.

"It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days." - John Podhoretz, National Review

"Maybe it's just me, but Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me. The details are still murky and it’s hard to appreciate what she’s been through. And maybe JPod’s right about Stockholm syndrome. And maybe the media’s selectively choosing what to show of her statements. But it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors, particularly about the fact that they murdered her translator in cold blood. I’m very glad she’s alive, but I’m getting a very bad vibe. More, no doubt, to come." - Jonah Goldberg, LA Times

"She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone...
...She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point...
...She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something..." - Bernard McGuirk, The Imus Show

"American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity. 'I was never hurt, ever hit,' she told a Washington Post reporter. 'I was kept in a safe place and treated very well.' May as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant." - Orrin Judd, brothersjudd.com

Hey, right wingers! These guys are speaking for you! Your media representatives are actually condemning a woman who was held as a hostage in Iraq for 3 months. Evidently, because she didn't walk out raving like a maniac and screaming for the blood of Iraqis to flow deeper than Halliburton's pockets, she is somewhere between annoying and a traitor. Do you wonder why your side seems to be getting less and less relevant? Here's a clue. This kind of tripe isn't just sickeningly disturbed, it's also extremely alienating for people who haven't yet completely numbed their consciences on the altar of extreme partisanship. When Iraqi insurgent kidnappers treat an American woman with more respect than right-wing idealogues, you can bet that won't sit well with people.

Welcome home, Jill.

Holy @$&*!

The House of Representatives has totally lost it. Today, conservative congressmen dragged a 67-year-old Mexican immigrant into the chambers, spat on him, and beat him with clubs, laughing like loons, until the cries of "Por favor, no mas!" finally stopped.

No, not really. But there is at least a fifty percent chance it will happen tomorrow. I don't know whether to laugh at the insanity or cry because these immigration rants are actually meant to garner votes.

A few choice quotes from CNN.com:

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits." - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Cal, suggesting that prisoners be used to replace illegal immigrants as cheap farm labor.

At least he's blaming the right people - the Americans who hire illegal immigrants - but seriously, for the record, I do not want unpaid, angry convicts handling anything intended for my consumption. Thank you.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter A." - Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Evidently, being nearly puritanical in their authoritarian policies is no longer enough for some conservative congressmen. That want to go all the way. Next step: pillaries for atheists, and public Wiccan burnings.

"I don't think he's concerned about alienating voters, he's not running for re-election." Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo, on why President Bush supports the comprehensive Senate Immigration Bill and not the House Holy-Shit-We-Need-To-Stock-Up-On-Barbed-Wire Bill, originally sponsored by Rep. Chicken Little, R-Neb.

Actually, given the way Hispanics voted in the last Presidential election, I think it's the House that, just maybe, might be alienating some voters here. Call it a hunch.

"The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example." - Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Afterwards, Congressman King went back to his studio apartment in downtown Washington D.C., and was able to catch a few hours of sleep before heading off to his second job on the late-shift at Wendy's, despite two of his roomates staying up all night playing the latest 50 Cent album.

Perhaps I shouldn't poke such fun. The immigration issue is an important one, and not an easy one. We should at least maybe try to stay rational about it, though, instead of engaging in the kind of brilliant debate one would expect to catch at one a.m. in a redneck bar.

All in all, though, I hope they keep it up. Americans aren't particularly fond of hysteria in their elected leaders.

Rohrabacher said Americans should be able to "smell the foul odor that's coming out of the U.S. Senate."

Oh, I smell something coming, alright. I smell the November elections, and they're starting to smell sweet.

Am I The Last One Left?

As I noted here a few weeks ago, I recently registered myself as an Independent, essentially removing myself from the Republican party. I am not so invested in my political identity that I am willing to remain aligned with a party that proudly flaunts its embrace of ignorance, intolerance, greed and corruption. When the voice of the Republican party was put in the mouths of people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and their overcompensating, pompous, painfully unattractive allies in the media like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, it ceased to speak for me. When I recognized that my most vocal fellow Republicans were more concerned with winning than doing the right thing, and that the situation was unlikely to change, I saw no reason to continue to align myself with them. A quick trip to the DMV, and problem solved.

I bring this up because it is a stark contrast to another conflict I've been struggling with lately. Unlike my political identity, which easily changes with time, education, wisdom, and societal fluctuations, my spirituality is not something I am willing to abandon. This becomes a problem when, much like my Republican identity, identifying myself as a Christian means aligning myself with people whose vocal opinions I hold in absolute contempt. When people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Rick Scarborough are allowed virtually uncontested control of the voice of Christianity, I feel isolated and angry. Oh, sure, there are a few exception, and thank God for them. I can't say enough positive things about people like Jim Wallace, Chris Hedges, John Spong and others who speak out publicly against the tide of pseudoChristian fanaticism. As a whole, however, moderate and progressive Christians have been shamefully quiet about the rise of the fanatic Christians who dare to speak for us. Yes, we are characteristically tolerant, and I think that has a lot to do with the silence, but tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue. I truly believe that the vast majority of Christians in this country believe that clothing the poor and feeding the hungry is far more relevant to the values of Christianity than worrying about who marries whom and what music is played at Wal-Mart during the Christmas season. How then, can we tacitly condone the public hijacking of our faith by egotistical boors and corrupt politicians? How can we let them claim that Christians are the persecuted minority, while allowing and even supporting their persecution of true minorities like gays, Hispanics, and Muslims?

Let me put a few numbers on the table here, because they're important to keep in mind when discussing this issue. These statistics come from census data and a 2004 AP poll. Fully eighty-five percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Thirty percent of these Christians are white evangelicals - about twenty-five percent of the entire population. However, seventy-five percent of polled evangelicals believe that Christians are a minority under siege. Now, there are many ways to read this, and none of them are pretty. Either evangelical Christians are so separated from reality that they honestly believe that Christianity is no longer the dominant religion in America, or they do not consider the other seventy percent of us to be Christians. Either way, I assure you that these are not people I want speaking for my faith. In fact, they are incapable of speaking for my faith, which is one of philosophical contemplation and nonjudgmental tolerance, things totally alien to the hypocritically unquestioning, self-righteous, morally ignorant Christian fanatics.

Recently, Pastor Rick Scarborough, Christian extremist and writer of the unabashedly hysterical book "Liberalism Kills Children", hosted a two-day conference in D.C. called "The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006." The conference title may seem a bit over the top, but it should be noted that Rick himself, while talking as a guest on the Rachel Maddow show, admitted that the purpose of the title was simply one of marketing, and it was developed to get free publicity for the event by stirring up the media. He conceded that the name was "definitely hyperbolic," but noted that, thanks to the clever use of hyperbole, he was now being invited to radio shows like Rachel's. How nice for him that he is able to manipulate Christianity for his own gain, and so few are willing to condemn such blatant blasphemy. Christ overturned the tables of the moneychangers outside the temple in a rage, but now it seems the vendors are marketing inside the church itself, gaining fame and fortune under the guise of spreading spirituality. It is ironic that Christ himself lived in poverty while many of his most widely respected representatives today live in sickening opulence. Yes, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, I'm talking about you.

So who attended Pastor Scarborough's Celebration of the Christian Persecution Complex? About 400 people, which is a disappointing turnout to be sure, but still enough to get the event covered in the National Media, something that never happens, for example, at events sponsored by the Network of Spiritual Progressives, despite much more impressive attendance. Some of the names are ones you might recognize, however. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) were all in attendance. Tom DeLay was even invited to give the luncheon speech, in which he said, "We are after all a society that abides abortion on demand, that has killed millions of innocent children, that degrades the institution of marriage and often treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition. Seen from this perspective, of course there is a war on Christianity." There you have it. An actual U.S. Congressman claiming that war has been declared on eighty-five percent of Americans by, I don't know, the remaining fifteen percent, and that unless drastic measures are taken, Christianity might be outlawed in this country. I'll certainly admit that a small percentage of Americans, smaller even than the fifteen percent who aren't Christian themselves, treat Christianity as a 'second-rate superstition,' but nowhere near the number of evangelical Christians who consider every other major religion to be, not even second-rate superstitions, but godless barbarian heathen cults. It seems likely to me that Mr. DeLay's real issue isn't so much that too many Americans consider his Christianity a "second-rate superstition," but that they consider it a "second-rate excuse for his abuse of power and lack of ethics." Regardless, what I have the most trouble with is that some of the people DeLay is referring to are people deeply involved with charity work, peace activism, social programs, and a multitude of other endeavors that represent - if not in name, in spirit - the values taught in the Gospel, while this group of supposed Christian leaders spent profane amounts of time and money, both of which could have been better spent on actual charitable causes, to get together and whine about how difficult life is for them. It is absolutely shameful.

Michael Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, told the crowd that had it not been for the "Christian decency of this country" he would have been rendered "a bar of soap" by the Nazis. He then went on to say that "You guys have become the Jews of the 21st century," evidently competing for the coveted 'Most Anti-Semitic Comment by a Jew' award. Comparing the systematic imprisonment and murder of millions of Jews in Europe to Betty Smith of Denver, Colorado, having to explain the concept of creationism to her children because it isn't covered in public elementary schools is beyond insulting. Somehow, I don't imagine that, had young Anne Frank been told that in the early twenty-first century American children would have to pray quietly in school because teachers wouldn't be allowed to lead them in prayer, she would have happily skipped off to the gas chamber, relieved to have it so easy. Call me a cynic if you must.

Similarly batshit self-important was Navy Lt. Gordon James Klingerchmitt, a military chaplain, who claimed to have been punished by a commander for offering sectarian prayers at a sailor's memorial service. (It was not made clear whether or not the fallen soldier was Christian, but given my knowledge, limited as it may be, of military protocol and regulations, I think safe money says he wasn't. The military is not one of those organizations often called out for being anti-Christian.) He then showed a slide of himself, followed by a slide of Abdur Rahman, the Afghan man who was originally sentenced to death for converting from Islam to Christianity, and asked, "What do these two Christians have in common? Perhaps we are persecuted. Perhaps we are no different than most Christians throughout history." Mr. Rahman was unavailable for comment, as he was hiding for his life from an entire nation of people who quite literally wanted him dead and had the will to carry out the task. Lt. Klingerchmitt was available for comment because, evidently, his punishment from the navy did not involve the removal of his head, though he has evidently, at some point, been relieved of any sense of shame.

So this is how we Christians are being represented. I know that many of you who pass through here are not Christians and probably can't muster up a whole lot of sympathy, and I understand that. I understand how you would feel betrayed by the largest block of activism in the country that claims to have a moral obligation to do charitable works and strive for peace and brotherhood, and yet continually votes against those very principals in favor of intolerance and judgmental arrogance. But please believe that while our most vocal branches may be reprehensible, they are in no way representative of all, or even most, Christians.

To my fellow Christians, I suggest that it's time to get mad and start demanding that our representatives disavow the ranting of these fanatical pseudoChristians. When the moneychangers profited at the expense of the church, Christ angrily overturned their tables and cast them out. Why have we let them back in, and given them voice to speak for us? They shame us on a daily basis, and bastardize our faith with self-importance, intolerance, hatred, and apathy towards suffering. They get away with this only because we let them, out of our own misguided tolerance or desire to avoid conflict. We need to speak up against this profane use of our faith, not only for ourselves, but also for generations that follow who might otherwise be presented with no other aspect of Christianity but hatred and ignorance.

(For another take on this article, visit The Radioactive Quill. Amy's a bit hard on us, but we've got it coming.)

I'll Just Put S. Baldric

Wow. This is worth reading.

To the Editor:

As I look at the political hate cartoons (March 25), one reminds me that the Iraqis were throwing flowers at our troops, dancing in the streets and pulling down statues of Saddam until J.F. Kerry started campaigning, calling Bush a liar, telling the world that this was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time; the "W" War.

I believe if it had not been for the benevolent J.F. Kerry, we would have been out two long years and 2,000 deaths ago.

Stephen

Usually, I pick letters for the newspaper that are ridiculous and misinformed, but today is a little different. I came across Stephen's letter in the paper today, and it really made me think. This is something I'd never really pieced together before, but you have to admit, it makes a lot of sense. I think Stephen may really be on to something here, and in light of this brilliant pontification, I may have to really reevaluate my stance on the occupation of Iraq.

No, no, just kidding. Obviously Stephen's theories are about as legitimate as a three dollar bill.

Stephen, as I read your letter, I found myself laughing out loud, and trust me, I wasn't laughing with you. I generally try to separate the politics from the person, but in this case, there aren't any real politics to be separated. This is just nonsense, and if you're going to write batshit letters to the editor, I'm going to have to assume that you're batshit.

You have finally accepted what millions of Americans have been saying since 2003: The invasion and occupation of Iraq stands very little chance of ending up in what we can call a success. In fact, it has been a miserable failure, costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions of dollars. For what? Well, the latest spin is that we're helping the Iraqis until they can stand up for themselves. Have we made progress? Well, a little over a year ago, the U.S. military announced that there were three Iraqi divisions able to fight on their own. A few months later, that estimate was lowered to two. Then, last autumn, we were told there was only one mission-capable division. Where do we stand now? A couple months ago, it was reported that there are no Iraqi divisions capable of fighting on their own. Holy shit! In our mission to help make the Iraqis capable of protecting themselves, we've gone from three mission-capable divisions to none. The good news is, things really can't get any worse for us as far as meeting our objectives. You can't really have fewer than zero fully-trained Iraqi divisions.

Obviously, the blame for this outrage must be directed somewhere. Surely it has nothing to do with sending about half the troops requested by military commanders to secure the occupation. You can't really blame those who disbanded the original Iraqi army, creating a large number of unemployed, angry, heavily armed, military-trained Iraqi men. It has nothing to do with the historic tensions between religious sects and ethnic groups in the country previously held in check only by the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein. It would be ridiculous to assume it had anything to do with the misappropriation of reconstruction funds, with 8 billion dollars missing and unaccounted for while three years after the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure still isn't at fifty percent of its pre-war state. All of these are nonsense crackpot theories by morons who just happen to be better educated and more intimately familiar with the situation than you. No, no, I think the answer is obvious. The cause of our failure in Iraq is the failed candidacy of a vaguely anti-war candidate who didn't even have enough of an impact in his own country to win the election but somehow managed to completely shift our fortunes halfway across the world.

Stephen, is it possible, maybe even just a little, that when you finally had to accept the reality of our failures in Iraq, you were stuck in a situation where everything you've been arguing for since 2002 had been proven wrong, causing you to almost call into question your own political identity before the defense mechanisms kicked in and misdirected the blame to an outlet you were already comfortable with bashing, namely John Kerry? I mean, obviously you are one of those people whose very identity has been built around right-wing ideology and ignorant self-importance. When that shell was inevitably cracked by the annoying, persistent barrage of reality, you were left not only with a flawed political outlook, but a flawed personality built around it. Ultimately, it's not surprising that you'd lash out at any available target instead of reflecting on your own personal issues. It's not surprising, but it is sad, and yet simultaneously amusing, to observe.

As it turns out, Kerry was absolutely right. Our invasion of Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was the wrong war, as it was initially waged to root out weapons of mass destruction and al Quaida ties that we now know never existed. It was the wrong place, as there are many other countries that actually do have WMD capabilities and terrorist ties, and since the Iraq invasion was made possible by the fear generated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it seems important to point out that none of the terrorists came from Iraq. It was the wrong time because we were already involved in an occupation of Afghanistan, a nation we tried to introduce to democracy but cut out early on the invade Iraq, leaving it to flounder under tribal control and Sharia law. Kerry was absolutely right, Stephen. It's a little bit stupid to blame the messenger, don't you think?

Regardless, and I think this is the most important point, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even if, as you seem to actually believe, John Kerry's anti-war platform made the difference between a Westernized, democratic Iraq with Caucasian, English-speaking, Christian Iraqis driving SUVs on gold-paved boulevards, and the situation Iraq is currently in. The United States is a nation of free expression, founded on the concept of dissent. Free dissent is a means of protection more valuable than all the permanent bases we could build in Iraq. All governments face dangers, not only from without, but also from within. Corruption and greed are powerful forces, waiting to take control whenever the opportunity arises. It is our right to dissent that protects us from corruption and greed, and we'd do well to remember that we were guaranteed that right, but also given a mandate to employ it. It is the earmark of a totalitarian regime that the will of the leaders and the military security of the nation override the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry. Perhaps you would feel more secure in a totalitarian America, where freedom from is considered more important than freedom to. If so, I contend you are dissatisfied with the very principals the United States was founded on, and while you are free to do so in this nation, you are free to do so only because of the liberties you detest. Patriotic Americans are not the ones slapping cheap ribbon-shaped magnets on their cars, but the ones who are willing to criticize policy, even at the expense of reputation. That is the legacy of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and thankfully it carries forward into today, despite attempts by people like you to smear those who engage in dissent. As Edward R. Murrow once famously said, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Soylent Green is Made of Terrorists

See, I jinxed it last week when I said the nutbags were quieting down.

To the Editor:

Kudos to our president for laying it on the line! If people don't know where he stands after Monday's speech, they need a lobotomy. He clearly presented our objectives in Iraq: Defeat those who would try to defeat us.

Why do people not see that we need to do this? Future generations will praise this man for having the guts to protect us. The best part was putting that Helen Thomas in her place, finally!

Mark

Good Happy Hopping Horseshit. This letter is so awful, it's almost a parody of itself. I initially had trouble taking it seriously, simply because reading it made me think of an old "Mr. Show" sketch involving a man who wrote letters using only sarcasm, and didn't understand that sarcasm doesn't translate well in written mediums. Then I got a clear visual of Mark, strapping on the goose-steppers and marching in the warm glow of ignorance, and realized that outside the confines of a sketch comedy show, this kind of stupidity isn't all that funny.

I don't think anyone was really unclear about the president's position on Iraq; Mark seems to feel like this speech cleared up some sort of confusion, but I don't really remember hearing anyone say, "Hey, you know, I wish President Bush would take a position on the situation in Iraq, because I really don't know where he stands on the issue, and I'm sick of him being wishy-washy about it." The problem isn't that we don't know his public position, it's that we're fully aware of it, and it's completely batshit. There are plenty of theories about whether he's sincere or has sinister ulterior motives, but that aside, the sales pitch he's giving us is complete pap, but Mark has really fallen for it hard.

I do kind of understand. What we were sold was a mission to spread freedom and democracy, and to fight the forces of evil who had the means and desire to cause global chaos and great harm to us. It was implied that this would be the World War II of our time, a chance for America to step out of the shadow of Vietnam and engage in a real battle for a good cause again. Of course, it was a complete crock of shit. While Saddam Hussein is a total dick and deserves nothing more than to be devoured by maggots in a salt silo, he didn't have the means to blow up anything more complex than a Coke can with a pack of firecrackers, and was far to comfortable to risk his situation by stirring up international tension. Spreading freedom and democracy didn't work so well either, if the imminent Afghanistan execution of a man who converted from Islam to Christianity is any measure of how well western values have been embraced. President Bush has said he's 'concerned' about the situation, which is good, since he is directly responsible for our pullin out of Afghantistan to invade Iraq, leaving the country with little guidance or reconstructive assistance. I'm glad to see he's 'concerned.' It's like we went to the store to get a really nice TV, and the salesman sold us what we thought was a Panasonic Plasma-Screen, but got home to find it to be a Parasomic Plastic-Screen television, now with 3 channels and 30% less static!* But Mark just wants to keep watching his new TV. He loves it. It's the best TV he's ever had. If you squint really hard, you can almost tell the difference between "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives." Nobody's going to tell him he got ripped off.

Why do people not see that we need to do this, Mark? Because we know that we've been sold a lie. Defeat those who would try to defeat us? We rolled through the Iraq military in a friggin' week. Why has this war gone on for years? Because foreigners have been pouring in to fight what they feel is an unjustified, sacrilegious American occupation. We've actually created people who want to defeat us, Mark. They might not have liked us before, but we got a big stick, walked out back, and smacked the hell out of that hornet's nest. We haven't been embraced as liberators, as we were assured would happen, but instead we've turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and served as the catalyst for what appears to be an imminent and unavoidable civil conflict. Oops. Also, some of us have noticed that the practice doesn't match the theory. We invaded Iraq because we thought they might have the capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction, but we've basically let North Korea, a nation that definitely DOES have nuclear capability and a massive chip on its shoulder, slide without so much as a strongly-worded condemnation. That doesn't seem odd to you Mark? It seems kind of odd to us.

Of course, you have to know that you're wrong about future generations praising Bush. I mean, he can't get his approval rating over 36% now. As this occupation drags on, with more American deaths, more money spent without any hope of recovery, and more escalating violence among Iraqis, to believe that somehow it will become popular again you'd have to be on something just this side of black tar. Even if you think this occupation is worthwhile, which itself takes an amazing stretch of imagination, realistically you can't point to exactly what the president has accomplished. War presidents are remembered fondly if the war had tangible benefits. The American Revolution allowed for the creation of the country, the Civil War kept the union together, and World War II stopped nations that were actively attacking their neighbors in an attempt to dominate them. What great accomplishment will be remembered from this occupation? It hasn't prevented an imminent disaster, and there is no tangible benefit. Everything has been based on paranoid theories and fuzzy information, most of which has already been proven wrong. Even if Bush was deserving of such praise, and he isn't, he'd be unlikely to be remembered fondly simply because he hasn't 'protected' us from anything. We were promised a war of less than six months, and Bush now assures us we'll be there for at least six years. It was an elective war. We chose to go to war not because there was an immediate conflict, but because we were given faulty intelligence that painted implications of a shadowy threat. Nothing has happened as planned, and Iraq is in worse shape three years after our 'successful' invasion than it was before it. History books won't forget these things, Mark. It was people just like you who defended Joe McCarthy from Ed Murrow; your blind nationalism causes you to side with the flag-wavers against the real patriots. History isn't kind to corrupt flag-wavers or the ignorant masses who prop them up.

Of course, it's extremely telling that you take a jab of Helen Thomas. Why would you feel threatened by a reporter who asks tough questions, Mark? Isn't that the media's job? Or is your idea of a good White House reporter an internet porn performer hired to lob scripted softball questions? It's one thing to fall for misinformation... these guys are well paid and good at what they do. It's something else entirely to be afraid of someone uncovering the truth and being forced to recognize that you were fooled. You believed that Iraq was a threat because the case we were presented with looked strong. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and a stash of WMDs. Saddam Hussein had conspired with al Quaida and Osama Bin Laden. The smoking gun was going to be a 'mushroom cloud.' All of these assertions, however, were false, and now the administration denies ever making them. Are terrorists from Iraq a threat to us? Sure, as much as terrorists from any country are. Terrorists are a reality, and we should be concerned and act against terrorism, but you've been fooled into living in fear and giving up your right to government ownership because you've bought a line of bullshit about keeping you safe from terrorists. Do you remember how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq, Mark? None. Not one. So how does an occupation of Iraq directly tie to a war on terror? It's smoke and mirrors, and not only have you fallen for it, but you're threatened by anyone who might break the illusion for you.

The one thing you did get right was when you said, "If people don't know where he stands after Monday's speech, they need a lobotomy." I agree one hundred percent. Getting a lobotomy is probably one of the most effective ways to comprehend and accept the President's Middle East policy. Some of us would rather retain our frontal lobes and continue to think critically, however.


*Compared to other major brands of oil-burning television sets.

Gotta Have Faith

Another doozy from the letters to the editor. Once again, a presumptuous, arrogant fanatic made me ashamed to be labeled a Christian. Yay.

To the Editor:

Some words are slippery - they change meanings over the years. Take the word "gay." Oh, wait! Someone already took that one and twisted it to mean "homosexual."

A homosexual activist named Brendan Fay, upset that the New York City Council chose once again to bar Irish lesbians and homosexuals from their St. Patrick's Day parade, quoted the song, "When Irish Eyes are Smiling."

The meaning of the word "gay" in the song is the wonderful, old-fashioned one - happy, cheerful, lighthearted. Perhaps if Mr. Fay and his friends would heed St. Patrick's message of salvation by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, they would become truly gay - happy and lighthearted - knowing their sins were forgiven and they were at peace with God and on their way to heaven.

It's not homosexuality that keeps a person out of heaven. It's rejecting God's gift of salvation that will do the trick.

Rachel

You know what other word is slippery? 'Christian.' Supposedly, it's a word used to describe a person who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who emphasized humility, generosity, kindness, charity, peace, brotherhood, and a non-judgmental outlook. It has been embraced, however, by nationalist war hawks, violent racists, greedy corporate kleptocrats, and nosy, judgmental assholes who are more concerned with whom someone else has a relationship with than their own failings at humility and non-judgmental acceptance.

First of all, it seems strange to me that Rachel would have first-hand knowledge of the spiritual beliefs held by Brendan Fay and every other Irish homosexual in New York City. She seems pretty comfortable assuming they're not Christians, when I would bet you a good number of them are. The tone in her written voice is unmistakable. You can almost feel a wave of arrogant superiority wafting off the newspaper page. Rachel is a Christian, and she's certainly better than a bunch of dirty queers, so they must NOT be Christian. For Rachel, Christianity isn't a set of tenets. It's a way for her to feel better than others, sure in the knowledge that if they don't do what she tells them to and become like her, they will burn in hell. I happen to be a Christian, but my beliefs are based on a study of scripture and philosophy, not on the self-important ramblings of people like Rachel, who lord their beliefs over others as a means of shameless ego masturbation. I can't quite imagine that anyone would be attracted to a faith by Rachel's haughty arrogance.

I am embarrassed by people like Rachel, because they just don't get it, and they've created an environment in which I'm often ashamed to tell people I'm Christian, out of fear that people will lump me together with folks like her. Every devout follower of every branch of Christianity, let alone other religions, believes they've got it right, and everyone else is wrong. The lack of empathy people have when it comes to spirituality is rather stunning. Given the stature and teachings of Jesus as presented in the four books of the Gospel, you'd think it would set off all sorts of alarms when following a sect of Christianity causes one to feel superior to everyone else, but in fact, it seems to be a lot of people's favorite aspect of their chosen denominations. Despite the importance of spiritual superiority in their own belief systems, however, they don't seem able to comprehend how anyone else could possibly believe they have it right. What seems to ultimately escape, say, a devout, fanatical evangelical Christian is that a devout Catholic or Mormon or Lutheran or Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan could feel just as strongly about their beliefs as she does her own, and are unlikely to be converted by someone who belittles what they believe. You're never going to convince someone that your belief system is superior to theirs if that belief system causes you to act like a spoiled, petulant, selfish child.

The question I usually pose to these people, when they ring my doorbell or hand me a Chick Tract at the grocery store, is exactly how they know that their own interpretation is the only valid one. Almost invariably, they say that they have prayed for the truth and feel that God has led them down the path they are on. Strangely, however, I get this answer from evangelical fanatics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and just about everyone else. Once I started noticing the trend, my follow up question became, Okay, that's great, but I've heard followers of other faiths say the same thing. How is it that people are getting different answers from the same source? If this question is directly answered and not danced around, I usually hear that the powers of Satan are strong and constantly trying to corrupt people by leading them astray. This, of course, leads me to ask how they know that their answer came from God and not the corrupting power of Satan. Well, they put their trust in God, who protects them from Satan's corruption. Thus the circular argument is completed, rolling them into an armadillo-like ball of pseudo-scientific spirituality that no amount of logic or empathy can penetrate.

I'm sure Rachel thought she was writing a letter about homosexuality, but she really didn't say much about the issue. She did, however, accidentally say a lot about her own beliefs and the intrinsic problems with a belief system that emphasizes evangelizing while simultaneously devaluing the empathy and compassion required to engage people meaningfully about faith. The truth is, faith means believing without proof, and nobody has verifiable proof that their religion is superior to any other. If you believe that you have all the spiritual answers, and that your belief system is above reproach and beyond criticism, then you do not follow a faith, you buy into a pseudo-science. The best a Christian can do is read the Gospel, try to absorb what the teachings therein mean for their lives, and exemplify the love, peace, and acceptance taught by Christ while keeping an open mind, and not only teaching others, but continuing to learn, not only lecturing, but discussing. You might just find that the message of the Gospel has very little to do with the judgmental, vain, egotistical rantings of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, and that Christianity, in a form that reflects the actual teachings of Christ and not a fascist, theocratic control mechanism based on Old Testament laws, will attract people who currently feel, and understandably so, that they are excluded from what should be an all-inclusive faith. They believe that they are more worthy of divinity than anyone else, and that if only others would concede their obviously superior faith, they too would be wholly in the right and above critique. The self-important moralizing of fanatical Christians has done much to turn Christianity into an exclusive country-club religion, and in doing so, they have actually anti-evangelized. They are loud, but they are not the majority, and I believe most of people who actually study Christianity as a faith are willing to accept all people who strive for goodness. Yes, Rachel, even homosexuals.

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." - Luke 18:10-14

Making Up For Lost Time

Holy hyperventilating neocons! Recently, the Post-Standard opinions page ran a special "Unhappy Anniversary" letters section, reserved for letters about Iraq. There were no pro-war letters in the batch, which I have to assume means there weren't any pro-war letters to run, as the paper has never had an issue with running even the most poorly-written line-toeing rants. Evidence: the section set aside today for reactions to the first batch of letters. Ironically, most of the reactions are anti-war and anti-administration too, but not surprisingly, it also brought out a few wingnuts. Bear in mind - these are the best, if not the only, pro-war letters the paper had to run.

To the Editor:

Even with the realization that liberals dominate The Reader' Page, the Sunday edition letter (March 19 by Ron Blackmore) was especially repugnant considering that we are at war. Blackmore asserts that President George W. Bush is both dishonest and inept - being capable of only staging speeches to select groups.

Surely the writer refers to the WMDs which at that time everyone around the world thought true. New information now suggests that in fact that there were WMDs.

Blackmore, in his pride of emphasizing his contempt for the military, argues that the U.S. troops have already killed more civilians than those who died on 9/11. He also proudly demonstrates his ignorance by inferring that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when many argue differently.

William

William is popular here at SOB. He's a frequent letter writer, and he almost always starts his letter by pointing out how liberals control everything, including the opinions page. Nevermind that Cal Thomas's column was running opposite his letter, or that the paper is run by a notoriously right-wing family, or that Central New York, as a whole, is pretty solidly red. What Bill and others like him just don't seem capable of understanding is that they have become the lunatic fringe, especially in the Northeast. Nationally, a solid 60% of people feel that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, and only 39% believe we should not begin planning for a pull-out. If Bush's national approval rating is at 36%, and you figure in that he is still wildly popular in large sections of the country, how low must his approval here be to counterbalance that? Remember, that 36% includes Texas, which by itself really throws off the bell curve. It's not that the paper is artificially weighing the argument in favor of the ;liberals' who don't support war for profit. It's that, as the truth slowly becomes evident, there just aren't many people who are still falling for the nonsense.

Inadvertently, Bill proves this point, as his own argument has become almost laughably inane. He says that "New information now suggests that in fact that there were WMDs." Wait, what? What new information, Bill? Hearing it on Rush Limbaugh doesn't equate to inspection results. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had a WMD program since being compelled to dismantle it following the Gulf War, and in fact, all evidence of WMDs used by the administration to advance the war agenda has been debunked. Remember the yellowcake from Nigeria? The far right jumped all over Dan Rather when he gave a story based on documents that might possibly have been forged (though most probably not), but are suspisciously quiet about the administration starting a war based in part on documents proven to be forgeries, as the yellowcake reports were. How about those aluminum tubes, which were obviously meant for a nuclear program because they were coated with a special substance specifically for the purpose? When nuclear experts were finally asked if the tubes could be used for a nuclear program, the response was, without exception, that one would first have to scrape off all the special coating. Whatever this 'new information' is, I have to assume Bill has access to classified documentation, because no reliable sources have found such 'new information.'

Bill goes on. "He also proudly demonstrates his ignorance by inferring that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when many argue differently." First of all, Bill, he didn't 'infer' it, he implied it. When calling someone else ignorant, one should be cautious of making vocabulary errors. Second, you're right, many people do argue that a connection did indeed exist between Iraq and al Quaida, but to be fair, a lot of people argue that the world is only 5000 years old. Simply arguing a point doesn't make it valid if it flies against all available evidence. All major studies, including the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bush Administration's own study, have said conclusively that no such link existed. Even Bush and Cheney have been backpedaling on this issue, assuring Americans that they never claimed there was an Iraqi link to 9/11, evidently forgeting that most of what they say is recorded and can be played back later to prove that, yes, in fact they did.

Bill used to be better at this, although the argument used to be easier to make. His vague assurances of 'new information' and 'many people arguing' are laughable and heartening. The blind nationalists are running out of ammunition. Sorry Bill. No points for this one.

To The Editor:

Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush? Like our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, he is fighting an unpopular war for the good of the country. This war mirrors the Civil War much more than it does Vietnam, as far as the homefront is concerned.

Lincoln had to deal with the Democrats, and their shameless attempts to subvert the war for their party's political gain. Ah, some things never change.

Bryan

Whoah, WHAT??? The American Civil War??? I've heard the far right try to compare the Iraq occupation to World War II to counterbalance valid comparisons to Vietnam, and thought that was about as laughable as you could get. I obviously underestimated the delusions of the wingnuts.

This is just batshit loony. Lincoln didn't voluntarily send American troops halfway around the world to occupy a foreign country at the expense of the domestic agenda. Licoln had war thrust upon him when the Confederacy seceded, the warfront was here at home, and it was to save America domestically. You almost can't pick an American conflict that is closer to the polar opposite of our occupation of Iraq. Lincoln's legacy is that of an honest man and a hero of civil rights. Tell you what, Bry. 50 years from now, you check out what the history books say about Bush. I'll bet you my pension he's not remembered as a paragon of integrity. Further, I'll bet you won't admit to being a rabid Bush supporter either. You'll notice you don't find many people who announce with pride that they voted for Nixon anymore.

Seriously, if I'm not allowed to compare Bush to Hitler, then you're not allowed to compare him to Lincoln. The current Republican party is not the same as the Nazis, but it's also not the progressive populist Republican party of Lincoln. Also, just out of curiosity, what does Roosevelt have to do with Bush, outside of having created so many of the national parks and reserves that Bush wants to allow industry to ruin?

To The Editor:

Ah yes; it's the harbingers of spring. The robins are appearing along with the geese. And, let's not forget the war protestors - the Peace Geese. Ever notice how few of these professional protestors are visible during the long, cold days of winter? They start coming out of their bunkers when the warmer days of spring arrive, flapping their signs.

Actually, I suspect many have a well-arranged group of signs in their garages or homes, in alphabetized order. There are all categories of things they can protest. They love protesting and probably it is an avocation to some. A hobby of sorts. Springtime is more to their liking.

Bill

Okay, as anyone who is at all familiar with the climate of Central New York can tell you, we Syracusans tend to chuckle at the 'First Day of Spring.' While it may be chronologically accurate, it in no way implies an actual improvement in weather. Somehow, when brushing the snow off my car in the bone-chilling cold this morning, I was not suddenly inspired to go stand on a street corner with a placard, protesting all day as my genitalia shrunk to the size of BBs. Bill would like to believe that the recent protests are due to the great weather we've been having, which, like so many batshit wingnut arguments, can be debunked with an act as simple as looking out the friggin' window.

That aside, I think Bill's goal is really to poke fun at the silly protestors who have nothing better to do than alphabatize their placards. It's not really a prejudice worth validating with a response, except that it seems meaningful given the recent protests in Syracuse.

I'm not a protester. I think it's simply because I'm not social enough to participate that way. Regardless, I have respect for protesters of any ilk, as long as they are peaceful and respectful. At least they're participating in the government of the people, something that the vast majority of Americans doesn't bother to do in any manner whatsoever. So while I'm not inclined to jump up and join them, I don't believe that protestors are any crazier than somebody who writes snarky letters to the editor about protestors, or a guy who writes a snarky blog criticizing the guy who wrote the snarky letter to the editor. We participate in the way we're best able.

It does bear mentioning, however, that on Monday nine peaceful protestors were arrested when they entered the Army recruiting office in downtown Syracuse. Sure, you could write them off as a bunch of dumb college students with too much time on their hands, as Bill no doubt would. You'd just be wrong. Here is a list of those arrested and their ages:

Kathleen Rumpf, 54
Jessica Maxwell, 30
Ann Tiffany, 70
Paul Frazier, 60
Jerome Berrigan, 86
Annette Pfannenstiel, 67
Paul Collier, 62
Robert Brhel, 67
Rae Kramer, 59

Not exactly your average bored, rich-kid protesting crowd, is it Billy? The Army recruiters actually had an 86-year-old man arrested instead of engaging them in a 30 minute discussion, which is all the protestors requested. Now, I don't think the recruiting office was the best place for them to go... those guys are basically salesmen who've been fed a line to feed to recruits. I do have issue with people like Bill, however, who paint these people in broad, disrespectful strokes when so many of those with nothing to do but 'flap their signs'... oh, not to mention a little jail time for demonstrating peacefully... are older, wiser, and more deserving of respect than he is.

This Won't Make Me Popular, But...

There was an article from the Associated Press yesterday regarding a talented young poet named Autumn Ashante and the controversy raised by her public reading of a poem called "White Nationalism Put U In Bondage". First of all, let me say that I think it's fantastic that a 7 year old girl is so interested and evidently talented in the creation of poetry. I do not think it's so fantastic that she is evidently being led down a path of racial stereotyping and discrimination.

I honestly have no problem with Autumn. She seems like a very bright, talented young girl, and she should be encouraged in her endeavors. She should also be guided, however, because a 7 year old, however bright she may be, has a limited understanding of weighty issues like race relations, the impact of slavery and white nationalism in America, and the various ways of approaching those problems. It's not her fault. She's 7. She has very limited experience due to her young age, and shouldn't be expected to have a firm grasp of these topics. Neither should she be encouraged to believe that she does. That's why I definitely do have issues with Autumn's father and the others who have obviously encouraged and, yes, coached Autumn to focus her poetry on inflammatory topics that she can't possibly yet understand.

Look, yeah, I'm a white male. I do not pretend for a second that white males are a group that suffers from prejudice, and I cannot conceive of someone like me getting indignant about reverse discrimination. I realize that we still have a long way to go in regards to race relations in this country, and it disturbs me when angry white males try to convince me that they are now the underprivileged group. My issue with Autumn's poem is based on the racial content of her poetry, but it honestly isn't racial in nature. My issue is with the exploitation of a 7-year-old girl, and the concept that children should be taught to accept double standards when those double standards are exactly what those of us striving for an equal society work to overcome.

Frankly, if a girl Autumn's age gets up and recites a poem equating Columbus and Darwin to pirates and vampires, one has to wonder how a 7-year-old could possibly have the experience and education to understand the histories of those two men. Quite simply, she couldn't. Even if somehow she had the advantage of a very focused, very balanced education regarding them, she doesn't have the perspective to truly parse what she'd learned and develop solid theories about them. Highly educated doctoral students can't come to a consensus, so how realistic is it to believe that a second grader has it all figured out? It's great that she's thinking about such difficult topics, but it's sad that her father and others in the community are exploiting her for a cause that no one has the right to bring a child into. It is simply not possible that Autumn has developed a mature perspective on race relations at her age. One has been pushed upon her, and that is just as dangerous and unfortunate a situation as that of the children of the white nationalists she speaks of.

I really wish I could read Autumn's entire poem, but I haven't been able to locate it. I've read pieces of it in various places, but those snippets do not exactly reflect what New York City Councilman Charles Barron referred to as a poem of "peace, power, and pride about her heritage." I really would like to read the whole thing, but I don't feel compelled to withhold comment until such time as I have. After reading her poem to high school students, she asked the black students to stand and recite a "Black Child's Pledge." When white students stood in solidarity with their black friends, Autumn told them to sit down. How does that speak to inclusion and equality? I hate to say this, because it is definitely overused, but in this case I think it needs to be said. What would have happened had the races been reversed? I certainly would have considered it a disgusting case of racism, and for that reason, I find myself forced to label this situation similarly. I can't hold Autumn responsible for her racial discrimination and isolationism, but I certainly can hold her father responsible, as well as Councilman Barron and others who supported it.

This is exactly the kind of activity that makes those of us seriously dedicated to an equitable society want to throw up our hands and give up. Not only does it send the wrong message, but it gives invaluable fodder to the kind of people who will inevitably say, "Hey, if there's a 'Black Child's Pledge,' why can't we have a "White Child's Pledge?'" If I can justify Autumn's actions, then I have to concede their point, and if I have to concede the point of white nationalists, I'll feel like I'm flushing fifty years of progress down the toilet. I'm not willing to do that. If white nationalists are my enemy, then so are black nationalists, and I want to break into sobs when I think about a 7-year-old girl brainwashed into my enemies' camp.

When asked by reporters, by whom Autumn requested to be called "African" instead of "African-American," how much help she'd had in writing the poem, she said, "My dad helped with spelling and pronunciation." Generally speaking, people tend not to need help pronouncing words that they're familiar enough with to incorporate into their poetry, but since her poetry deals with topics she isn't experienced enough to understand, I suppose it isn't surprising that it includes words she isn't familiar enough with to pronounce.

Cal Thomas is an Asshole

Tom Fox, a Quaker peace activist who went to Iraq to help the people of the country, was murdered by a radical group of insurgents.

I'm going to have trouble even being snarky about this one, never mind joking about it. Let me say that the murder of Tom Fox was a horrific, unjustifiable crime. This man of peace, man of faith, and man of action went further than most of us would even consider for what he believed in, and his courage and dedication to what he believed was right should be held up as an example of what it means to be an activist. Dumping paint on fur coats and setting fire to homes under construction in the middle of the night look like pretty cowardly, pathetic acts when you put them next to Tom Fox. As much as I respect and admire our dedicated armed forces, every soldier in Iraq got a gun and a paycheck. Tom Fox got neither, but he went anyway. To downplay the courage this required is to do an injustice to humanity.

Of course, doing injustices to humanity is Cal Thomas's favorite hobby, so it shouldn't be surprising that he used his latest column as a forum in which to criticize and insult Tom Fox and his work. While it may not be surprising, it is beyond infuriating, and while I can usually take Cal with a grain of salt, his latest pile of editorial feces should be balled up, covered in habanero sauce, and shoved down his smarmy little throat.

"It is tragic whenever an innocent person is murdered. It is also tragic because the likelihood that the presence of Fox and his colleagues would change the attitude or behavior of their captors was zero to none. That the 'peace activists' believed their brand of Christianity would trump the fanatical Muslims who regarded them as infidels and worthy of death meant that Fox and the others would either be used for propaganda purposes by the enemies of freedom, or made to sacrifice their lives like animals on an ancient altar in the furtherance of the fanatics' dream of a theocratic state. In this instance they were used for both."

First of all, Cal is way off base assuming that the Christian Peacemaker Teams were trying to advance peace through the evangelizing of Christianity. Evangelizing is not the only way to do good deeds, and in fact can often be counterproductive... this is a lesson Focus on the Family should have considered before making their donation to tsunami victims include tens of thousands of copies of James Dobson's latest book instead of something useful, like food or money. The Christian Peacemaker Teams work to distribute food, provide medical care, and do other charitable works. Second, nobody working in Iraq, be they soldier, contractor, or activist, believe they are going to change the culture. They want to do their part to make things better, and belittling their efforts is not only irresponsible, it is a vile form of self-righteous cowardice.

"Strange thing about these peace movements: they rarely mobilize to oppose the killing, torture and imprisonment practiced by dictators. It is only when their own country attempts to end the oppression that the activists become active against America, not the initiators of evil. Peace, like happiness, is a byproduct, not a goal that can be unilaterally attained. Peace happens when evil is vanquished.

The theology of Christian Peacemaker Teams is as wrong as its politics. The statement about Fox's death claimed that Fox had a 'firm opposition to all oppression and the recognition of G-d in everyone.' Perhaps if Christian Peacemaker Teams had gone to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, or to China while Mao Zedong was slaughtering millions, or to Moscow while Josef Stalin practiced genocide on his people, or to any number of other capitals of carnage, they might be taken more seriously, though under those regimes they might have disappeared much quicker. Was G-d 'in' these mass murderers, or was it Lucifer? "

Again, absolute cowardice on the part of Cal Thomas. A man who does nothing complaining that men who do something can't do everything. Regardless, one can easily make the same criticism of the administration. If we invaded Iraq to free the people from the oppressive Hussein regime, why do we not do the same in the numerous other nations that are far more oppressive than that of pre-invasion Iraq, many of which we consider allies?

Cal also apparently believes that peace and happiness are completely unattainable, as they can only be attained when 'evil is vanquished.' Does Cal, or anyone for that matter, believe that evil can be completely stricken from the face of the earth and the souls of humanity? Is working towards peace useless until it happens? Certainly Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Tom Fox did not strike evil from the world, but they argued for peace regardless, and I am grateful for the efforts of those who fight weapons with wisdom and hate with love.

"Peace 'activism' may make its practitioners feel good, or validate their belief that they are doing the will of G-d, but evil cannot be accommodated. Evil must be defeated if peace on earth is to exist. That Fox and his colleagues could not, or would not see this, is most tragic of all."

No, Cal. The biggest tragedy is that the life and death of a man who displayed more courage and integrity in one day than you could muster in your entire life can be used to spread your particular brand of hatred and ethnocentrism. Tom Fox didn't dedicate his life to helping evil. He dedicated his life to helping the weak, poor, and silent, people the rest of us all too easily overlook. We Christians believe that Jesus Christ, a divine soul, came to Earth to do God's work, and he did not defeat or eradicate evil; we would be presumptuous in the extreme to believe we could do what he did not. He didn't instruct his followers to seek and destroy evil. He did, however, teach, "That which you did for the least of these, you did for me." Tom Fox has you beat by a mile, Cal Thomas, and you should hang your head in shame for assuming you were in any position to criticize the work he lived and died for.

With a Rebel Yale

To the Editor:

Hats off to the Supreme Court for its very sensible and just decision in upholding the controversial Solomon Amendment that requires all colleges and universities which accept federal funding to provide access to military recruiters.

And shame upon the pompous, self-important, so-called "academic elite" in this country for their arrogant sense of entitlement. If ever there was a more obvious attempt to "have your cake and eat it too."

Who do these people think they are? First of all, it is beyond hypocrisy for the faculty of Yale Law School to point their finger at the military for being unfairly exclusive.

I suppose they would have us believe that Yale Law School is not one of the most elite and socially exclusive institutions in this country!

And if discrimination and exclusion of certain groups is so intolerable to the academic elite, why not attack the problem closer to home? How about demanding that women are allowed into men's only college athletic teams, rather than the current "separate but equal" gender segregation we see in college sports teams?

Ever consider expanding your commitment to racial diversity to your cash-cow football and basketball teams? I don't see too many Asian, Hispanic, or Middle Eastern faces in the Big East, that's for sure.

I can't wait to see if Yale Law School professors remain committed to keeping military recruiters off campus on moral grounds now that it might cause them to lose out on some of Uncle Sam's bling-bling.

Please, please, please... if you're trying to make a serious argument, avoid the use of the word "bling-bling." It is virtually impossible to take anything else you say seriously if you refer to federal money using dated and cliché urban slang.

Outside of sounding stupid for describing federal funding in a manner better suited to Paris Hilton, the whole argument here is flawed on a number of levels. Obviously, the writer has a grudge against Yale. This is absolutely the standard for Syracuse, a city that holds intellectualism and wealth in equal contempt, let alone the combination of the two represented by Yale. Is Yale elitist? Certainly. It is a place open exclusively to the academic elite (and the idiot legacies of political dynasties). I've grown up in a place where hatred for the 'pompous, self-important academic elite' festers, despite the fact that the academic elite tend to be the most giving, charitable, and socially conscious group in the country. I have actually heard people in this community say that a person can get just as good an education in a state college as they'd have received at an Ivy League university, and they're not just blowing smoke. They actually believe it.

That said, my issue is not with the Supreme Court, which rightfully upheld the amendment, but with the amendment itself. It is simply flawed to believe that accepting federal money in some way puts any individual or organization at the mercy of the federal government. Should military recruiters be allowed into elementary schools to begin the process of recruitment early? Perhaps those who accept welfare money should be forced to have recruiters come to their homes and draft their children... after all, they accepted the federal money, so it's simply an arrogant sense of entitlement for them to believe that their children shouldn't be on the front lines.

On the other hand, why stop with military recruitment? If the university is receiving federal money, why not let the military take over the university entirely? They could do away with all those sissy liberal arts programs, and turn Yale into what the vast majority of other private universities have become: soulless job-training facilities. Wouldn't it be great to ensure that there was no longer a free intellectual community in this nation? Why should Yale get to cling to its values and traditions when so many other institutions have been forced to relinquish theirs to the insatiable god of profit?

Yale receives federal money because we, as a nation, recognize the importance of education for the next generation of leaders and decision-makers, not because we want to hold the university to government control. Other groups have been banned from university campuses for their discriminatory policies, including church groups and the Boy Scouts. The military only gets an exception because it is under federal control, though I fail to see why that fact grants them the right to invite themselves as guests to the home of an unwilling host. There are plenty of universities that would welcome military recruiters, but that isn't enough. They force themselves into places where they are unwelcome, shielded by federal funding that has nothing to do with them. That's where the shame lies.

Of course, a lack of understanding is what leads to agreeing with a policy like this, and that lack of understanding is made evident by the writer's sports analogies. It can be difficult for a person from Syracuse to understand that a university could consider academics and campus values more important than athletic teams. Syracuse University is a school where the head basketball coach is the highest paid university employee, where the Carrier Dome sports arena is the most recognized campus building, and where varsity athletes conspicuously drive the same expensive vehicles and are noticeably absent from classes they end up passing. Sports teams, while important to Yale's philosophy of the well-rounded student, are by no means closer to home or more important to the school than academic integrity and ethical standards. Yale is not a member of the Big East, nor are their sports teams the cash-cows a person from Syracuse might equate university teams to. The argument simply proves the isolationism of the writer, something that should surprise no one, given his take on the issue.

This is just another example of the anti-intellectualism that currently cripples this nation, and certainly the Central New York region. Ironically, however, by displaying the ignorance that comes with isolationism and anti-intellectualism, the writer actually makes a very strong case for the importance of maintaining a private, liberal university system, free from partisan government control.

Checking In

Nothing new to work with in the newspaper again... I wonder if the well has run dry. I doubt I could be that lucky, though. It will be a great day indeed when I'm forced to stop blogging due to lack of relevant material. I'll just keep waiting, and please forgive me if I remain quiet as I do so. There are others who do political commentary blogs far better than I could, and I enthusiastically recommend those listed to the right.

I finally saw "Good Night and Good Luck" tonight. I know a lot of people have been holding up this movie as a battle cry against the radical right, and understandably so. It was a fantastic movie, and desperately needed. Regardless, I came away thoroughly depressed. While one can certainly draw parallels between the McCarthy period and today, one element is notably lacking: the value of integrity. Politicians no longer even pretend to have it, and we, collectively, don't hold them to it. It was integrity that won the day and conquered McCarthy. It is a weapon I'm afraid has been removed from the table since.

I believe in integrity first and foremost. If we do not cherish integrity, not one word that passes from mouth to ear is worth the spit it accompanied. It is for this reason that I am abandoning the Republican Party. It no longer, in any way, represents any of the values I hold dear. The GOP cares nothing for integrity, honor, discipline, freedom, or responsibility, and having abandoned those values, they have abandoned me as well. This is not a condemnation of every registered Republican, but the party as a whole, as represented by its elected politicians and its allies in the media. My leaving will cause them no hardship, and I am not foolish or self-important enough to believe otherwise. It is nothing more than a symbolic gesture on my part, but one I need to make to preserve something I still cling to. I do it, after long pause and careful consideration, to maintain my integrity.

If This Entry Were Titled Like an Ann Coulter Book, It Would Be Titled, "Somebody Give Ann Coulter a Sandwich"

Wow. Yeah. Sorry. It's been way too long. A lot of factors have kept me from the blog, and I apologize. A possible move and my 30th birthday kept me pretty busy for the last couple weeks. Mostly, though, the problem has been a lack of material from the opinions pages. I'm not about to hold Syracuse up as some sort of national barometer of public opinion, and I’m well aware there still exists a sizeable contingent of ranting Bushphiles in the area, as some of them keep an eye on this blog. (Yes, I can see you guys. Your internet anonymizer doesn’t work very well.) It does, however, seem like fewer and fewer people are buying the bullshit, which is great, but makes my stated mission here more difficult, obviously.

Yesterday was a particularly nasty day. It was bone-chillingly cold as I drove in to work, and it seemed like a heavy cloud hung over the entire day. Everyone at the office seemed a little punchy and less jovial than usual, and nothing quite seemed to work right. I wrote it off as one of those cosmically bad days. Then, this morning, I discovered what could simply be a coincidence: Ann Coulter was at Syracuse University yesterday.

I'm surprised I didn't hear about this ahead of time. Well, no, that's not exactly correct. I'm not really surprised. It stands to reason that the people involved didn't make a lot of noise about it. When Michael Moore came to the University a couple years ago, it was announced publicly, and plenty of people showed up to protest. By keeping her visit relatively quiet, the College Republicans were able to minimize the protestors, creating the illusion that Coulter was welcomed by most of the community. Sure, it probably has more to do with the fact that Ann is losing relevancy and, of course, not many people in the community knew it was happening. That doesn't matter though. The conservative movement has become addicted to disinformation and illusion, and Ann Coulter is their ghoulish crack-dealer queen.

So yeah, I didn't get to go. I really wish I had; not to protest, but to listen to her. I guess in some way that would be validating her presence, but I'm sure it would have given me a lot of material to work with. Ann is great at tossing out insults and mean-spirited one-liners, and doesn't let herself get bogged down with things like "facts" and "accurate information." She'd be a laugh riot if, you know, she wasn't being paid to give supposedly academic lectures at universities.

So what did she say? The newspaper printed a few choice quotes. The article in the paper definitely had something of a pro-Ann slant, but the quotes presented are perfect examples of Ann at her truthiest. (Yes, I used a form of "truthy". It's a useful word.)

"So our troops are being shot at. We're not liberating Ohio."

If you claim to support the troops, and this statement doesn't piss you off, you are a liar. I don't care if you support the war or not. American troops being killed is not something you shrug off, and certainly not something you joke about.

The war in Iraq is "a magnificent success. It's going just swimmingly. The Iraqis are taking to democracy like fish to water."

Is it possible this woman doesn't understand why she's becoming irrelevant? Four years ago, you could have made a large number of Americans believe this statement. Not anymore. Anyone who ever changes the channel from Fox News knows that the Iraqis are taking to democracy more like pit bulls in a dog-fighting arena. You almost never see fish leaving vans full of executed Sunnis parked on neighborhood streets.

This one is my favorite. It's a response to a member of the audience asking Ann if supporting democracy in Iraq might be dangerous in light of the election of Hamas in Palestine.

"Sometimes democracy doesn't work. That's how Bill Clinton was elected."

She doesn't even answer the question. She can't answer the question. She's not smart enough to even address the question. She resorts to neocon-twitch-response Clinton bashing. Nevermind that Clinton actually won the popular vote in both of his elections. Better to throw out inane insults than address any issues. The kind of people who find this moron entertaining are exactly the people who make me ashamed to be a registered Republican.

Greg Proseus, speaking for the College Republicans, felt vindicated by Ann's visit.

"I'm a little upset that my student fee has been used to bring in Michael Moore. Coulter is probably one of the only conservative voices students will hear here."

Of course, Proseus's student fees never paid for Michael Moore, as the newspaper accurately points out, because he was invited to the campus by the College of Arts and Sciences, not a student group. I guess if Greg were interested in reality, though, his group might have brought in a speaker with similar concerns. Instead, they brought in a vapid ideologue who does little more than make neoconservatives feel entitled to act like selfish assholes and defend their rights to be poor citizens. It is a shame that Ann is "one of the only conservative voices" to visit the school, because there are conservative speakers who are rational and knowledgeable and whom one can respect even if one disagrees with them. Ann Coulter is none of these things, and the College Republicans should be embarrassed for supporting her brand of self-righteous ignorance.