Bill O'Reilly: Ace Detective

Okay, technically, this is not a new letter about O'Reilly. It's an excerpt from the letter I responded to just a few days ago. It's just particularly funny now.

...Bill O'Reilly is: trustworthy -- he has only researched facts on his show (I know, I watch nightly he and his staff have done extensive research before airing any story and reports "both sides" of the story...

Debbie

Did you all catch that? Bill has only researched facts on his show. Which is really funny when you consider his recent attacks on the Syracuse Post-Standard.



With the pictures above proudly displayed, Bill used his Talking Points segment to wreak his vengeance.

"The villains at that paper are publisher Stephen Rogers and
editorial writer Mark Libbon. These men are not only unprofessional, they are incompetent." - Bill O'Reilly

The only problem? Stephen Rogers, the publisher of the Post-Standard pictured on the left, passed away in November of 2002.

That thar is one crack research team, Bill!

By the way, the 'smears' printed by the paper can be found here
and here. Bill may need to grow a thicker skin if he wants to continue to be an asshole in the public eye.

Thanks to Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly for pointing this out.

Media Does, In Fact, Matter

Today's letter to the editor comes from Stephen, who has some questions about the media. I think the questions were originally intended to be hypothetical, but as people like Stephen will no doubt shout angrily, administration critics like me don't care very much about original intent.

To the Editor:

Is there something wrong with media that work only to destroy a president and a Congress that was elected by over half the voters?

Not really, Stephen. If The Media, as a whole, were engaged in such activity, then it would be a problem. That's not the case, however. You have some media outlets that are actively opposed to the current administration. You have other media outlets that exist only to support and defend those currently in power. Somewhere in the middle you have actual journalism, without loyalty to parties or individuals, and who seek to inform and hold all parties accountable. The problem is that true journalism, the core of American media and an invaluable tool for democracy, is being overshadowed and generally goes unrecognized. The far-right considers true journalists to be left-leaning simply by virtue of a journalist's belief in the right of the common people to be informed, which often puts them at odds with right-wing leaders who, as evidenced by the current presidential administration, value secrecy. The far-left considers journalists to be too cautious and, simultaneously, too sensationalist, focusing on what sells instead of what matters. People on both sides of the rift use these accusations to defend their isolationism as they turn only to media sources that aver what they already believe to be true. The problem lies not with how many people voted for the president, or how certain branches of the media treat him. The problem is people who willfully remain ignorant when they have access to more information than has ever been available in human history.

Do the people really believe the lies that the media are feeding them?

Absolutely they do, Stephen, on both sides. You, for example, believe the right-wing fabrications of a completely left-biased media, forgetting of course that you are getting that message from powerful, established, right-wing media sources. Why do you believe it? You believe it because you already believed it. You want to believe in a media bias against you, because it gives you the moral advantage of being the underdog. You have to ignore the fact that the highest-rated television news channel and political radio broadcasts are in no way examples of true journalism, but media outlets for the far-right. It is easy to ignore the facts, however, when the lies you are being fed fit so much more easily into your worldview.

Do the media believe the people have not yet come to the realization that the media want to destroy the administration, no matter what it will do to our country and the world?

Some media acknowledges that a few people believe in a media bent on the destruction of the current administration, and pander to that crowd. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, basically earns a big fat paycheck by pandering to them on a regular basis. Plenty of other people feel that the media has been far too forgiving of the current administration, allowing themselves to be cowed into accepting a few measly press conferences a month and never asking tough questions for fear of being shut out of the process. Efforts to turn the various, diverse media outlets into 'The Media,' with one overriding mission, are absolutely beyond the realm of sensible reality. Fox News and Air America are both media outlets, and parts of 'The Media.' Do you believe that they have similar goals? What about Free Republic and Mother Jones? The New York Post and the Village Voice? The truth is, media outlets are independent and generally self-contained. They are as diverse as the public they serve. If you think Air America shouldn't exist for its political leanings, shouldn't you hold the Free Republic to the same standards? Well, I suppose not, if you're emotionally lazy and self-important. Recent studies show that people with those tendencies are more likely to identify as right-wing, so I guess maybe it's not surprising that these cries keep coming from that sector of the media and are so quickly embraced by the ultra-conservative population.

Do the people understand that these media consider themselves the "Fourth Estate" -- the fourth branch of government -- and look at the people as stupid and easily led?

Stephen

Well, I certainly hope people understand and believe in the Fourth Estate, just like the founding fathers did. Many of them were journalists and pundits in their time, writing newspapers, pamphlets, and other works that led directly to the popularity of sovereignty that allowed the American Revolution to occur. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Payne, and many others were prolific writers of political theory and editorial commentary long beforen they crafted the American government and became politicians. Thomas Jefferson once said that, given the choice between a free government and a free press, he would opt for the free press. Given the importance of the media in the birth of this nation, I do hope people realize that the media is a tool of the citizens, and perhaps the last line of defense for the people when one ideology controls all branches of the government. Unlike the other branches of government, the media needs no established checks and balances, as it naturally checks itself in the course of its duties. The media is not immune to itself, as the most recent election proved. Dan Rather's insufficient research and Fox News's financial ties to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were news items in their own right. Media Matters for America watches Bill O'Reilly, Moorewatch keeps an eye on Michael Moore. The media works as a check against itself, while providing the ultimate oversight for the people. What has the media done for us? Teapot Dome. Tammany Hall. World War II war profiteering. Joe McCarthy's illegal bullying. Watergate. FISA Law manipulation and domestic spying. All brought to light first by watchdog journalists, not the constitutional method of checks and balances.

People are easily led, not because they are stupid, Stephen, but because they often choose the comfort of validation over the effort of information. With so many media options to choose from, people can easily isolate themselves and will, far too often, immerse themselves in a sea of talking heads and pundits who make them feel good about themselves. The Fourth Estate is lost to the Second Self, and journalism becomes nothing more than a band-aid treatment for wavering self-esteem. We all lose when that happens, and therein lies the real problem.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.

Bill O'Reilly: Like an Old, Mean, Angry, Lying, Spiteful Boyscout

Okay, I know, I know. I've done O'Reilly to death here, but the letters keep showing up in the paper, and they just get crazier and crazier. This will be my last one though. Probably.

To the Editor:

It is apparent that the letterwriter who wrote about Bill O'Reilly, has not gotten his facts before writing in. He probably has never watched his show, and I bet he didn't even go to the Boypower Dinner!

He must be watching the "liberal" news shows, or going to the "liberal" blog Web sites that spread lies about Bill and have never watched his show, and that never tell the truth or both sides of the story.

Bill O'Reilly is: trustworthy -- he has only researched facts on his show (I know, I watch nightly he and his staff have done extensive research before airing any story and reports "both sides" of the story.

Loyal and helpful: has any other news journalist on TV tried to protect our children from sexual predators by urging all states to adopt "Jessica's Law" (if the reader is even aware of the law or Jessica)?

Most news agencies do not even report that kind of news, like exposing judges and making them responsible for their actions in giving sexual predators little or no jail time. Example: The judges in Vermont and Ohio.

Friendly, courteous, and kind: Bill doesn't tell people to "shut up," he tells them to stop "spinning" the facts.

He is also cheerful, brave, clean and reverent.

If we had more people looking out for us in the news world, we all would be better off! We need Bill's column in the Post Standard.

Debbie

Okay, see? See why I had to do this one? This isn't a letter of support, it's a creed of faith; it's a statement of worship. As far as Debbie is concerned, Bill O'Reilly isn't just a marginally-talented political entertainer with a penchant for manipulating the easily influenced. He's some sort of cross between Edward R. Murrow, John Wayne, and Jesus Christ. Beyond Debbie's obvious tendencies to embrace misinformation, this letter shows a frightening level of celebrity worship. I'm not going to pretend that this phenomenon is unique to the far-right, but it is exploding there. The uproar over the "liberal" press has proven to be nothing more than an advertising campaign for right-wing politainment and bloviating conservatives who care nothing for journalism, but do care about luring as large an audience as possible, focusing especially on those who are least likely to do any fact-checking research. It reminds me of mikey, who plagued my comments pages for a few days. By claiming his opinions were facts, ignoring actual statistical data and hard numbers, and reacting to any attempt to disprove his statements as if they comprised a personal attack against him, mikey was able to avoid taking part in any political debate whatsoever, always bringing the conversation down to the level of opinionated emotionalism. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, however, mikey couldn't hang up on me when I started outmaneuvering him. When finally cornered into defending his positions, he was forced to spout irrational, off-the-charts nonsense. Iraqis found executed in vans were terrorists killed by vigilante Iraqi citizens, according to mikey. Bush's lies over the NIE leaks were a trap he purposefully set for the media, to trick them into attacking him, mikey claimed. He's right, I'm wrong, I was told. Just like Bill O'Reilly, mikey didn't so much engage as he crafted an empty ideological shell. O'Reilly usually avoids being pushed into defending his batshit beliefs by tightly controlling the conversation. Still, he talks so much, the occasional slip in inevitable.

If Bill O'Reilly were just a journalist, there would be no reason for Debbie to write to the paper to defend him, and no reason for "leftists" like Keith Olberman and David Brock to constantly debunk him. Why does Debbie love Bill? Not because Bill is a great journalist. It's because Bill makes Debbie feel good about her antisocial, undefendable opinions. Bill O'Reilly is an easy alternative to critical thinking and self-analysis. That's why she defends him... by defending O'Reilly, Debbie is defending her right to be self-righteous about being an asshole.

Bill O'Reilly is not trustworthy. I have no idea how watching the show gives Debbie insight into the fact-checking done by his staff, outside of claims O'Reilly himself makes, which might, just possibly, be arguably biased. You would think that his crack fact-checkers would have discovered that there is no "Paris Business Review," a periodical that doesn't exist, but which O'Reilly has used to defend his boycott on France. They might have also discovered that the lyrically-changed version of "Silent Night" O'Reilly held up as an example of the "War on Christmas" was actually part of a play that included religious music and is often put on by church groups. Maybe I'm just a 'leftist', but I don't really think the problem lies with O'Reilly's research staff. I think O'Reilly is a fabulist and sensationalist, which explains not only his factual errors, but also Debbie's fanaticism.

Loyal and faithful? Well, to the established far-right, perhaps, but loyalty isn't always a virtue. Stormtroopers were very loyal to Darth Vader, but you didn't cheer for them (actually... maybe you did, Debbie). Trying to claim that Bill is some kind of superjournalist because he defends Jessica's Law is pretty ridiculous, though. Is there an easier, safer stance to take than defending children from sexual predators? Who is AGAINST defending children from sexual predators? That's not brave journalism, it's lazy pandering to the majority of Americans who, not surprisingly, don't support pedophilia.

Friendly, courteous, and kind? That just doesn't hold up.

He doesn't tell people to shut up? This video clip must be a bunch of 'leftist lies' then, huh?

Here are a few choice sound clips of Bill being courteous, respectful, and kind. Except not really.

You can like Bill all you want, but he certainly has proven himself capable of being a jerk. Trying to claim he's never been rude shows that you either ignore the facts or don't understand the commonly accepted definition of 'rude.' I can think of many more suitable role models for interpersonal behavior than Bill O'Reilly. Some of them are in prison.

Cheerful? At times, but even his staunchest supporters don't claim to love him for his sunny disposition. Brave? What has he done that exemplifies bravery? Clean? Well, admittedly, he does seem to have a fascination with sexual encounters in the shower, as evidenced by both his novel and the transcripts of his sexual harassment suit. This might actually make it more difficult to defend his reverence, however. Well, unless O'Reilly never wrote a novel, and was never sued for sexual harassment. Those might just be 'lies' spread by liberal news shows and liberal blog sites. Preach on, Sister Debbie.

What is Your Major Malfunction?

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the recent criticism against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. I believe the six retired generals of the United States Army who called for the resignation of the secretary have violated the seven Army values.

Criticizing a superior in command violates loyalty, respect, honor and integrity. I can understand someone saying, these generals are no longer under the command of Secretary Rumsfeld and are now just ordinary citizens. However, it does not set a good example for the military personnel currently serving under his command.

Josh

The thing is, I don't think anyone argues that the retired generals are 'just ordinary citizens.' They are experts and primary sources, and they have a much better perspective on military affairs than Josh, myself, or Donald Rumsfeld. It is for this reason that their input is of prime importance. Current military personnel are not able to be forthright about the mission, but retired generals can, and to suggest that they should not do so is to disparage a valuable asset to our national security.

I expect our military to be loyal to their country first, not to their civilian commanders. When the decisions and actions of the civilian commanders lead to the kind of disaster that Iraq has become, those commanders deserve to be held responsible by all parties, including those who were most directly affected. The outcry against these men has little to do with military protocol. Those who want to prolong the fantasy of a successful Iraqi occupation are angry that they now have opponents with whom they cannot argue on purely ideological terms. No one can realistically argue that these retired generals are uninformed idiots, liberal pacifists, or anti-administration secularists, the labels most commonly thrown around by nationalists to discredit the vocal anti-war crowd without having to actually discuss the reaity of the situation in Iraq. Their only reaction is to criticize the retired generals for the act of criticism itself, something that generals were criticized for not doing following Vietnam.

Bits & Pieces

I'm going to use excerpts from letters today, instead of one entire letter. I usually don't do this, but there are a few things I want to respond to, all buried in long, generally uninteresting letters. If something catches your eye, remember that you can read the letters in their entirety in the opinion section of the Post Standard online site, linked at the right.



The first bit is taken from a letter supporting Republican congressional juggernaut Jim Walsh. I don't deal too much with local politics here, but I will say that Jim Walsh is the only Republican I repeatedly refused to support, even when I was a Republican. Admittedly, however, this was mostly because I played soccer with his snot of a son, who pretty much acted as a walking definition of the phrase 'sense of entitlement.' The letter is basically a hodgepodge of blame, however, and is littered with inaccuracies that would mean little to those outside of the state. The letter ends as follows:

On a federal level the economy is good, unemployment is way down. Money is being spent but we are at war and we have had some major storms that are costing millions, if not billions. This is not a fault of either party. - L.E.

The problem with this is, it doesn't hold up to observable reality. The drop in unemployment is often touted as evidence of a strong economy, but if this were the case, one would expect confidence in the economy to rise on a national level. This doesn't pan out, however. Less than 37% of Americans feel optimistic about the economy, and even fewer trust the Republican Party to continue to handle the economy. Can this be blamed of the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina?

Well, blaming Katrina doesn't pan out. Katrina was a devastating storm, but the drain on the economy is certainly not unprecedented. While it may not be the worst strain, however, continued research continues to suggest that there might be someone to blame for the increased strength of hurricanes. Peer-reviewed studies show that global temperature increases have warmed the surface of the ocean, which can be shown to cause stronger, more dangerous hurricanes. The average summer surface temperatures of the world's oceans have risen steadily, almost a full degree Celsius since 1970, with the North Atlantic showing the most dramatic increase. Much more dramatic, however, is the effect a few degrees can have on hurricanes; in 1970, less than 20% of hurricanes reached category 4 or 5. In 2005, category 4 and 5 storms comprised almost 40% of hurricanes. Category 1 hurricanes, once the most frequent, are now the rarest. When one considers that the Bush Administration has hired aides, lacking any science degrees whatsoever, to edit empirical data out of studies to lessen the evidence of global warming, one has a difficult time calling this a nonpartisan issue. The corporate interests of the far right continue to mock global warming as false science, despite the fact that there has never, not once, been a peer-reviewed study of global warming that did not find overwhelming evidence of human activities leading to global rise in temperatures. While many on the left tend to be a bit too apocalyptic about the issue, at least they are willing to confront the problem from a scientific perspective. More and more, I find myself unable to excuse the responsibility of the far-right over environmental issues.

I'm not even going to touch trying to claim that the war in Iraq 'is not a fault of either party,' especially in light of recent reports that the Bush administration was provided with intelligence that strongly suggested that Iraq had no WMDs or nuclear program, and that intelligence was ignored and never presented to Congress, despite the claims of fanatical war advocates that 'Congress had the same intelligence the President had.' Congress had the evidence the President gave them, and a lot of good intelligence was omitted.

So, yes, there are problems affecting the economy. Am I willing to let the Republican administration dodge their responsibility? Absolutely not. When your party controls every branch of the government, you are responsible for the majority of decision. When things go wrong, blaming the minority party is just lazy.



The next bit is pretty self-explanatory:

The Post-Standard is not a "leftist" newspaper? Including Paul Boucheron's April 20 letter, there are five that are anti-war and anti-President Bush. Including the always inspiring Paul Krugman's, "Pearls of Wisdom."

Zero in support of the war on terrorism or in praise of the current administration. Paul, that's pretty much the way it goes. We right-wing "war mongers" occasionally get a letter printed, but you folks get the most. - Jack

Well, no shit, Jack. Syracuse is predominantly Democratic. Why would it surprise you that there are more letters that show left-wing leanings than right? Given that national support of the President is at 33%, as reported by the network that most vigorously supports him, is it surprising that there are fewer and fewer people supporting him in an area that didn't even vote for him in 2004? Blaming the paper is stupid... just a year ago, pro-war letters were constantly printed. It's the reason I started this blog in the first place.

Maybe the paper prints fewer pro-war letters because they get fewer pro-war letters. Given local and national sentiment, this should be expected. This kind of thing is probably the second strongest catalyst, after corruption, behind my abandoning the Republican Party. When things haven't gone their way, they've become a bunch of whiners, and frankly, it's embarrassing.



I'll provide a little background for the next excerpt. Following the cancellation of the Duke lacrosse season, due to the rape scandal that has brought to light a culture of entitlement and superiority within the team and on campus, Duke players wrote letters of interest to other Universities, ready to jump ship to get the chance to play elsewhere. Syracuse University athletics director Daryl Gross announced that the Syracuse lacrosse team would not be accepting any of the suspended Duke players.

Mr. Gross' reasoning for not considering Duke players or even recruits is ludicrous. I am not even a lacrosse fan, but the responses of Daryl Gates sound juvenile.

"I think it would be inappropriate" to even consider transfers from Duke? Why?

Transferring is a common practice among most schools across the country. Mr. Gross' reasoning that these players choose Duke in the first place, therefore we should not accept them, is childish...

... Also, Mr. Gross is clumping all Duke players in as guilty by association. I understand not wanting to consider those charged, but what about the other 44 players? - Erin

Of course, Erin completely misinterprets Gross's reasons for refusing to accept Duke lacrosse players. It's far from juvenile... Gross feels that the members of Duke's lacrosse team have been punished as a team. It was not simply the rape at Duke that caused the suspension, but the malicious culture surrounding the team, made evident by the rape, the accounts of witnesses, and intercepted e-mails. Part of being on a team is accepting responsibility as a team, and the team was held accountable and properly punished. Those seeking to play elsewhere are attempting to dodge their responsibility. Schools that accept those players are basically undercutting the punitive actions of Duke and, by default, condoning the actions of the team. Gross has made clear that Syracuse will not be doing so.

The concept of taking responsibility may seem juvenile to Erin, but I would argue that the players did plenty of acting juvenile on campus, enjoying a climate of appeasement that led to the rape of a woman by three members of the team. Accepting responsibility and respecting the punishment handed down to them may be the first mature thing many of these players have done in a long time.



Finally, I need to point out that unlike the rest of the letters today, this next one is shown here in its entirety. Nothing has been left out... at least as far as the published letter goes.

To the Editor:

Everybody is acquainted with Alice in Wonderland. How about a news story that fits our time? For its title, I suggest: Malice in Blunderland.

Phil

And thus is Jack's theory, that letters to the paper are in any way filtered, debunked.

Buying Sexual Identity Insurance from Dear Abby

Today's tidbit comes from, of all place, today's "Dear Abby" Column.

Dear Abby:

My husband, "Ron," and I are at odds over parenting out 7-year-old son, "Brett." My husband is very domestic. He cooks like a world-class chef and does more housework than any man I know of.

I have read Dr. James Dobson's books on family. He clearly states that a father should be the manly role model for the son, to prevent the son from being homosexual.

I'm concerned that Brett will learn feminine ways from my husband and turn out to be gay.

How can I convince Ron that he needs to teach Brett the more manly things in life?

- Worried Mom in Florida

Wow. It's rare that you see such a glaring example of people believing the dubious teachings of the religious right instead of the obvious truths that surround them.

Worried Mom's husband cooks and cleans. She's worried that if her son sees her husband cooking and cleaning, he'll acquire those 'feminine' habits as well, and 'turn out' to be gay. Worried Mother needs to be smacked out of her stupor and reminded that her husband, who cooks and cleans, is not gay.

This is why people like Dobson are dangerous. The problem with almost all life-advice writers is that they assume one system will work for everyone. In the case of Dobson's version of psychology-meets-biblical-interpretation, however, you've got people who believe in the Bible, which is fine, but also believe hacks like Dobson because he claims that his answers come from the Bible, even if those answers fly in the face of the reality that surrounds them every day.

Worried Mom evidently didn't think that "Ron" was too feminine to marry. She recognized that his penchant for cooking and doing housework had no connection to his sexual preference, and fell in love with him. Now, she's jeopardizing her obviously comfortable domestic situation because James Dobson told her that a boy who grows up thinking it's okay for a man to cook and clean will be gay. The ignorance of this is obviously stunning, but my point is, she got far enough with it to write Dear Abby. She must have discussed it with friends and family as well. How is it that nobody has made clear to her the obvious flaws in Dobson's theory? She lives with a perfect example of why Dobson is full of shit, and granted she should recognize it on her own, but as she's failed to employ basic analytical thought, how has no one pointed it out to her?

Of course, Dobson's theories on sexuality are easily refuted, as they are made up of distorted information built around convenient scapegoats, though certainly it should shock no one that the religious right ignores science in favor of dogmatic fantasy. Despite what Dobson claims, the jury is most definitely still out on what 'causes' homosexuality. It is irresponsible for him to claim otherwise just given the fact that no definitive conclusion has been reached, but even more so when one weighs in the most recent peer-reviewed studies on homosexuality. (See the American Psychological Association's resource page for unpoliticized information. The majority of the information available is highly politicized, unreviewed, and is regarded as dubious science.) There tends to be little correlation between the domestic dispositions of parents in the eventual sexual identity of their children, and even the children of openly gay parents are no more likely to be gay, something that flies in the face of Dobson's theories about parental modeling of sexual identity. In fact, the only place you see a statistically relevant deviation is with fathers that are 'uber-masculine', whose male children are slightly more prone to being gay. I would argue that in these cases, the boys are not more likely to be homosexual, but simply more likely to be open about it, as they are forced to confront their sexuality head on as they realize that their fathers present a standard they have no chance of meeting. Regardless, however, of what causes the occasional fluctuations in the statistics, the data simply does not support the notion that parents with less conventional domestic situations are more likely to have gay children.

The worst aspect of this widespread misinformation is that it fosters parents with whom gay children can not be honest. Obviously Worried Mom is disgusted by homosexuality, seeing it as something to actively prevent, despite there being no proven way to do so. Of course, there is some chance that "Brett" will be gay; conservative estimates give him about a 3% chance, less conservative estimates run as high as 11%. If "Brett" is gay, will he be able to be honest with his mother about his sexual identity? Likely he will not, and will endure years of isolation, loneliness, and shame, factors that contribute to the much higher rate of suicide among gay teenagers. The unconditional love of the parent is trumped by false science and hackneyed pseudoreligious dogma. Once again, we find the fanatic Christians abandoning the actual teachings of Christ to create a culture of human judgment, exclusion, dishonesty, and hatred. It is because this culture of ignorance oozes into the mainstream consciousness that assholes like Fred Phelps can even exist.

James Dobson is a dubious psychiatrist with a talent for media manipulation. He has made a fortune by spreading disinformation to a public hungry for easy answers that give them a false sense of control instead of the more difficult answers reality presents. I'm sick of hearing people dance around the issue in an attempt to be nonconfrontational. I don't care that many people respect him as a spiritual man. Plenty of people respected Charles Lindbergh as an aviator, but that didn't make his anti-Semitic, nazi-sympathetic politics any more palatable. James Dobson doesn't deserve to be taken seriously just because he claims to speak for Christians. He doesn't speak for this one, and criticism of the poison he spreads is not criticism of Christianity.

I won't print Abby's response... you'll have to visit a site that pays to run her column for that. I will say that while she appropriately dresses Worried Mom down for paying more attention to James Dobson than her own husband, she spoils it by implying that 'with luck' "Brett" won't turn out to be gay. I don't hope "Brett" is straight for his mother's sake. I hope he's straight for his sake. Nobody should have to feel rejected by ignorant parents. Not even if James Dobson says so.

Say WHAT??!!

Nothing much to comment on today... I should do a Valerie Plame piece, but I'm tired. Instead, I'll just share something that happened to me today.

The following is a full transcript of a phone call I received while at work. The number was local, but the accent was deep southern.

Me: Hello?

Man: Yeah, I'll take fifteen computers and a faggot.

Me: Excuse me?

Man: I want fifteen computers and a faggot.

Me: Uh... who is this?

Man: Your father.

Me: I don't think so...

Man: Aw, shit, I got the wrong number.

*click*

I'm usually pretty quick, but I simply couldn't respond to any of this conversation. I was shocked, offended, confused and amused all at once, and the combination kept me from asking the obvious questions until it was too late.

I would give almost anything to hear where this conversation went once he dialed the correct number.

If I Poke a Hole In My Own Waterbed, Is It Still a Leak, or Just a Disclosure?

To the Editor:

As I was reading your editorial page in the April 14 issue, I noticed Ellen Goodman's column, "When 'manliness' goes awry," and started to read it. But not for long.

In the second paragraph, I came across two glaring errors: "George W. Bush himself approved the leaking of classified intelligence...." It's not credible to believe that Ms. Goodman, given her profession, doesn't know that President Bush declassified the intelligence report and authorized its use before it was widely released.

Thus, no "leak," because the information wasn't "classified intelligence."

John

Why is it that every time something comes down the wire that doesn't work for ardent supporters of the President, they turn to the strategy of twisting semantics? Nobody denies that the President can declassify information. He can, although in this case, the order to leak the information, according to Libby's testimony, occured ten days before the information was declared declassified on July 18th. If he chose to release NIE information to the press, that was within his power. What is at question is not the legality of the President's actions, but the ethics of the matter.

Powers granted to the President are granted to him for use in serving the people of the United States, not his own political interests. If the President chooses to release classified information simply to advance his own agenda, or to discredit those who disagree with him, he is misusing the powers granted to him by the people. Sure, Bush claims he released the information to give people an 'accurate' account of the WMD situation in Iraq, but that begs the question: Why wasn't the entire NIE report released, instead of only select passages taken out of context? More salient is Libby's testimony, which states in no uncertain terms that the orders to leak NIE information were part of a strategy to discredit Joe Wilson's criticism of the administration's intelligence. It was a purely political move. Of course, it turns out Joe Wilson was right, but ultimately, that's not the point. George W. Bush used his power of declassification for the sole purpose of damaging the reputation of a political rival. I have absolutely no doubt that the fanatical right has no problem with this... they support any power taken by the President, no matter how unethical or underhanded, if it builds the administration's power. Frankly, though, they should just grow a set and own their opinions. Bush can not do anything that these folks will criticize. Okay, fine. Own up to the fact that you'd rather see the president retain power than act ethically. That's a valid political position. Embrace it, and stop toying with semantics.

A "leak," by the way, does not refer only to classified information. A leak is any information that gets to the press by unconventional means. Administration staffers have leaked everything from the topic of cabinet meetings to the mood of the president. These aren't examples of classified information, but they are leaks that the president has railed against in the past. Claiming that only classified information makes a leak flies directly in the face of the Bush's own comments about the danger of other leaks that did not involve classified intelligence. It's also the convenient semantics of the hour, though, and we all know which the fanatic right will choose.

"Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of . . .that. . . where a lot of people leak, and I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information." - President Bush, 10/7/03

As you can see, Bush himself has mentioned he dislikes leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. Bush obviously believes that leaks come in both classified and unclassified flavors. It then becomes difficult to support his actions by holding up a definition that Bush himself obviously doesn't accept.

Whether or not you think the President can employ his granted powers for purely political purposes, this incident certainly calls into question Bush's integrity. Granted, he didn't have much left, but this time, the dishonesty is particularly egregious. When originally asked about the NIE leaks, Bush put on an act of outrage and portrayed a sense of betrayal. He spoke of the dangers of leaking information, and said that he would get to the bottom of the leak. he asked that anyone, inside the administration or without, provide him with any information they might have on the source of the leak.

". . .if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . And so I welcome the investigation. . . I have told our administration people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth." - President Bush, 10/30/03

Of course, now those clips bearing a striking resemblance to early videos of Susan Smith, begging the man who'd kidnapped her children to please return them, while she knew full well that her children were strapped into their carseats at the bottom of a lake. The problem here is actually less that Bush ordered the leaks, and more that he spent days afterwards pretending to be shocked and angry at the leaker. Again, if you think it's fine for Bush to purposefully fool the media and the public to shift blame away from himself, that's fine. Just be willing to accept your feelings about it. You're Machiavellian. You're calculating. You want Bush to maintain power more than you want a president who acts with integrity. Why do you have to mask your feelings with vocabulary games?

Hello, Service Men and Women!

Wow. I have absolutely no idea what is bringing so many visitors from the military to this site today. I'm glad you're here, however, and please let me take a moment to thank you for your dedicated service.

Please know that I welcome comments and criticism here, so if you'd like to provide feedback, please feel free to comment on any entry, or to email me at zafrod@yahoo.com. That goes for everyone, of course.

You Say Tomato, I Say Unrestrained Hubris

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense." - George W. Bush

No, you work for us. We're the deciders, you arrogant son of a bitch.

Apathy Kills Democracy (again)

A little something from Op-Ed today:

To the Editor:

In America, we have anti-military people who are trying to undermine our military forces everywhere. Let us review some of the enemy within.

Bill Clinton dodged the draft and demonstrated against America while in England during the Vietnam War. Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, at age 18 walked into his draft physical with a set of X-rays, walked out with a bad back deferment and spent most of the next year on the slopes in Aspen, Colo.

John Kerry came home from the Vietnam War and joined Jane Fonda in demonstrations against America. Wesley Clark was personally booted out of the Army by the secretary of defense.

The Democratic Party is the Blame America Party. The liberal Democrats want us to be unsuccessful in Iraq.

We have the anti-American Syracuse Peace Council who undermined our troops during the Vietnam War. Now, this organization is undermining our troops in Iraq.

It seems this organization can never be on the side of the United States. In the past the council sponsored a visit by Pete Seeger, who is anti-American.

Rudolph

Okay, okay, yeah, I know, this is a horrible letter. It's terribly unorganized and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. It's important to recognize this type of person, though, because Rudolph is like a lot of people who aren't critical thinkers. Basically, Rudolph has just taken a handful of the things he's heard from the right-wing media and thrown them into a letter to the paper. This is pure, unpolished regurgitation. There are a lot of people like this out there, and plenty of them vote. The implications are frightening.

I'm sure I don't have to pick apart these weak arguments too viciously for people who read this space. Chances are you agree with me, or at least you've heard better arguments responded to before. Still, something in me won't let it go without taking a few jabs.

First of all, if somebody tells you that someone else is anti-American, and that person isn't actively seeking to blow up a national landmark, you need to question the integrity of the people you listen to. Being anti-war isn't anti-American. America isn't just one big military cause (yet). Dissent isn't anti-American; dissent is the basis of a strong democracy. None of the people Rudolph mentioned in his letter are anti-American; not even Jane Fonda, though Rudolph seems to take it as read that just associating with Fonda proves a lack of patriotism. Jane Fonda made some bad choices during the Vietnam War - mistakes she has owned up to and apologized for. George W. made some mistakes in his past too, like driving drunk and developing a cocaine habit, but that's okay... those were just harmless muck-ups. The people Rudolph likes to listen to love to point out the past mistakes of their political foes, but are quite forgiving when it comes to their own people. Integrity means nothing to them.

Why is it that Rudolph is so critical of the military records of people he disagrees with politically? Sure, some of Rudolph's information is patently untrue. (Howard Dean was a little too busy to spend all his time skiing, as that would have left precious little time to finish medical school, no matter how virulently Rush Limbaugh might want to believe otherwise.) More telling, however, is the implied notion that Republican leaders have more military clout. We all know what Bush's Vietnam record looks like, or rather, doesn't look like. What about the military records of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice... not a minute of military service between them. It's actually easier for Rudolph to dismiss the distinguished service of John Kerry for his post-war activities than it is for him to question the complete lack of service by the people he's being told are nearly politically divine.

Rudolph, you have to understand that the Democratic Party, despite all those bumper stickers your favorite radio hosts are trying to sell you, is not the Blame America Party. Right now, the Democratic Party is working hard to be the Accept America's Responsibility Party, and they sure as hell shouldn't be ashamed of it. Now, don't get me wrong... they haven't convinced me to switch fully yet. I switched from Republican to Independent, to a large extent because the Republican Party seems very busy blaming everyone but themselves for our current economic situation, our pending health crisis, and the failure that has become of the occupation of Iraq, not to mention their own scandals and corruption. Economic problems are overblown by the media, and things are fine, and if there are problems, we can scapegoat illegal immigrants. Health care in America is strong, even if millions of Americans, including children, are without any health care whatsoever, and drug policy has to favor pharmaceuticals and insurance companies to keep the economy healthy, and our private health care is better than all of the socialized programs in the rest of the developed world, even if it keeps us at the same level of medical efficiency enjoyed in places like Cuba. The situation in Iraq is the fault of the media, who won't report (or can't find) enough good news in Iraq, and the fault of protesters, and the fault of Iran, and if there are real problems with the occupation itself, they are tactical errors by the troops and not strategic errors. You know what, Rudolph? I'm sick of hearing this administration pass the buck. They refuse to take responsibility for anything, and it's both embarrassing and infuriating. It's not about blame, it's about buckling down and facing reality. The Democratic Party seems more willing to take on the realistic responsibilities we have to face, and as long as that's the case, they will receive my support. I was raised to believe that good people aren't afraid to face their mistakes, roll up their sleeves, and fix the problems without causing further harm to anyone else. I refuse to support leaders who believe that responsibility is a thing to avoid, and who mask their irresponsibility with mock patriotism and the blood of American soldiers. Those young men and women fighting for this nation are too damn important to be misused, and regardless of why we went in, it is absolutely incumbant on those responsible to be willing to realisticaly and humbly assess their own decisions. Ninety-nine percent of our fighting men and women will go and put their lives on the line for whatever we, as a nation, deem important enough to ask them to fight for. That's something to be proud of, not something to be taken advantage of by rich, pasty faced men who've never shot anything but elderly Texas lawyers.

I guess my biggest concern about this letter, and about people like Rudolph, is that they seem to represent a growing faction in America. There is not a whit of critical thinking in Rudolph's letter, which he wrote as his best argument for his political convictions. I worry that the marketing of politics has turned a sizeable fraction of the population against true democracy, supporting instead a system of nationalistic autocracy in the guise of representative republicanism. Rudolph seems to hold lack of military service up as a reason to not support the Democrats, but is forgiving of the same offense by those whose political fitness has been most effectively advertised to him. Is there any way to break this cycle of ignorance? Is there any way to make Rudolph think for himself, and to stop confusing politically biased bumper sticker slogans with rational discourse? These aren't hypothetical questions. I really hope the answer is yes, but for the life of me, I can't think of a way to convince those who have chosen laziness to return to the difficult job of running a democracy.

Top Brass Imply 9/11-Iraq Link; Nobody Shocked

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93." - an Op-Ed Piece written by retired Lt. Gen. John Crosby, former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, former assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force; retired Maj. Gen. Buron Moore, U.S. Air Force, who was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm; and retired Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, former deputy commander of the U.S.. Army, Pacific.

I can't figure out, for the life of me, why so many servicemen think that our presence in Iraq is an act of revenge for Iraq's and Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It couldn't possibly be because blatantly emotion-jarring misinformation filters down through the top brass, could it?

Every time I listen to the tapes of United 93, I wonder why we decided to waste our time and effort in Iraq while leaving the job in Afghanistan unfinished and letting Osama Bin Laden off the hook. That's just me though.

Defending Dishonesty, the O'Reilly Way

To the Editor:

A recent opinion from David Pasinski disapproved of having Bill O'Reilly speak at the Boypower dinner because "he doesn't represent either the best of journalistic ethics or a role model for scouts." I support O'Reilly's appearance.

Bill O'Reilly may express opinions, but the viewer knows they are his opinions. That is better than the CBS/Dan Rather brand of "journalistic ethics" where political opinions are expressed using forged documents, or other media outlets that express opinions in a less obvious manner.

I think we should teach our children to emulate the man who lived 2,000 years ago, was born in Bethlehem and died on a tree in Golgotha.

Beyond that, some people may have some characteristics that may be worth emulating, but we should encourage our children to think for themselves and be careful how much they emulate today's popular personalities.

I think the most important criteria for selecting a speaker is that the person supports the values the Boy Scouts try to teach. I suspect Bill O'Reilly supports these values, which is more than Syracuse University, since they stopped letting the Boy Scouts use the Carrier Dome for the Boypower dinner.

Paul

This is one of those letters that I really, really wanted to edit down... it's longer than it needs to be and really doesn't have very much to say. The only reason I printed the whole thing was so that nobody could say I'm unfairly editing letters to make my point.

The most laughable part of this letter is Paul throwing his support behind Bill O'Reilly's inclusion in the Boypower dinner, because 'the most important criteria for selecting a speaker is that the person supports the values' of the organization, but then saying that he 'suspects' Bill O'Reilly supports the values of the Boy Scouts. He admits he doesn't know for sure, but that doesn't stop him from throwing his full support behind O'Reilly, up to and including a letter to the newspaper. Now that's integrity.

Also, I wish Paul wouldn't make me throw in for Syracuse University... I deeply dislike the school. Regardless, saying that the University doesn't support the values of the Boy Scouts because it wouldn't compromise its dedication to nondiscrimination is about as valid as saying the Boy Scouts don't support the University's value of education because they wouldn't compromise their dedication to homophobia. The University made the right choice in sticking by its convictions in the face of a politically unpopular move.

Okay, all that aside, the real thing I want to tear into here is this part of the letter:

Bill O'Reilly may express opinions, but the viewer knows they are his opinions. That is better than the CBS/Dan Rather brand of "journalistic ethics" where political opinions are expressed using forged documents, or other media outlets that express opinions in a less obvious manner.

This might make my list of top ten ironic statements ever. It needs to be pointed out that while the far-right likes to keep bringing up the Dan Rather incident, there was never any evidence that the National Guard forms used in his reporting were forged. All evidence, in fact, points to the documents being authentic, but there is no way to absolutely verify them due to their age. It was a valid story, and the documents were only a small part of the evidence pointing to poor performance by Bush in the Air National Guard, but of course, for those with a personal stake in supporting the president, the story behind the story overshadowed the actual information. No surprise there, but if you're looking to be taken seriously, you should avoid comparing Bill O'Reilly favorably against Dan Rather.

Bill O'Reilly may indeed express opinions, but more importantly, he presents misinformation and fabrications as facts. He talks like a pundit, presents himself as a journalist, and lies like a white house press secretary.

Misinformation? You bet.

"They said they [9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, featured in the ad, and her late husband] voted for Bush [in 2000], but Bush opposed the 9-11 Commission -- which he didn't, by the way. He didn't oppose it. I mean, he had questions about it because he didn't want it politicized." - Bill O'Reilly

Of course, as reported by CBS News:

Mr. Bush said the investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is "the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, Bill didn't inform his viewers that this was 'his opinion.' much less that it is verifiably inaccurate.

Okay, okay, so Bill isn't always correct. But lies? That's a bit harsh, right?

"Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting... they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.'" - Bill O'Reilly, speaking to a Canadian representative regarding US military deserters in Canada

Now, numbers don't agree with Bill here. U.S. Census Bureau reports show that in February of 2004, when this aired, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, compared to $2.18 billion in February of 2002. That could just be misinformation, though, right? Well, sure, if The Paris Business Review was an actual periodical. It doesn't exist. There's no such thing. Look it up. You won't find it, and you won't find where Bill O'Reilly corrected himself. He just made it up. It's a figment of Bill O'Reilly's imagination, which would be fine if he weren't using it as a reference to publicly support false claims. Bill O'Reilly, you see, is a liar.

Of course, you still believe that Bill is a man of integrity, because he stands behind what he says, right? Just like when he responded to a listener who criticized him for calling for an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco.

"Wrong, sir. I gave Al Qaeda your address. That's just a jest. But here's some serious advice: Stay away from the far-left websites. They do not make you look smart." - Bill O'Reilly

Wrong? The caller was wrong? Wow, Bill, can we roll that original clip?

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. ... And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." - Bill O'Reilly

Sounds like the caller wasn't wrong at all. Sounds more like Bill stepped over the line and, instead of owning up to it, wants to make excuses. What a great example to be setting for those Boy Scouts.

Of course, Bill does a lot of railing against those 'far-left' websites (which, in O'Reilly terms, means any site that criticizes him) and with good reason. Those websites do a great job cataloguing the proliferation of misinformation and lies coming out of his mouth on a regular basis. It's no wonder he warns his listeners against visiting Media Matters for America... if they were to visit, they would find page after page devoid of any personal attack by Media Matters but filled with facts and real, verifiable information debunking O'Reilly's nonsense. O'Reilly hates them for doing what he can't do: that is, make a case for a position without inventing any 'facts' or misrepresenting anyone else. In response, he discredits them with the same kind of misinformation they take him to task for in the first place.

Bill O'Reilly is a hack, and he's poisonous to political discourse in America. That may be a personal attack against him, but unlike Bill, I don't pretend to avoid personal attacks. Bill deserves every ounce of misery his debunkers cause him.

Senators Never Write to the Post Standard

The following is an excerpt from a letter written to the New York Times by Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

There is no evidence that the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. The Senate Intelligence Committee pointed out in its 511-page report, which 17 Democrats and Republicans unanimously approved, that the intelligence assessments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were very declarative.
For instance, the N.I.E. said, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." Such forward-leaning assessments were prevalent in the N.I.E. Only later, through the committee's review, did we learn that these assessments were not supported by the underlying intelligence and were the result of flawed tradecraft and sloppy analysis.

Okay, let's pretend for a moment that Senator Roberts is being honest here. He's not, but let's not jump ahead. Even if this portrayal is accurate, how does the responsibility for 'flawed tradecraft and sloppy analysis' not fall squarely on the shoulders of the administration? If the administration received faulty intelligence information from its agents, then the administration is responsible for the agents and, by extension, the faulty information. Remember the famous sign on the President's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here?" It seems it has been replaced with a sign that reads "The Buck Better Never Make It This Far." It is embarrassing that the administration refuses to take any responsibility for the events that led to the Iraq invasion, and that, evidently, Senators are willing to let them off the hook this easily.

That said, Senator Roberts isn't just shifting blame, but he himself is guilty of exactly what he's claiming the President didn't do: manipulating evidence. Yes, the N.I.E. contained some claims that Baghdad likely possessed chemical and biological weapons. It also, however, downplayed the danger of Iraq's nuclear program, in general and in regards to certain specific details. Confiscated tubes that were supposedly meant for uranium enrichment where proven to be useless for that procedure. A reported deal between Iraq and Nigeria for yellowcake uranium was debunked and the rumors called 'dubious.' While some contact between low-level officials in Iraq and al Quaida had been observed, the report made clear that there was no evidence to support organized, high-level cooperation between the Hussein regime and al Quaida. The N.I.E. also stated that inspections were successful in containing the threat of Iraq and would continue to be effective if allowed to go on. After the administration had this account, Americans were told that Saddam had implemented an effective nuclear program, that he had ties to al Quaida and would supply them with nuclear weapons, that inspections were ineffective, and that the smoking gun could be a 'mushroom cloud.' The portions of the report that didn't support these claims was kept quiet and left unmentioned, much as they were in Senator Robert's letter. One quote, taken out of context, is supposed to support the Senator's sweeping claims, much as carefully chosen pieces of intelligence were used to paint Iraq's nuclear capacity in broad, ultimately inaccurate strokes.

Even more troubling is the blanket claim that "There is no evidence that the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime." This only a few days after documents were made public that showed Lewis Libby testified to the President himself authorizing the leak of sensitive, carefully selected N.I.E. information to counter the influence of Joe Wilson, who was (quite accurately, it turns out) publicly downplaying the danger of an Iraq nuclear threat. Did you catch that? There is court documentation ('evidence') that President George W. Bush ('the White House') ordered the surreptitious leaking of carefully selected excerpts from ('manipulated') the N.I.E. ('intelligence') to discredit with faulty logic Joe Wilson's reports, which claimed that the risk of an Iraqi nuclear program were little to none ('exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime'). This is on the court record. The only way evidence would need to get any stronger than this to warrant serious senate inquiry would be if the senate committees were run by weak-willed puppets of the administration...

Oh. Yeah.

The Boypower Conference: Surprisingly Antigay

What a great couple of months for ignorance in Syracuse. Following closely on the heels of Ann Coulter's visit to Syracuse University, Bill O'Reilly was here last night as the invited speaker at a Boy Scouts fundraiser dinner.

I stopped supporting the Boy Scouts years ago, after the local council decided they'd rather maintain their homophobic policies than maintain their offices and meeting areas at Syracuse University. I was a Boy Scout, and frankly I enjoyed the experience, but I'm simply not going to support an organization that embraces ignorance, much less one that seeks to pass ignorance down to the next generation of men. So I'm not going to reach a boil over the group inviting someone as polarizing as O'Reilly to speak at their fundraiser dinner. I've pretty much written off the Boy Scouts, and if membership numbers are any indication, so have a lot of others. (Evidently, they've been artificially padding their numbers for years to maintain funding levels.)

I can and will criticize O'Reilly for turning a speaking engagement at the Boy Scouts into a vehicle for his usual brand of vitriolic partisan ignorance. The Boy Scouts is an organization dedicated to building the character of young men. While they obviously maintain conservative values, they are ostensibly not a political organization. This must have been difficult to discern last night while O'Reilly attacked liberals, the ACLU, academics, and war critics.

Bill said that he's tired of 'traditionalists' like himself being labeled as bigots. Interesting.

That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier.

We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes--they're not going to do what they're doing now, all right, so people aren't going to die in the desert.

I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group.

-Bill O'Reilly

Maybe Bill isn't labeled a bigot because he's a 'traditionalist.' Maybe he's labeled a bigot because he's bigoted.

What kind of word is 'traditionalist,' anyway? What does that mean? It sounds like a word for conservatives to use to avoid using the word conservative. I'm not going to deny that America has proud traditions that one can stand behind, but we also have traditions of slavery, racism, prejudice and imperialism - you know, traditions that conservatives... excuse me, traditionalists want to bring back. You'll excuse me if I don't consider the term to be a strong marketing move.

Bill told the crowd of 2,000 that they were on his side, along with people who believe that the U.S. is "fundamentally a good country." Making up the opposing, 'bad' side are the ACLU, liberal newspapers, and "secular progressives" who believe that the nation is flawed and should be more tolerant and generous. Evidently, you can't believe that America is a fundamentally good nation without believing that it is a perfect, flawless nation. What Bill doesn't quite grasp is that a lot of us see America as a good nation led by people who, like everyone, are capable of mistakes and can be flawed. It's great that a group of young boys will start to polarize all political views before they even get a chance to think critically. Bravo, Boy Scouts.

Of course, Bill also played the local pandering card, telling the crowd that Syracuse University 'folded' because the Boy Scouts represents traditionalist values. Actually, Syracuse University has a solid antidiscrimination policy that includes discrimination against sexual identity, the Boy Scouts refused to follow it, and so they were told they would not be welcomed on campus. It had nothing to do with 'values.' It had to do with blatant discrimination. If the BSA wishes to discriminate, that's their choice, but they shouldn't expect to be welcomed for it. If they don't approve of the University's antidiscrimination policy, they shouldn't support the university with their presence. Of course, with the 'traditionalists,' a set of values is something you follow when it's convenient. They should be allowed to maintain their bigoted, discriminatory policies, but when the University upholds its values, it becomes the villain. "That's all the ACLU," Bill assured the crowd, despite the ACLU having nothing to do with the decision.

I wonder how many fathers sat through Bill O'Reilly's talk, recognizing the ignorance and maybe even feeling alienated by a ranting right-wing blowhard given an open microphone at a fundraiser for a character-building organization for boys, and just shook their heads quietly. There were plenty of wing-nuts involved in the Boy Scouts back when I went through, but there were many more rational adults who simply liked the structured character building the Boy Scouts offered. I imagine it hasn't changed that much. But these people put down $250 to have dinner with this asshole. That's $250 a person to support this kind of small-minded ignorance. How many other causes did they donate that much money towards in the last year? Probably not very many, if at all. I hold them ultimately responsible for not having the courage to remove themselves and their support for an organization that is supposed to build character, but uses their annual dinner as nothing more than an attempt to recruit a new generation of nationalist, easily-led men who fail to educate themselves on important issues and simply buy into the crap that people like O'Reilly sell. And I do mean sell... these young men may be the ones providing market share to Fox News ten years from now. O'Reilly and Fox News aren't selflessly giving their time and resources. They're investing it, with the hopes of a huge payout in the future. Way to go, dads.

Political views aside, was Bill a good choice for the character-building Boy Scouts? Well, he mentioned that the "real mess" that exists in Iraq isn't the fault of the United States. "We have to depend on the Iraqis," he said. Would Iraq be in this 'real mess' if America hadn't invaded and occupied it? No? Then, Bill, it is America's fault and America's responsibility. I consider taking responsibility to be a cornerstone to a strong character, but Bill evidently thinks these young boys should support our country marching into another nation, deposing the government, and then dropping all responsibility for the situation that ensues. Great character building, Bill.

Bill finished his talk by giving the audience some tips on how to settle out of court with a woman that one has harassed with raunchy, unsolicited telephone sex.

No, no, just kidding. That would have been inappropriate.

Southern Baptist University Bigoted; Nobody Shocked

University Expels Student For Being Gay

What is there for me to say about this? It’s all pretty cut and dried. Score another one for intolerant, insecure assholes masquerading as Christians.

Missing from the news report is this fascinating chunk of the University President’s statement:

There are places students with predispositions can go, such as San Francisco or the Left Coast, or to many of the state schools.

I think this is a real window into the President’s motives. A reference to the “Left Coast” makes it clear that the motives here were not actually religious in nature, but political. Of course, since Christ never spoke a word about homosexuality, that should be obvious.

"Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw from the University of the Cumberlands." – University Policy

(It should be noted that the student’s blog did not contain any references to sexual behavior at all. It mentioned that he was dating another young man. I wonder if any straight student who mentions dating on their blog is kicked out on the assumption that sexual behavior is taking place, as sex outside marriage gets qual billing with homosexuality.)

Interesting that homosexuality is considered inconsistent with Christian principles. I just checked again, to see if I could find anything in the Gospel denouncing homosexuality, but there’s nothing there. As usual, I did keep coming across passages about judging not, lest one be judged, and those without sin casting stones, and maybe not pointing out the mote in one’s neighbor’s eye while ignoring the large (perhaps intolerance-shaped?) log in one’s own. Nothing about homosexuality, though.

Maybe by Christian principles, they’re referring to the historic Old Testament law of Leviticus. If this is the case, I certainly expect that students would also be removed from the school for any of the following offenses:

Eating bacon. –Lev. 7:23, Lev. 11:7-8
Eating shellfish –Lev 11:12
Lying –Lev. 19:11
Profanity –Lev. 19:12
Sleeping with another student’s concubine –Lev. 19:20
Tattoos –Lev. 19:28
Buying the children of those known to you as slaves (strangers are okay) –Lev. 25:45

As long as students are being kicked out for all of these offenses, decried just as fervently as homosexuality in Leviticus, then I suppose they’re being consistent with Jewish law, which is admittedly the history that supports Christian law. Somehow, though, I get the feeling that you won’t find any ex-Cumberland students expelled for these things, and so one must assume that in actuality, the leadership at the University is simply made up of hypocritical, insecure assholes.

They are Southern Baptists… I suppose it’s difficult to be shocked. It might be less infuriating, however, if their Mission Statement didn’t include the following passage:

In the belief that freedom is the result of respect for truth and concern for humanity, University of the Cumberlands, through a traditional liberal arts program, attempts to foster in its students a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility toward mankind.

Evidently, a deepened responsibility toward mankind means excluding those who do not conform to your belief systems, and making base judgments about conditions you know nothing about, even if such cold isolationism contributes to the suffering of others. Very Christ like, Cumberlands. You should indeed be proud.

Okay, that needed to be said. This particular University should be ashamed. No way around it.

Now, that aside, this kind of makes me mad.

One of Johnson's close friends, Jennifer Roberts, a senior from Belfry, said "everybody on campus is extremely upset about this."

Then why are they attending this ass-backwards University in the first place?

The reason idiots like University President Jim Taylor can get away with ignorant moves like this is that there aren’t serious consequences. If the University can promote intolerance and ignorance and still maintain a full student body, why shouldn’t it? If you disapprove of written University policy, you shouldn’t be paying them tuition. If they get your tuition money next year, after standing by that policy of intolerance, you personally are giving your money to the cause of intolerance.

Every time you overlook bad policy simply because it calls itself Christianity, you personally are contributing to the bastardization of the faith. If you vote for Bush because he calls himself a Christian, but ignore his disastrous treatment of the poor and his promotion of preemptive violence, then you are acting against the spirit of the faith. If you send money to Pat Robertson because he is a Christian leader, ignoring his blasphemous claims of divine selection and calls for violence and hatred, then you are acting against the spirit of the faith. If you attend a University that claims to embrace Christian values, but enforces a policy of exclusion and intolerance, then you are acting against the spirit of the faith.

I think maybe I've focused a little too much on religion lately... I'm not sure why, exactly. It could be that a lot of the political morons have quieted down as Bush's poll numbers plummet, or it could just be an honest spike in people being terrible human beings under the guise of religion. Whatever it is, I'll try to maintain a balance.

Religious hypocracy aside, didn't Universities recently receive word that if they accept federal fundings, they must allow military recruiters on campus, regardlessof whether or not it conflicts with their values? If the University of the Cumberlands accepts federal funding (and I don't know that it does), should they not be expected to follow federal antidiscrimination laws? Just a thought.

Sunday School v. 2.0: Now 6 Days a Week!

I'm back from vacation a little earlier than planned, and I found this letter in the paper on the ride home. My wife says I'm not allowed to read the paper on vacation anymore.

To the Editor:

For five decades now, religion and its integration into schools has been an ongoing discussion and issue in the United States government and many courts of law. Education now extends beyond the simple teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

The First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" should not be a reason to keep religion out of schools.

As stated by Ronald Reagan in Dallas on Aug. 22, 1980, in his speech to a religious group, "When I hear the First Amendment used as reason to keep traditional moral values away from policy making, I am shocked. The First Amendment was written not to protect the people and their laws from religious values, but to protect those values from greater tyranny." This quote explains that the separation of state and church is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us, therefore giving us religious freedom and the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis.

Amanda

I've grappled with this subject before, but this particular letter set me off in fifty different directions. It's not a well-developed argument, to be sure, but the hubris involved in this type of statement makes me see red.

First of all, right off the bat, Ronald Reagan was not a constitutional scholar, Amanda. He was, if one cares to recall, an actor. That's not to say that his opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant; we did elect the man president twice. Likewise, however, there is no reason to hold Reagan up as the end-all and be-all of constitutional interpretation. As head of the executive branch, he was responsible for the enforcement, not interpretation, of law. This quote doesn't 'explain' anything other than Reagan's views on a long-established legal precedent. You can agree with him if you want to, but his opinion shouldn't be the basis for yours. Ronald Reagan had a love of jelly beans, as do I, but I'd hardly consider him an expert in candy making.

As to the actual content of the quote, it's not really applicable to your argument. Reagan was mostly pandering to a religious crowd and his religious base... while I don't suggest that Reagan's religious convictions were a scam, his actual policies did not reflect this level of fervor. He is also speaking specifically about moral values and policy making, not religious tenets and educational standards. The former is a much safer argument, frankly. Very few people can make an argument against traditional moral values having some role in legislation, as laws in a democracy reflect the aggregate of moral values within society. Sobriety, chastity, honesty, charity, and respect of property are all traditional moral values, and all are reflected to some degree within the law. America does not keep traditional moral values away from policy making. Of course, the laws are not designed to reflect the morals of any one person or set of beliefs, and while this is the basis of democracy, it is a source of consternation for many evangelical Christians who claim to be patriotic Americans, but in reality would like to see our democracy replaced with a theology, with laws based not on the cultural aggregate but instead on their very specific set of values. These are the people whose votes Reagan was garnering with the ultimately ambiguous passage you quoted.

As to the second half of the quote, well, it's a baseless claim that is overused by people who really, really want to believe that it is some sort of universal truth and not simply one possible view of constitutional interpretation. The truth is, this was a topic of fierce debate not only fifty years ago, but a full two hundred and twenty years ago. The argument Reagan makes, and that you make through Reagan, is the argument made by James Madison: that religion should be protected from the government, but that the government needed no protection from religion. Certainly Madison's was an important voice in the conception of American democracy, but it was certainly not the only, or even the loudest, voice. Jefferson disagreed fervently with Madison on this matter, as with most others, and argued that religion is poisonous to government and needed to be reigned in. Ultimately, no reference to religion was made in the constitution itself, and a compromise was reached for the bill of rights in the form of the rather ambiguous first amendment. That compromise was furthered early in the work of the Supreme Court, with a precedent for a separation of church and state, a move intended to protect each from the other.

Regardless of how you feel about it, the precedent was set. You may not like it, but it's foolish to argue that you're making an argument of original intent, or calling for a return to the 'good old days.' Remember that the founders of American Democracy were products of the Age of Enlightenment, and if you think that as a fervent Christian you experience intellectual prejudice now, you don't realize how easy you have it. There is no constant slide from conservatism to liberalism in American history. People who want a return to the 'good old days' generally mean the fifties; they do not mean, for instance, the twenties. It is empty rhetoric to simply call for a return to traditional values, as those traditional values have swung back and forth many times during American history.

All of this aside, however, the notion that Christianity is subject to any form of tyranny in the United States is absolutely absurd. 81% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. We are in the vast majority. We simply cannot be marginalized in those kinds of numbers. Christians who claim that they are persecuted in the United States come of as selfish, whining, spoiled brats who see any refusal of their wishes to be some sort of unjust affront. Christians need no protection from the government, because in a democracy the government is the people, and better than four out of every five people here are Christians. Christians, for the most part, are the government. What evangelical Christians have a difficult time understanding is that most Christians have no desire to live under a Christian theocracy. The problem is not that Christianity is under attack... it remains firmly rooted as the most influential belief system in the nation. Ignorance is under attack, and thankfully so; if these evangelical Christians wish to no longer be under attack, they can stop pursuing goals that embrace intolerance, hubris, and self-righteous arrogance, values that are not only unnecessary for following the Christian faith, but are actually discouraged by it.

Your final statement is absolutely correct, Amanda, though I don't think you meant it quite that way.

"...the separation of state and church is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us, therefore giving us religious freedom and the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis."

Exactly, Amanda. The separation of church and state is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us. Not us Christians, Amanda, but us Americans. By allowing the introduction of religious tenets and practices in the schools, you are taking that right away from the 19% of the population that is not Christian, as well as the large number of Christians who believe that religious instruction should not be a public matter. And which version of Christianity should be introduced to schools, Amanda? Would evangelicals be happy if their children received a catholic education? Would Calvinist denominations be okay with being taught a Lutheran doctrine of non-predetermination? Who would decide these things? And what would happen if the instructor isn't Christian? Would you be comfortable with your child being encouraged to read the Quran, or to reflect on past incarnations, or to cast a circle of protection on themselves? Somehow, I doubt it. I bet you'd consider that religious tyranny. Odd, then, that you can't see that forcing others into an environment where only your beliefs are respected is just as tyrannical. We do have the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis, but that right is taken away from children whose faith is discredited and supplanted as part of their public education.

I'm It?

Technically, I'm still on vacation, but Amy at RQ tagged me, and as Amy is probably my new favorite on-line person thanks to an extremely kind review of one of my most heartfelt entries here, I will take a break from doing nothing.

What is your favorite word?
I'm just not sure I have one... Words in general are just great.

What is your least favorite word?
Emo. I found out about this word recently, and as far as I can tell, it's a derisive word for teenagers on the brink of developing empathy and becoming real human beings. I'm not a big fan of peer-based discouragement of good behavior.

What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Passion, Empathy, and Honesty, respectively.

What turns you off?
Arrogance and cruelty.

What is your favorite curse word?
Batshit. This should come as no surprise to regular readers here. Such a great word.

What sound or noise do you love?
Everybody says it, but yeah, rain is fantastic. Especially in a tent. I mean when I'm in a tent, and it's raining outside. Rain in a tent sucks.

What sound or noise do you hate?
Cell phones ringing in public places, and the voice of that lead singer of Rush.

What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
I would love to learn to pilot aircraft, but to do so for a living might be too much pressure.

What profession would you not like to do?
Computer programmer. Back when I started college in the mid 90's, everybody was shocked that I wasn't going into programming. "You're so good with computers," they'd say. Meanwhile, I couldn't imagine a more frightening vision of hell than 40-50 hours a week of staring at code.

If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Thanks for trying to help down there."

I'm not sure I have anyone to tag. Dammit. I need to meet more bloggers.

Keepin' It Light

"We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest." - George W. Bush, 10/9/2001

Okay, so President Bush, the guy who acted all incensed that the Valerie Plame leak had originated somewhere in the White House and assured the nation that he wouldn't stand for people in his administration leaking sensitive information, was the person who approved the leak in the first place. According to court documents Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Dick Cheney's chief of staff when he wasn't playing the wacky neighbor on an 80's sitcom, admitted that the stated reason for the leak was to offset Joe Wilson's criticism of the war. It was a purely political move.

This 'debate' has been raging ever since Lewis "Skippy" Libby was indicted, and while some Republican legislators appear to be taking it seriously, I don't assume for a minute it will make vitriolic Bush supporters so much as flinch. Sure, Bush okayed the release of classified information for political gain. So what? If you're still supporting Bush, you absolutely have to believe, or at least convince yourself, that it's perfectly fine to act unethically if it means political advancement. There's no question about what happened here. The only question is whether or not ethics is more important than power, and the obvious answer from the far right is a resounding, "NO." These people are disgusting.

There's not really much more to say about this incident. Lewis "Boner" Libby has laid it all out, and now instead of discussing the political implications, people will just draw party lines and toe them obediently. So, since I go on vacation this weekend and want to start relaxing instead of working myself into a lather, I'm going to break out of my usual mold and have a little fun. I don't really do much personal blogging here, but I feel like it today, and since nobody is paying me for my time, I'm going to do what I want. If you're not interested, come back Wednesday, when I'm sure I'll be well-rested and ready to rant again.

I'm going to do a 10-song random play on the iPod and comment on each song. Totally random, no skips, so if something embarrassing comes up (and it's perfectly likely, given my song list) I'll have to fess up to it. The only things I'm leaving out of rotation are my audiobooks. This isn't an original idea... I got it from the Onion's AV Club, although to be fair, they do this to celebrities, so their version is interesting.

Without further ado...

1. Toto - Africa: Wow. I guess we're not going to slowly work our way into the embarrassing stuff. Okay, here's the deal. This song was on almost every mix tape made for me by ex-girlfriends and female friends right up through college. I have no idea why, but it was always there, whether it was packed between the Eagles, Morrisey, the Beastie Boys, or They Might Be Giants. These tapes came from people with vastly diverse musical tastes, but this song was always there. So I've become attached to it. It's nostalgic for me.

2. Barenaked Ladies - Old Apartment: Great song. I actually came to love BNL later than most of my peers. This was the first song of theirs I really got into. I think it was a random download from Napster back in the day (I've since legally purchased it, RIAA. Put your lawyers away.) Also, I saw these guys on their Christmas tour over the holiday season, and I can honestly say I've never seen a band perform live that seemed to have so much fun performing.

3. Johny Vegas - Copper and Gold: I'm not really into the local music scene, but Johny Vegas is the exception. These guys were a Central New York band that really should have broken out, but never quite did. This was once my favorite song of theirs, about a thoughtless prick who has no idea how badly he's treating his girlfriend. Since then, songs like "Waving", "Be the One to Say", and "Plan" have grown on me more, but this is still a great song. If you want to hear something different that nobody you know has ever heard of, see if you can get hold of Johny Vegas's albums Dog and Super Cool American. (Oooh, ooh, I just found a site with free MP3s. Check here.)

4. They Might Be Giants - Mrs. Train: I have about 450 songs in my playlist, and almost 50 are by They Might Be Giants. I have loved these guys since 1988, and the love has never worn off; yes, I know this labels me as something of a nerd, but that label no longer bothers me. They've put out a ridiculous number of albums, and yet never sound redundant or tired. This song is really fun. If you've never heard it, it's difficult to explain, but the song slowly accelerates with a tight, rapping cymbal and snare drum keeping the beat, and sounds very much like a train leaving the station, but not in a dumb kids-song kind of way. I can't explain it. Just listen to it.

5. Ben Folds - Tiny Dancer: I really enjoy Ben Folds, and this Elton John cover is definitely a fun addition to his own music. The thing about Ben is that... well, he can be a bit of a misogynist at times. His songs are hauntingly beautiful, but often I come away feeling a little disturbed by how he portrays women. That's not at all present here, so I can just focus on his voice and keyboard prowess.

6. The Bogmen - The Big Burn: I like the Bogmen's first album, "Life Begins at 40 Million," a lot, but I'm not a big fan of their later stuff. This is the first song on the album and really opens it well. I have no idea what it's about, but I love the line, "That's life in a microwave/Sign today/You can read it in the Dead Sea Discs/Read it in the Dead Sea Discs." These guys do percussion better than almost any band I can think of.

7. Avenue Q Original Broadway Cast - Schadenfreude: I finally got to see Avenue Q in Las Vegas this past Christmas Eve. What a fantastic show. It was weird to see it in Las Vegas, though, where the audience was, I have to assume, much older and much stodgier than a Broadway crowd. People actually walked out during the final song that takes a poke at Bush. Even funnier was the young couple behind us, who we overheard say to the older couple next to them, "I'm a corporate attorney, and my husband is a software engineer. We're both 26, so I think we're really this show's intended audience." I don't care how old they are, they are not the ones Avenue Q is speaking to, and this song perfectly illustrates why. If you haven't heard it, go download it, and while listening to it, remember that it's Gary Coleman singing to an Ernie-like muppet in a parody of Sesame Street.

8. Baltimora - Tarzan Boy: I'm not sure whether I grew fond of this song when it was used in a Listerine commercial or in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. I'm also not sure which would be more embarrassing.

9. Tori Amos - Talula: Back in high school, I was sort of an asshole. I blame hormones. Anyway, my very dear friend Amber took me to a Tori Amos concert because, and I quote, "It will be good for you." I'm not entirely sure she expected me to fall in love with the music as much as I did, but Tori is absolutely one of the most talented musical artists I've ever heard. She doesn't produce songs so much as layered, complex works of art. "I've got my rape hat on/Ah, honey, but I always could accessorize" F'ing brilliant.

10. Counting Crows - Rain King: I can't believe I didn't get a repeated artist on this list. This is my favorite Counting Crows song, and whenever it comes on, I always replay it a couple times. I don't have much to say about it, really. It's just one of those songs that draws me in and refuses to let go.

Well, there it is. I don't usually think very much about why I own a particular piece of music, so that was an interesting exercise. Somehow, I don't think the list quite exemplifies the variety of different music I own, but hey, it's random. I said I would keep it random, and I was true to my word, unlike Scott McClellan, who said that the Bush administration wouldn't stand for leaks, because that's not how they operate. Bah. I'm going on vacation.