Pensées

Warning! Unvarnished opinions on many topics, political and otherwise, appear below. You might be offended. Or you might be challenged. If you are a person of faith, does your faith affect your political views? If it doesn't, it should. Read at your own risk!

20 June 2008

Habeas Corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp were entitled to seek a writ of habeas corpus, forcing the government to specify the charges against the detainees and providing a judge with evidence sufficient to justify their continued detention. This ruling is good news for advocates of civil rights. It continues to allow the government to hold those it suspects of terrorism, but it requires both an offer of legal proof and that the suspects be brought to trial in a timely manner. It prohibits the unconscionable practice of holding suspects indefinitely without charge or access to the courts. Such practices might have been good enough for Stalin or Saddam Hussein, but they do not measure up to the ideals that, until now, have usually defined the United States and other modern democracies. The scary thing about the ruling is that it was only passed by a 5-4 margin, with the Court's reactionary wing only one vote away from tearing away a basic constitutional and international right.

30 May 2008

Geraldine Ferraro. A few months ago Geraldine Ferraro suggested that Barack Obama was a viable Democratic candidate only because he was black. (Everyone knows that being black has been hugely successful in the past at propelling our many black presidents and members of the Senate into office.) Now she says that white people are afraid of an Obama presidency because he doesn't understand them. Perhaps someone should point out to Ferraro that Obama's mother is white and that he was raised for many years by his white grandparents, so it's very likely that he understands white people. After all, he is one, just as much as he's black. What exactly is Ferraro's hangup with the color of Obama's skin anyway? Yes, there may well be many racists in the country--like Ferraro--who won't vote for an African American candidate no matter what. And yes, it's possible that he will lose the general election because of racism. Be that as it may, Ferraro's blatant stoking of the racist embers of the Democratic party in an effort to reverse the will of the majority of the primary voters not only won't work, it's disgusting.

23 May 2008

Hillary Clinton. First Mike Huckabee jokes about someone pointing a gun at Barack Obama, and now Hillary Clinton justifies staying in the race for the nomination by alluding to Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Clinton's remark was probably thoughtless rather than tasteless, but she has said something similar before. No, she's not calling for someone to take Obama out, but at the very least she seems to be saying that her only hope for becoming the Democratic nominee is for Obama to be shot. Is that really the message she wants to send to the superdelegates and the country?

John Hagee. Senator John McCain has now rejected the endorsement of San Antonio pastor John Hagee, an endorsement he eagerly sought several months ago. It turns out that not only has Hagee referred to the Roman Catholic Church as a whore that collaborated in the Holocaust, but he also believes that God raised up Adolf Hitler to persecute the Jews so that they would leave Europe and return to Palestine (which I assume Hagee thinks was uninhabited before the Jews arrived). McCain also rejected the endorsement of Ohio pastor Rod Parsley, who has called Islam a "conspiracy of spiritual evil." Maybe all candidates should re-think the wisdom of actively seeking the endorsements of religious leaders, particularly in the You-Tube age.

16 May 2008

Immigration. The U.S. Border Patrol today stated that during the upcoming hurricane season, which starts June 1, federal officials will check the residency status of everyone boarding evacuation busses trying to flee an impending hurricane. The inevitable result of such a policy is that thousands of undocumented people living in the border region, along with their families, will remain behind out of fear of imprisonment or deportation. Simply put, people will die. It's hard to think that the U.S. government would craft a policy designed to result in the deaths of potentially thousands of people, but the sad reality is that we have become a nation whose laws reflect a decided antipathy toward those who are not American citizens.

Mike Huckabee. Did Mike Huckabee really joke at an NRA meeting this week about someone pointing a gun at Barack Obama? In this year that marks the fortieth anniversary of the assassinations of both Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy, is that really funny? [Huckabee later apologized.]

30 April 2008

Iraq. "April is the cruellest month," said T. S. Elliott in "The Wasteland." It is unfortunately true for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, where 47 51 more have needlessly lost their lives this month, the most since the surge "started working." It's time, way past time, to bring the troops home.

18 April 2008

Broadcast News. I recorded the Democratic Debate on Wednesday night, planning to watch it when I had a chance. However, after hearing about the inane questions asked by the moderators, and after actually reading the questions online, I decided against wasting my time. It's true that the role of the media is not to toss the candidates softball questions, and it's not surprising that the frontrunner (Obama) would get somewhat tougher questions to answer than the candidate trailing in the primary process (Clinton). However, it would have been nice if the moderators in this debate had remembered that they're supposed to be journalists and that the debates are supposed to help the American people learn more about where the candidates stand on the issues. In short, a debate should be news, not entertainment; the News Hour, not Jerry Springer. The depths to which broadcast journalism has fallen can largely be blamed on the fact that all the major broadcast news organizations (except PBS) are owned by companies more interested in producing entertainment than news. I like Disneyworld and Disney movies, but I don't trust the Walt Disney network (ABC) to deliver the news (and it's getting increasingly difficult to watch Disney sports as well). General Electric makes great light bulbs and produces many interesting TV shows, like Law and Order, but if the goal of their news organization (NBC) is to make money, why should I watch it? I could say similar things about the Viacom News Network (CBS) and especially the worst offender of the bunch, Fox. Even once might CNN, owned by Time-Warner, often seems more interested in hype than in reporting the news. The dreadful state of broadcast news is the reason why more and more people, including me, are getting their news from individuals and organizations whose sole interest is providing news, in many cases online. Death to broadcast news!

20 March 2008

Peace. The peace symbol made its debut on Good Friday 50 years ago in a British protest against nuclear war. Based on the superimposed letters N and D, for Nuclear Disarmament, the sign was adopted by those protesting American participation in the Vietnam War, where it came to symbolize "peace." It is fitting to commemorate this symbol of hope in a year where wars and armed conflict continue to rage in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurdistan, Sudan, and elsewhere. Here's hoping that the next 50 years will see peace established across the planet.

19 March 2008

Barack Obama. Barack Obama yesterday delivered a speech on race and politics that was perhaps the best speech on the subject ever given by a politician. Aside from some critiques I have regarding his remarks about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright (see essay), the speech was overwhelmingly positive. The politics of race have too long divided Americans, and although much remains to be done, much has already been accomplished. Now it is time for all people of goodwill to work together toward racial reconciliation in America.

8 March 2008

Waterboarding. Today President Bush fulfilled his threat and vetoed a bill that would have outlawed waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and other forms of torture that have been used by CIA interrogators on prisoners over the past few years. Bush said these interrogation techniques are vital for getting information from reluctant prisoners, while opponents of torture decried the move as yet another step away from the standards adopted by the vast majority of the world's nations, and all of the other Western-style democracies. Torture in any form is an unreliable interrogation technique, but more importantly, it is a violation of basic human rights. It is radically inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity and other major world religions. This veto is yet another black mark on America that has been inflicted by the current administration. The National Religious Campaign against Torture has released a statement that declares that torture is a moral issue. To sign it, go to http://www.nrcat.org.

24 February 2008

Ralph Nader. I agree with many of Ralph Nader's political positions, probably most of them. He has been a leader in the fight for consumer safety, environmentalism, and other causes over a long and distinguished career. Unfortunately, it appears that he is intent on ruining his legacy by once again letting his ego get in the way of his judgment and running for president. There were many factors involved in Al Gore's electoral college loss to George W. Bush in 2000--mistakes in the Gore strategy, failure to use Bill Clinton as a campaigner in certain states, the criminal conduct of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and the U.S. Supreme Court's trampling of the Constitution in its ruling that not all the votes from Florida needed to be counted--but Ralph Nader's candidacy, which drained thousands of votes from Gore, votes that would have easily propelled him to victory, is another cause. Now Nader threatens to do it again to the eventual Democratic nominee, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Does Nader really not understand how the electoral college system works in presidential balloting? By attempting to split the progressive vote, Nader only makes it more likely that the party that gave us the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary renditions, warrentless wiretapping, rejection of habeas corpus, an even more reactionary Supreme Court, and the trampling of first amendment rights will win again in November. It's time for all progressives to say, "Ralph, thanks for your great contributions. Now get out of the limelight."

Barack Obama. I've always liked Hillary Clinton, and unlike some, I count it as a point in her favor that she stood by her husband in a time of public embarrassment and humiliation. I agree with her positions on most issues, but I give the edge to Barack Obama in his consistent opposition to the Iraq War (which I have also opposed from the beginning: see "Commentary on Bush's War Speech" and "The Unjust War Theory") and on his eminently reasonable position that talking to the nation's enemies is always worth considering. Most importantly, though, I see in Obama a potentially great leader for a country, a person who can unify many who have long been on opposite sides of the Bush-Clinton divide, someone who inspires people from all walks of life, a candidate who can restore the pride in America that so many have lost in recent years.

21 December 2007

Open Borders. The European Union today welcomed nine new nations (Malta and nine Eastern European countries) into its Schengen borderless zone. Now citizens from twenty-four European nations, more than 400 million people, can cross the border from one country to another without that zone without hindrance. Meanwhile, back in the U.S., citizens of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada are now required to carry passports with them when visiting one another's countries. As Europe moves forward, North America moves backward. Is it any wonder that the Euro is advancing while the U.S. dollar is declining?

17 December 2007

Capital Punishment. New Jersey has become the first U.S. state in more than thirty years to abolish the death penalty. It did so on the basis of a report by an appointed commission that found that capital punishment was "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency." All those on death row in New Jersey have had their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. Abolishing the death penalty is good for many reasons, not the least of which is that its abolition avoids the nasty side-effect of executing innocent people, as has undoubtedly happened more than once. (In The Innocent Man, John Grisham describes an actual case from Oklahoma in which an innocent death row inmate came within four days of execution before eventually being freed, thanks to the work of the Innocence Project and DNA tests.) However, it is nice that at least some Americans' standard of decency has evolved to the point where it approximates that of all other modern industrialized countries. It will be even better when the rest of the states and the federal government come to the same realization.

24 October 2007

DREAM Act. The DREAM Act, which provides hope for many young people in their late teens and early twenties, will apparently be considered by the Senate this week, perhaps as early as today. This act provides a path to citizenship for children who were brought by their parents to the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday, who have been in the U.S. for at least five years, and who complete either two years of college or two years in the military. Congressional supporters have pushed the bill since 2001, and this year may be its best chance yet of passing. It has enough sponsors in both the House and the Senate to pass, though it is unclear whether it can garner the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate or whether the president, who has supported some immigration reform efforts in the past, will sign it. I personally know people whose lives would be greatly improved by the passage of this bill, because although they have lived in the U.S. almost all their lives, and although they may soon have a college degree in hand, their prospects of finding a job at present are negligible. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado called yesterday for all such students who would benefit from the DREAM Act to be arrested and deported. Such heartlessness, hatred, and xenophobia is hard to fathom, and it is certainly contrary to the teachings of the law and the prophets, not to mention of Jesus himself. The DREAM Act is worthy of the support of all committed Christians, and their representatives in Congress.

12 October 2007

Al Gore. Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize laureate 2007. Way to go, Al!

9 October 2007

Because the server was down for the last four weeks, I missed the opportunity to comment on many different and important news stories. Here follow, in no particular order, my thoughts on recent events.

Police brutality. Campus police at the University of Florida tasered a student, Andrew Meyer, on September 17 while he was attempting to ask John Kerry, who was visiting the campus, a question. Video on You-Tube clearly shows that the student was assaulted without serious provocation by the campus police while trying to exercise his free-speech rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. News anchor Gregg Jarrett, of the far-right news outlet Fox News, commended police for their assault on the student. The denial of free speech and the physical assault on an unarmed student is a gross violation of the rights that every American is supposed to possess, that the police are supposed to protect, and that an institution of higher education is supposed to promote. Shame on the University of Florida police for using excessive force to deny a student his free-speech rights. Shame on their University of Florida president for not immediately condemning the assault on the student. Shame on the University of Florida as a whole for not upholding a student's rights to free expression. There is of course no need to shame Fox News, which is a regular embarrassment to the news profession.

Torture. Secret memos published by the New York Times implicate the White House in yet another scandal regarding the government's treatment of detainees. After being forbidden by legislation from torturing prisoners--an act that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, if the administration were led by people of honor--the White House issued secret, internal memos allowing the practice of torture to continue. If Alberto Gonzalez hadn't already resigned, these memos would be grounds for impeachment. They remain sufficient grounds to impeach the president, who evidently authorized the memos. Torture of prisoners is wrong on so many grounds, it's hard to know where to start. It is illegal according to the laws of the United States, it is illegal according to international law--including the Geneva Conventions and, of all things, the Convention against Torture--it is immoral on religious grounds (pick your religion), and, ironically, the information it provides is worthless from the perspective of law enforcement, because it is unreliable. Let's put this in simple terms, that perhaps even the president can understand. TORTURE IS WRONG!!!

Free speech. It wasn't just the University of Florida that found itself embroiled in a controversy involving free speech and higher education. Columbia University and the University of St. Thomas also ran into trouble for their very different approaches to the issue. First, Columbia University invited controversial Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the university. Ahmadinejad questions the reality of the Jewish Holocaust during World War II and says he would like to see the state of Israel eliminated. Columbia's president said that even though he finds many of Ahmadinejad's positions indefensible, he believed that Columbia's students were adults who deserved to hear from an important Middle Eastern leader. The University of St. Thomas did not treat Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu with the same courtesy. After inviting Tutu, the university uninvited him because his criticisms of the state of Israel upset some people. Well boo-hoo! So Tutu's remarks upset some people! When I lived in South Africa, it was an honor to get to hear Archbishop Tutu speak on a couple of occasions, at the risk of his own safety. The apartheid South African government was upset with what Tutu was saying, but that didn't stop him. Institutions of higher education in the U.S. should not be afraid to let speakers, even controversial speakers, speak to their students. It's bad enough to prevent someone from speaking who is opposed by a majority of the community. It's even worse to prevent someone from speaking who is opposed by a small, but apparently influential, minority of the community. Columbia University has shown once again why it is a leading U.S. university. The University of St. Thomas has shown why it is not.

Blackwater. The killing of seventeen civilians by Blackwater personnel a couple of weeks ago, and the fact that the perpetrators will apparently get away with murder (literally), demonstrates better than any other example that despite all the Bush administration's claims, Iraq is not really a sovereign state. No foreign security firm would ever get away with killing seventeen unarmed Americans, because the government and the people wouldn't stand for it. However, the Iraqi government appears to have little recourse in this case, other than to complain to their masters in Washington, who in the end will not do anything. Today a different foreign security firm, this one from Dubai, shot and killed two unarmed women driving a car, and they didn't even stop their convoy to investigate their crime. Is it any wonder that so many Iraqis hate Americans? We haven't brought them democracy, only bloodshed that is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Supreme Court. Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in the case of El Masri v. United States, essentially ruling that the government's claim of state secrets allows it to illegally detain people, send them to foreign countries for torture (extraordinary rendition), and then avoid sanction for violating that person's civil rights. The "state secrets" claim is merely a smokescreen used by the government to shield itself from the scrutiny of its legitimate overseers, the American people. One of the main reasons the Constitution was written was to establish a government in which the people would not have to fear arbitrary abuse by the government. After two or three decades of landmark Supreme Court decisions that gave dignity to individuals and prevented the government from persecuting minorities of various sorts in the 1950s through the 1970s, the Court over the past few decades has slowly slid to the right, favoring big business and big government in more cases and the ordinary individual in fewer. The recent addition of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the already conservative Court threatens to push it toward being the most reactionary Court since the late nineteenth century Court that gave us the Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) decision.

2 August 2007

Nuclear Weapons. Barack Obama is drawing fire from some of his Democratic opponents in the presidential race for stating that he would not use nuclear weapons in the "war on terrorism," at least if civilians were involved. His opponents who were quoted in the mainstream press criticized him for taking a possible option off the table, although I suspect that not all the Democratic contenders (e.g., Dennis Kucinich) disagreed. In my opinion, Obama is right on this issue, but he should go even further. The use of nuclear weapons to combat terrorism would be a tragic mistake for many reasons, not least of which is that nuclear weapons themselves are immoral. They kill wantonly, and they leave contaminated radiation that continues to kill and maim for decades (at least). They are the very definition of "weapons of mass destruction." If it was wrong for Saddam Hussein to want them, it is wrong for the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to have them. The only moral option is to destroy all of them, as soon as possible.

27 July 2007

News. Two news helicopters in Phoenix ran into each other and crashed, killing all four people aboard, while they were shooting footage of the police chasing a speeding car. This was a tragic accident and terrible for all the family and friends of those involved. However, as I read the story, I couldn't help thinking, when did high-speed chases become such important news stories in the U.S.? I think I know the answer, of course. It was the O. J. Simpson "slow-speed chase" that got the ball rolling on news helicopters covering such events. A high-speed chase may make interesting television viewing, but it hardly constitutes serious news. A recent glance at the CNN Web site reveals 16 headlines, only two of which qualify as actual news. The rest are sports, updates from the entertainment world, and unusual or bizarre stories that offer little or no insight into the world. Local TV news broadcasts are even worse than the national news broadcasts and Web sites, while newspapers are often better. Since most people today get their news from TV, however, it is small wonder that Americans are among the most poorly informed people in the world today.

Torture. A story in The Guardian indicates that the British spy agency MI6 offered to give the CIA intelligence concerning the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in 1998, and again in 1999, with the proviso that the CIA would not torture him. When the CIA refused to give such an assurance, MI6 declined to give the information, since torture is illegal under British law. Of course, torture is also illegal under international law, and it is supposed to be illegal under U.S. law as well. The CIA's refusal to guarantee the humane treatment of the prospective prisoner (note: under the Clinton administration, though the use of torture has apparently increased under the Bush administration) allowed bin Laden to remain free to plan the 9/11 and other attacks around the world. Now tell me again how effective torture is in stopping terrorism....

24 July 2007

Iraq. Here is an excerpt from President Bush's speech today on Iraq: "Iraq ... al Qaeda ... Iraq ... al Qaeda ... al Qaeda ... al Qaeda in Iraq ... al Qaeda ... al Qaeda ... al Qaeda ... Iraq ... al Qaeda...." Here is my reply: The American people are not idiots. Simply repeating the words "Iraq" and "al Qaeda" over and over again in a speech does not mean that they have any real connection with each other, any more than using the words "Bush" and "honesty" in the same sentence means the two words have anything to do with one another. Yes, there is now a group called al Qaeda in Iraq, which probably is connected in some way with the main al Qaeda group. However, it was not there prior to the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq, and despite Bush's claims to the contrary, the war in Iraq does not now have anything to do with fighting terrorism, nor did it ever have anything to do with fighting terrorism. In fact, just the opposite is true. There are undoubtedly more terrorists today than there were before the U.S. launched its war, and the U.S. and its allies are in greater danger from terrorist attack today than ever before. The war on Iraq has been a disaster from the beginning, and it continues to be a disaster. Bring the troops home now!

11 July 2007

Doug Marlette. Doug Marlette, political cartoonist and creator of the comic strip Kudzu, died yesterday in a car accident. Marlette won the Pulitzer Prize in 1988 for his cartoon paying tribute to the victims of the space shuttle Challenger. He drew the head of a bald eagle with a single tear dripping from its eye, capturing the pain that the country felt in the wake of the astronauts' tragic death. His comic strip Kudzu featured the Reverend Will B. Dunn, an irreverent reverend whose wit and wisdom were often right on the money. He poked fun at the excesses of religion, politics, and culture, but he always left a smile on the reader's face.

5 May 2007

Church and State. The Texas House voted Friday to add the words "under God" to the pledge to the Texas state flag. Although the reason given by supporters of the measure is to make the Texas pledge match the pledge to the U.S. flag, it is clear that that rationale is merely a smoke screen. Those who support this amendment want to make Christianity the official religion of the state of Texas, just as adding the words "under God" to the U.S. pledge were also an attempt to make Christianity (or the "Judeo-Christian" religion, whatever that means) the official religion of the country in 1954, in the face of the so-called communist menace. In the first place, why in the world does Texas have a pledge to its flag? We never had one growing up, and there's no point in it now. We are citizens of the U.S., not Texas. In the second place, why do some Christians, who comprise at least 90% of the population of Texas, feel the need to lord their majority religion's status over the relatively few Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists, and even Jews and Muslims (many Christians, of the sort who support the pledge amendment, claim the God of Jews and Muslims is different from the Christian God)? It is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. It is also a violation of the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, which states in part, "No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship." The Texas House is violating both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions with its attempt to amend the Texas pledge of allegiance. They would be better off getting rid of it entirely.

22 April 2007

France. Reports out of France say that 84.48% of the French people voted in the first round of the presidential election today. Turnouts for presidential elections in the U.S. typically barely top 50%--we've only topped 60% once in the past 40 years, when 60.8% voted in 1968. For all the France-bashing that right-wing Americans do, we can all learn something about the importance of participatory democracy from the French.

16 April 2007

School Shooting. A lone gunman shot and killed at least 31 people at Virginia Tech University today, making this the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Analysts will undoubtedly look at the shooter's background, the events leading up to the shooting, and perhaps even the motivations for the shooting. In the end, though, many people across the nation, perhaps a majority, will fail to understand that yet another senseless massacre has occurred as a direct result of the ready availability of guns across America. The gun lobby, and especially the NRA, bears a large measure of responsibility for every gun death that occurs on U.S. soil. Until rational people stand up to this insane special interest group and their stooges in Congress, innocent people will continue to die.

13 April 2007

Kurt Vonnegut. Novelist, essayist, and anti-war activist Kurt Vonnegut died two days ago at the age of 84. He is best known for books such as Cat's Cradle, Hocus Pocus, and especially Slaughterhouse Five, which blended humor, satire, science fiction, and social critique in a uniquely readable and enjoyable manner. His books made you laugh, made you think, and sometimes even made you cry. Fairly recently he wrote an essay that caught my attention. He wondered why so many Christians were upset about the fact that the Ten Commandments were banned from courthouses, classrooms, and other public spaces. If Christians were going to push for religious words in public spaces, he argued, they ought to try to get words of Jesus like the Beatitudes posted. Of course, Jesus' statement in the Beatitudes "Blessed are the peacemakers" doesn't mix well with the kind of hot-tempered, angry, xenophobic Christianity that is so prevalent today, so Vonnegut figured that those "Ten Commandments" Christians probably wouldn't take him up on his suggestion. He was right, but he shouldn't have been. It's up to progressive Christians to take Christianity back to its Christ-ian roots. Thanks for the reminder, Kurt!

Listen: Kurt Vonnegut has come unstuck in time. So it goes.

9 April 2007

Iraq War. Ten U.S. troops were killed in Iraq over the Easter weekend. Insurgents have apparently moved outside those areas of Baghdad in which beefed-up contingencies of U.S. soldiers have been concentrated into surrounding areas. The Sunni insurgency has not been slowed down, just moved to a different place, and now Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr is calling for Shiite militias to step up their attacks on Americans as well. The surge isn't working. It's time to bring the troops home.

25 March 2007

Guantanamo Bay. A recent New York Times editorial stresses the injustice of the special tribunals being held at Guantanamo Bay prison. Evidence obtained by torture is used against defendants, as is hearsay evidence. Some defendants, in turn, are apparently making a mockery of the proceedings by confessing to every crime under the sun. It's only a matter of time until one confesses to killing Jimmy Hoffa. The threat posed by global terrorism is great, but it is no greater than the threat posed by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. Nevertheless, after the war, the Nuremberg trials were conducted according to the rule of law, and defendants against whom there was insufficient evidence were released. Harry Truman, a president for whom the current president has expressed admiration, was a strong supporter of the judicial process. The trials were widely viewed by the world community as fair and unbiased, and the allied treatment of their enemies gained the U.S. and other countries the world's respect. Continuing the judicial farce at Guantanamo Bay will only lower the U.S. reputation further in the eyes of the world, and even in the eyes of many of its own citizens.

23 March 2007

Iraq War. The U.S. House of Representatives today narrowly passed a funding bill for the Iraq War that included a requirement that U.S. forces be out of Iraq by 31 August 2008. President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Although I support the idea of setting a target date by which all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq--and the sooner the better--I don't see how this bill will accomplish that goal. First of all, assuming the Senate passes a similar measure, the president will probably veto it, forcing Congress to rewrite the spending bill anyway, since they won't be able to override the veto. Second, allocating supplemental money for the war allows it to continue for another year or more, rather than ending it. I agree with Dennis Kucinich that you can't say you're for peace and at the same time support continued funding for the war. The time to being leaving is now, not a year from now, after more lives are lost, more soldiers are maimed, and more money is wasted.

9 March 2007

Gun Control. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today declared unconstitutional a Washington, DC, law forbidding people from keeping handguns in their homes. By a 2 to 1 margin, the Court struck down the law, claiming it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Gun control advocates, who touted the law as a means to reduce the rampant gun violence that plagues the city, had argued that the Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms to militias, not individuals, but the Circuit Court disagreed. Here is the text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." An understanding of the history behind the Amendment makes it clear that its intent was to allow states to form citizen militias to protect itself from encroachment by an overzealous federal government. If the founders had meant the right to apply to all citizens, regardless of their involvement in a state militia, they would have left out the first thirteen words, and the Amendment would have simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The inability of the Circuit Court to understand the clear intent of the Amendment is shocking, as is the Court's callous disregard for the gun violence that plagues America's cities. If the members of the nation's Courts, who have large enough salaries to ensconce themselves inside gated communities, safely away from the violence of the nation's cities, have so little concern for either the obvious meaning of the Amendment or the safety of their fellow citizens--especially the poor and people of color, who suffer the most from gun violence--it may be time for the true U.S. government, "We the People," to take matters into their own hands and repeal the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit Court's ruling, that may be the only rational recourse.

6 March 2007

U.S. Attorneys. Eight U.S. attorneys have been fired in recent months by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Many of the fired prosecutors, all of whom were appointed by President Bush and almost all of whom had positive performance reviews, allege that they were fired for political reasons, such as not pursuing charges against the political opponents of senators and members of the House of Representatives, or moving too slowly on cases of interest to Republican lawmakers and/or the Justice Department. In some cases the fired U.S. attorneys were replaced by people with close ties to members of the Bush administration. Both the House and the Senate are holding hearings on these issues. If these allegations of political pandering prove true, the House and Senate Ethics Committees should take a hard look at the actions of lawmakers accused of interfering with ongoing criminal investigations and recommend appropriate sanctions. Furthermore, if the allegations are true, Alberto Gonzalez should resign, be fired by the president, or be impeached and removed from office by Congress.

Sexual Discrimination in the U.S. Military. Air Force sergeant Michelle Manhart was recently demoted and reprimanded for appearing in a photo spread in Playboy magazine. A Lackland Air Force Base spokesman said posing in Playboy "does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force's core values of integrity, service before self and excellence in all we do." General T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, said she got what she deserved. At the same time, Playboy magazine is offered for sale in the Lackland BX, and pictures of pin-up girls are regularly used as decorations on the walls of military barracks or in other public areas. Furthermore, the military in general hardly has the reputation of puritanical behavior when soldiers and sailors visit foreign countries, or even when they get weekend passes from camp. In demoting Manhart, what the Air Force is saying is that it's OK for men in the Air Force to drool over photos of scantily clad or nude women, but it's wrong for a woman in the Air Force to be one of the scantily clad or nude women in the photos. Can you say "hypocrisy"?

2 March 2007

Death Penalty. Because their last attempt to execute a prisoner by lethal injection was botched, resulting in the procedure having to be repeated, and probably the condemned prisoner, Angel Diaz, suffering immense pain, the state of Florida has suspended executions for the time being. Outgoing governor Jeb Bush, in one of his final acts in office, established a commission to restore "humanity, constitutional imperative and common sense" to the process of executing prisoners. The commission yesterday released its report, which they believe will make the execution of prisoners in Florida more humane. Making executions more humane is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig--a dead pig, in this case. There is no way to make executions more humane, because government sponsored murder is still murder.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Former Staff Sgt. Eric Alva was perhaps the first U.S. soldier wounded in battle in Iraq, and he lost his leg fighting for his country. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to leave the U.S. Marine Corps, not because he particularly wanted to, but because he is gay, and he was tired of living a lie. Alva is calling on Congress to overturn the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. military. When President Clinton instituted the policy at the beginning of his first term, it was perhaps an improvement on the inquisitorial policies that existed before, but discrimination is still discrimination. America is supposed to stand for freedom and fairness, and the current policy is neither. It's time for it to go.

15 February 2007

Health Care. A new U.N. survey on child well-being ranks the U.S. next to last among industrialized Western countries. Could it be that our ranking is so low because we spend half a trillion dollars a year on our military, but next to nothing, relatively speaking, on health care for children? Or could it be because we have no universal health care system that guarantees access to quality health care for everyone, the way every other industrialized country does?

Gun Control. In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in a Salt Lake City shopping mall a couple of days ago, some local leaders were asking, "What can we do to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?" Here's a simple solution: how about passing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and access to weapons? Do you know why this sort of thing rarely happens in other industrialized countries? One important reason: gun control. Of course, it does happen frequently in Iraq, now that we've taken control there. Maybe that's what the president meant by introducing American values to the Iraqi people.

14 February 2007

Ten Worst Dictators. Parade magazine has just published its list of the world's ten worst dictators, based on information from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Number one on the list is Omar Bashir of Sudan, followed by Kim Jong Il (North Korea), Than Shwe (Myanmar), Hu Jintao (China), Crown Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia), Muammar al-Qadafi (Libya), Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan), Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) and Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea). Noticeably missing from this list is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, judging from all the recent rhetoric about Iran's interference in Iraq, is the next target in the Bush administration's sights of "evildoers" to overthrow. It's interesting that several of those dictators on the list are close allies of the U.S., including Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. I guess it's OK to oppress your own people as long as you play ball with the U.S. Or at least that's the message we're sending to the world.

12 February 2007

Iran. U.S. government officials are saying that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with material that the insurgents are using to make bombs that blow up American soldiers. There are several problems with these allegations. First, the vast majority of insurgents are Sunnis, the enemies of Iran, so it is unlikely that Iran, a Shiite nation, would help them. Second, since Shiites already control the Iraqi government, and since many of the Iraqi Shiites have close ties with Iran, why would Iran want to foment discord in Iraq as a matter of official government policy? Third, I have no doubt that some Iranians are supplying materials that sometimes end up in roadside bombs, but are they selling the material directly to the Sunni insurgents? Did the Sunnis take the material from Iraqi Shiites, with whom they are engaged in a civil war? Did individual Iranians sell the material to whichever Iraqis were willing to match their price (capitalism at work!)? The U.S. shouldn't be surprised that Iran is involved in various ways in Iraq. After all, Iraq is their next door neighbor, and they have plenty of reason to be interested. We're apparently interested, too, since our forces are there in much greater numbers. Is anyone advocating that the U.S. be invaded or bombed because of its involvement in Iraq? How can the U.S. government justify invading or bombing Iran when we're doing the exact same thing we accuse them of--meddling in Iraqi affairs--on a much, much larger scale?

3 February 2007

Iraq. Now it turns out that President Bush's "surge" will not require an additional 21,000 soldiers, as he has been claiming for weeks, but 50,000 or more, counting support personnel. Although support personnel are not combat troops, they are on the front line of the conflict. (Really that's a misnomer, since there is no line; the war is virtually everywhere in Baghdad outside the Green Zone.) Publicizing the smaller number is yet another effort to mislead the American people about Iraq. 50,000 extra troops is too many, and so is 21,000. The president needs to begin bringing American soldiers home, while at the same time working with Iraq and its neighbors on a regional peace plan that all can live with. A truck bomb in Baghdad today killed at least 100 people, illustrating once again that the situation now is unlivable.

Global Warming. The U.N. released a report yesterday that says that humans are definitely responsible for climate change on the planet and that the earth will heat up between 1.8 and 4.3 degrees Celsius over the next century. This report was based on the work of hundreds of scientists from countries all over the world. In a related story, the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing political think tank supported by big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, is offering scientists up to $10,000 for writing papers or giving public lectures contradicting the scientific consensus. Whether they will manage to recruit any legitimate scientists remains to be seen, though you have to wonder whether sacrificing one's career for a quick ten grand will be appealing to many people. The AEI's efforts will ultimately be futile. The truth isn't determined by the highest bidder.

30 January 2007

Iran and Iraq. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating whether an attack on a U.S. military compound in Karbala that killed five American soldiers was instigated by Iranians or Iranian-trained Iraqis. The rationale is that the Iraqis themselves are incapable of coming up with such a sophisticated plot, so the Iranians must be behind it. It's a theory that manages to insult both the Iranians and the Iraqis at the same time. This allegation smells too much like the Nazi claims of Polish attacks inside German territory in late August 1939. Hitler used the supposed attacks as an excuse to invade Poland, launching World War II. Could this attack, regardless of who planned and executed it, be just the excuse the Bush administration has been looking for to invade Iran?

18 January 2007

Guantanamo Bay. Secretary of State Robert Gates has released new guidelines to be used for trials of prisoners kept at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although the guidelines do provide some apparent safeguards to prisoners' rights, such as the right to see all the material presented against them (including classified material), it contains two troubling provisions. The first allows the government to use hear-say evidence at trial. The second, much worse provision, allows the government to use "coerced evidence," that is, evidence obtained by torture. There is one bright spot to this provision, however. Material obtained by torture after December 30, 2005, will not be allowed. Yippee! What a coup for the rule of law! I suppose that information gleaned after December 30, 2005, can only be obtained through "stressful interrogation techniques," like waterboarding.

11 January 2007

Iraq. The president thinks sending an additional 20,000 soldiers into Iraq will give the U.S. a chance to "win." Since "win" is basically meaningless in the context of the Iraq conflict, at least from a U.S. perspective, I don't see how that's possible. All it will do is give insurgents more targets to shoot at or bomb. In the meantime, after $357 billion spent, more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed, tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, the president still can't admit that he made a mistake by starting the war in the first place. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is hardly an admission of culpability. Rather it is a feeble attempt to appear Trumanesque while still blaming other people for the administration's failures.

29 December 2006

Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi government has upheld the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, and news reports indicate that he could be executed any day. President Bush, who presided over the execution of dozens of prisoners in Texas as governor, supports the execution, while the leaders of the EU decry it. Executing Saddam Hussien is wrong, for many reasons:

• Executing Saddam Hussein is stupid, because it will make a martyr of him.
• Executing Saddam Hussein is dangerous, because it will drive a further wedge between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq.
• Executing Saddam Hussein is politically inept, because it will further isolate the U.S. from its erstwhile allies.
• Executing Saddam Hussein is unjust, because it uses the cover of a farcical trial to justify political assassination.
• Executing Saddam Hussein is hypocritical, because it implements state-sponsored murder, just as Saddam himself did.
• Executing Saddam Hussein is immoral, because state-sponsored murder is still murder.

22 December 2006

Religious Test. Republican Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia is criticizing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, for intending to put his hand on the Quran during a symbolic swearing-in ceremony for new representatives in January. Even though the official ceremony is performed in the House chamber and involves no holy books of any kind, Goode believes that Ellison's desire to use the Muslim holy book for his private, unofficial ceremony sets a dangerous precedent. "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran," Goode says. Apparently the Virgil Goode position on immigration denies the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion, denigrates Muslims in particular, and advocates xenophobia and racism (Ellison is African-American), not to mention the fact that it apparently advocates discriminating against "immigrants" from Detroit, which is where Ellison was born. Since Ellison is a Muslim, what sense does it make for him to take his oath with his hand resting on the Bible, a book he doesn't believe in? Isn't it better that he swear his allegiance on a book that holds deep meaning for him? Previous representatives have laid their hands on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and Book of Mormon, apparently without raising the ire of their peers. Several presidents have been sworn in without placing their hands on the Bible, including John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. Pierce placed his hand on a law book for the ceremony. Perhaps Goode should read the Constitution, which clearly states in Article VI, Section 3, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Goode's ignorance and hatred has no place in the U.S. House of Representative, and if Goode refuses to apologize for his remarks, he should be censured by the House.

21 December 2006

Jimmy Carter. Some commentators have trashed Jimmy Carter because of the title of his recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. While it is fine to disagree with the former president's position, it is ludicrous to claim, as some do, that he is anti-Semitic. Opposing Israel's oppressive treatment of the Palestinians does not make one anti-Semitic any more than opposing America's war on Iraq makes one anti-American. Many Jews, including Israeli Jews, also oppose Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come when people admit that violence and injustice on both sides of the equation have fueled this longstanding and tragic conflict. Jimmy Carter, the man who was instrumental in negotiating peace between Israel and Egypt, is a man of profound courage and wisdom, whose opinions on ways to bring peace to the region should be heard and carefully considered by all who value both peace and justice.

Anti-Semitism. That there are many people today who hate the Jews is a fact, and such people may rightly be labeled anti-Semitic. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently hosted a conference in Tehran denying the Holocaust, is a good example. Unfortunately there is no word in English to describe people who hate Arabs or Muslims that carries the equivalent moral reprobation. Furthermore, some charges of anti-Semitism that are leveled against people who oppose certain actions of the government of Israel, for example, border on racism themselves. "Anti-Semitism" in certain circles has become a code word for those who oppose uncritical support of Israel and unflagging hatred of the Palestinians. People who value the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians and who want to see a just peace in the region should refrain from using words like "anti-Semitism" improperly, and they should call to account those who use it lightly to describe anyone who disagrees with them.

6 December 2006

Robert Gates. Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates yesterday admitted in testimony before the Senate that the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. When asked by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan whether the U.S. was winning, he replied bluntly, "No sir." This is an important admission by a soon-to-be spokesperson for the Bush administration. Another question he should be asked is, "How would you define 'winning the war in Iraq'?" Perhaps more importantly, Gates and all Americans need to ask themselves whether winning a war, whatever that means in a context like Iraq, is really the best goal to shoot for. If we could lose the war but secure peace with justice, wouldn't that be preferable to winning?

2 December 2006

Webb v. Bush. George Will and other members of the right-wing punditocracy have berated newly elected Senator Jim Webb of Virginia for his alleged snub of President Bush at a recent meeting. A political cartoon in our local newspaper even implies that Webb went out of his way to verbally abuse Bush, an allegation that a look at the transcript of the encounter clearly shows is false. After Webb had not taken advantage of his opportunity to pose for a photo with the president, Bush sought him out and asked how his son, a soldier serving in Iraq was doing. Webb replied that he wished the president would end the war so that he could come home. "That's not what I asked," the president said. "How's your boy?" "That's between my boy and me," Webb replied. Perhaps Webb's response wasn't in keeping with protocol or particularly polite (though some have argued that Bush's words weren't particularly polite, either), but Webb was elected in part because of a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq. Had I been in Webb's shoes, I might have replied with a more polite, noncommittal answer than Webb did, but then, I don't have a child in harm's way in Iraq--and neither do George Will or George W. Bush.

Military Draft. I came of military age just four years after U.S. involvement in Vietnam ended, at a time when the military draft had been suspended. I was in the oldest age group that had to register for the draft, however, which I dutifully did on or around my eighteenth birthday. Some in Washington now are calling for the draft to be reinstated, primarily under the theory that when the children of the rich and powerful are eligible for the draft, those same people will be less inclined to push the country into unnecessary and disastrous military conflicts like the current war in Iraq. I have a modest proposal regarding the draft that I think will accomplish the same thing but with less expense and anxiety. Instead of reinstituting the draft for all young men--and women!--let's pass a law that requires the children and grandchildren of all members of Congress, the president, and the vice president to be drafted into the military. That should cut down on wars of choice.

29 November 2006

Carbon Dioxide. The Bush administration will argue before the Supreme Court today that the carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is not a pollutant and therefore is not subject to government regulation under the Clean Air Act. The government's claim is that since CO₂ is a gas that occurs naturally and is essential for respiration in plants, it can't be a pollutant. By the same faulty logic, ozone, which occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere and is essential for filtering out harmful UV radiation, is not a pollutant just because it happens to be near the ground. By the same token, methane gas, which occurs naturally in swamps and in natural gas deposits, must not be a pollutant, either. The Supreme Court's reaction to this clearly nonsensical argument will be a good test of how beholden to the administration the current court is.

17 November 2006

O. J. Simpson. O. J. Simpson is on TV hawking his new book, If I Did It, This Is How It Happened, which is supposedly a hypothetical examination of how he might have killed his ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman. This book is a perverse attempt to make money off of the tragedy that the Brown and Goldman families went through. Simpson, his publisher, and the Fox television network deserve the strongest possible condemnation from the public.

13 November 2006

Is Religion Evil? Elton John is quoted in Music Monthly Magazine as saying, "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,. . . . From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." Unfortunately, there is a plethora of evidence to support his position. Religion--whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or others--has often encouraged people to disparage, condemn, hate, despise, or even kill people who did not believe and/or act like they do. Even today, many prominent proponents of religion spew hatred and bile in the direction of their enemies. Until we convince people with a public pulpit to both preach and practice love of enemies rather than hate, more and more people will reject it as not only irrelevant in today's world, but downright evil.

10 November 2006

Charlie Rangel. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, said this: "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"

Chip Pickering, R-MS, replied, "I hope his remarks are not the kind of insults, slander and defamation that Mississippians will come to expect from the Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C."

Rangel said, "I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. I just love New York so much that I can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to live here."

He should have added, "Insults, slander, and defamation are the sorts of things that we've gotten from Republicans for the past six years. Democrats will do better." And I hope they will.

8 November 2006

Donald Rumsfeld. Less than a week after saying he would stick with Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary until the end of his term, President Bush today announced Rumsfeld's resignation, and he had a new candidate already at hand: former CIA director Robert Gates. Apparently Bush met with him over the weekend at Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX, more or less at the same time he was supposedly sticking by Rumsfeld. Hopefully Gates will have a better plan for stabilizing the situation in Iraq and bringing U.S. troops home.

U.S. Elections. Just a few days after Bush and Cheney declared that things would continue "full speed ahead" on Iraq, the voters have brought that train to a crashing halt. Having taken the House of Representatives, and very likely the Senate as well, the Democrats in Congress now have the opportunity to insist on a change of course in Iraq. They also have the chance to work positively on issues like immigration reform, the minimum wage, health care, and the environment. If they can resist the temptation to be vengeful, while at the same time taking full responsibility for their duty as an oversight body (something the current rubber-stamp Republican Congress has failed miserably at), better days may be ahead for the nation, and for the world.

5 November 2006

Ted Haggard. Without going into any details, Ted Haggard has now admitted that he has a problem "that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life." It's sad that his family and church have had to endure this embarrassment and pain, but it's just as sad that Haggard has been convinced that a homosexual orientation is a sin that must be hidden. Clearly Haggard is a man who loves God, and just as clearly, he is a man who is a homosexual. The two are not incompatible, despite what many churches teach. Haggard is living proof, or he would be, if he could admit to himself that his sexual orientation is not something "repulsive and dark" but simply the way God made him. Either God is right, or the church is. My money's on God.

4 November 2006

Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals until last Thursday, has now also been forced out of his pulpit in the church he founded in Colorado Springs twenty years ago. A self-proclaimed male prostitute alleges that Haggard had an ongoing sexual relationship with him and that he had seen Haggard use illegal drugs on several occasions. At this point, Haggard is denying both accusations, but he admits to paying his accuser for a massage and to buying drugs, which he says he didn't use. Aside from the harm done to himself, his family, and his church, Haggard's fall from grace is also a setback for causes to which progressive Christians are committed. In recent months Haggard had encouraged Evangelicals to broaden the scope of their public concern from issues like abortion and homosexuality (sic!) to include concern for the environment (including global warming) and poverty. Haggard's attempts to lead NAE members to adopt a broader range of issues was rewarded with rebuke from James Dobson and others, but he did find more than a few Evangelicals who supported him in his efforts, in addition to those like Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo who were there long before him. It remains to be seen if the next leader of the NAE will take up the now somewhat sullied mantle that Haggard has left behind and lead other Evangelicals to embrace a view of Christianity that cares about issues that are totally unrelated to sex, or whether he (and it will certainly be a he) will retreat into a Christianity that continues to ignore the core teachings of Jesus and is mute on many of the most important issues facing the church and the world today.

1 November 2006

World Wide Web. When my colleague and I launched TELA, the first Web site of our employer, Scholars Press, in August 1994, we were one of approximately 7500 sites on the Web. Now Netcraft, a company that monitors the Internet, has announced that the World Wide Web has passed the 100 million mark in terms of distinct Web sites. I'm responsible in one way or another for about 10 at the moment. When historians several centuries from now look back on the most important innovations of the late 20th century, and the people who have made the greatest impact, they will undoubtedly mention Tim Berners-Lee and his invention, the World Wide Web, for its contribution to communication and its democratizing influence on the great conversation carried on all over the world.

Kerry and Bush. So President Bush is complaining about John Kerry's comments on Iraq, saying that they denigrate the troops? This from the man who lied us into Iraq, who declared Mission Accomplished more than three years and 2500 American lives ago, who was saying "stay the course" until a couple of weeks ago, who presided over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? This from the man who avoided serving in Vietnam, while claiming to support the war, while Kerry was fighting and getting wounded--three times--in Vietnam? Puhlease!

27 October 2006

Same-Sex Marriage. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot discriminate against gay couples and that they are entitled to the same rights as married straight couples. The court left it up to the state legislature to decide whether the equal rights provisions would be called marriage or not. The court made a wise, and just, decision, and it hints at what would be a good overall solution to this issue nationwide. There are two main points to consider: equal rights for all citizens and the definition of marriage. That all citizens should have equal rights ought to go without saying, though women, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Americans, and others might protest that it needs saying anyway--and they're right. The real question revolves around the definition of marriage. The problem lies in confusing a covenant between two people sanctioned by the church or another religious group and a legal contract sanctioned by the state. In short, states should get out of the marriage business. States should limit themselves to determining what benefits and responsibilities couples have when they enter into a personal civil partnership contract with one another. Religious bodies should determine which types of partnerships they want to consecrate as marriages. Some churches will choose to limit marriages to a man and a woman, while others will allow same-sex marriages. Some churches may require that both parties be members of a particular denomination, and others may refuse to perform marriages if one or both partners has been divorced, while others may welcome all who come. These are matters for individual churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples--and their related oversight bodies--to make. They are not matters for the state, which should limit itself to civil matters.

The U.S.-Mexican Wall. President Bush has signed into law a bill that authorizes the building of a wall separating the U.S. from Mexico. Aside from the ultimate futility of such a wall, it is a slap in the face to our friends in Mexico, as Mexican president Vicente Fox has already said. In addition, it raises the specter of the Berlin Wall, the walls that the Nazis built around the Polish ghettoes, and the wall that the Israelis are building along their border with Palestine (or in some cases, through Palestinian territory). Not to be outdone, China is in the process of building a wall along its border with North Korea, so that when the inevitable collapse of the North Korean regime comes, thousands or millions of Korean refugees won't be able to seek aid in China. They'll just have to starve to death in their own country. History will ultimately record the U.S.-Mexican Wall as a wall of shame, built by a government that was possessed by fear and prejudice, bereft of compassion and common sense.

21 October 2006

Local News. Several of us were discussing where we got most of our news, and I said that I get most of my news online, from NPR, or the newspaper. I hardly ever watch the local news, I said, because their idea of an important story is usually a local fire or shooting. Later, while watching something on TV, I caught an advertisement for the late local news. The lead story? A local woman who was sitting on a toilet in a public building when it (the toilet) collapsed was suing the city for being publicly humiliated. My resolution not to watch the local news was thoroughly vindicated. There was no word on whether the woman planned to sue the local TV stations who informed more people about her humiliating experience.

20 October 2006

AIDS. Wiley Drake, second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, had this to say about President Bush's appointment of a gay physician as U.S. Global AIDS coordinator. "I think it's a tragedy to have a sodomite living with another man and being the AIDS coordinator, because we all know that if we do away with sodomy we'd almost eradicate AIDS." And if we did away with stupidity, we'd almost eradicate simple-minded bigots. Over 42 million people have AIDS, about three-fourths of them in sub-Saharan Africa. About 45% of those infected are women, who most certainly didn't get the disease by homosexual contact, nor did the millions of children who have it. Millions of people get it by sharing needles for drugs such as heroin. The most common transmission method worldwide is heterosexual contact, though gay men are one of the groups at highest risk for HIV infection.

Donald Rumsfeld. According to Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld "leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country." So now the Republicans in the country are trying to blame the failure of their Iraq policy on God???

Military Commissions Act. When the president signed into law the Military Commissions Act, supported by almost all Republicans and a large number of Democrats in Congress, he said that the bill declares that "this nation is patient and decent and fair, and we will never back down from the threats to our freedom." On the contrary, by removing the rights of defendants to confront all of the evidence against them, to demand that the charges against them be substantiated (the right to habeas corpus), and to have access to adequate legal representation, this bill, and this president, have demonstrated once again that Americans are the most serious threat to our own freedom. Perhaps the most sinister aspect of this bill is that it gives the president the right to declare anyone--U.S. citizen or not--an enemy combatant who is outside the protections of the U.S. Constitution and legal system. He could declare me an enemy combatant for writing this opinion piece. He could declare you one for reading it. If this law is not quickly reversed by a new Congress and administration or by the courts, the terrorists, who the president says want to take away our freedoms, have already won.

14 October 2006

Iraq. As if we needed another reason to view the Iraq war as a disastrous mistake, a study in the British medical journal The Lancet says that approximately 655,000 Iraqis have died since April 2003 who would not otherwise have been expected to die. In other words, the figure 655,000 is the number of people who have died over and above the expected death rate during the last few years of Saddam Hussein's rule. Only about 200,000 were attributed to direct allied (primarily U.S. and British) attacks. The rest resulted from disease, lack of electricity, lack of access to appropriate medical care, and Iraqi on Iraqi violence, among other factors. The numbers in the study have a large margin of error, with researchers estimating that the true figure could be as low as 400,000 or as high as 900,000. When these figures, covering three years, are compared with the approximately 300,000 deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein during his 24-year rule, it is hard to argue that the Iraq war has been beneficial to the average Iraqi, even though a brutal dictator was removed from power.

12 October 2006

Free Speech. Turkish author Orhan Pamuk was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature today. Pamuk is most famous in the West for his comments concerning the Armenian genocide at the hand of the Turks at the turn of the twentieth century, for which comments he was arrested and charged by the Turkish government for defaming Turkey. The charges were later dropped. Coincidentally, the French Senate today passed a law making it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide; violators could spend up to a year in prison. There is something ironic, and tragic, about the proposed French law, especially in the light of France's criticism of Turkey for its mistreatment of Turks who admit Turkey's role in the massacre. The French Senate is right, of course, about the historicity of the Armenian genocide. No serious scholar denies it. The Senate is wrong, however, about how to deal with Armenian Holocaust deniers. History isn't decided by legislation, and free speech is more important than conformity to societal norms. The French won't convert any Turkish doubters to their point of view. On the contrary, acts such as this only tend to harden the opposition. Wars of ideas are never won by the sword: they are won by the pen.

AT&T-Bell South Merger. Although the FCC has yet to sign off, it appears that the merger between AT&T and Bell South is a done deal. The Justice Department approved the deal yesterday, and this deal is yet another in a long line of mergers that appear designed to benefit stockholders at the expense of ordinary consumers. Phone rates went down after AT&T was split up 30 years ago. Will they stay low when AT&T is reassembled from its scattered parts like the Frankenstein monster? What will happen to our Internet rates, or even Internet access? The creation of another giant super-corporation (as though the AT&T-SBC merger last year didn't already create one!) makes me very nervous. Apparently the Sherman and Clayton antitrust laws have been overturned without anyone bothering to pass a law to repeal them.

10 October 2006

Capital Punishment. Today is the World Day Against the Death Penalty, a day when supporters of abolition of capital punishment lift united voices in calling for an end to this outmoded, irrational, and degrading form of punishment. It is also a form of punishment that is un-Christian, as the Amish reminded us last week. In the wake of the senseless loss of five young schoolgirls, the Amish community extended the hand of forgiveness and compassion to the family of the murderer. What would Jesus do? Exactly that.

9 October 2006

North Korea. Making good on its threats, North Korea has successfully tested a nuclear weapon at an underground location in the northeastern part of the country. The entrance of yet another country into the "nuclear club" is dangerous for world peace, and the tragedy is that this test probably could have been avoided. Six years ago North Korea, the U.S., and other countries were holding talks aimed at deterring North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. When George W. Bush became president, he scuttled those talks. Then, to make matters worse, he called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" in a State of the Union address, then he invaded another member of that axis, Iraq, which did not have nuclear weapons. The lesson that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il learned from watching the U.S. president's actions was that in order to secure his country from invasion, he needed nuclear weapons. And now the world, and particularly East Asia, pays the price for U.S. folly and North Korean paranoia.

Nuclear Weapons. From a statement by nineteen bishops of the Church of England: "Nuclear arsenals threaten long-term and fatal damage to the global environment and its people. As such, their end is evil and both possession and use profoundly anti-God acts." North Korea's nuclear test has made the world more dangerous, but the long-term commitment of the U.S., the U.K., France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel to nuclear weapons makes the world even more dangerous. All nuclear weapons everywhere must be eliminated from the world's arsenals. South Africa eliminated its nuclear weapons program about ten years ago, after the fall of the apartheid government, and the Southern Africa region is now safer for it.

Mark Foley. Newt Gingrich and a few other Republican pundits are trying to shift the blame for the Mark Foley scandal onto Democrats, claiming that they knew about the Foley allegations months ago and waited until now to release it. Unfortunately for Gingrich and other honesty-challenged people making such claims, (1) there is no evidence that the Democrats manipulated the timing of the scandal, and (2) certain Republicans knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior with House pages as far back as the year 2000. The game of trying to shift the blame for scandals or disasters, as Republicans did successfully after 9/11, won't work this time.

2 October 2006

School Shootings. There have been three school shootings in the past week in the U.S., plus at least one averted shooting. How many more children, teachers, and administrators need to die before people in this country will demand sensible restrictions on the ownership of firearms? What's more important, an overly broad interpretation of the Second Amendment or our children's lives?

Tokyo Rose. The woman known as Tokyo Rose, Iva Toguri D'Aquino, died in Chicago on 26 September at the age of 90. An American citizen of Japanese descent, she was in Japan visiting relatives when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. Although she knew little Japanese, she stayed in Japan for the duration of the war and worked various jobs, eventually including reading news reports on radio broadcasts heard by allied sailors in the Pacific. Although she was only one of about a dozen women who read the reports, and although the reports themselves were innocuous, and possibly even aimed by the writers (American and Australian POWs) at undermining the Japanese position, she was identified as "the" Tokyo Rose after the war and subjected to lengthy investigations. She was cleared by the military and the FBI in 1946, but in 1948, gossip columnist Walter Winchell launched an all-out assault on her character, and she was arrested and charged with treason. On the basis of testimony later admitted to be false, she was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison, of which she served six. She was pardoned in 1977 by President Gerald Ford, and in early 2006 the World War II Veterans Committee honored her with the Edward J. Herlihy Citizenship Award. What happened to Iva Toguri, and to thousands of other Americans of Japanese descent during the war, was an outrage that was based on racial prejudice and fueled by an unscrupulous columnist and overly zealous, perhaps criminally liable, prosecutors. America today needs to remember the lesson that just because a lie is repeated over and over, it does not become the truth.



Fair Trials. The Military Commissions Act recently passed by Congress, and soon to be signed by the president, removes a number of important rights that U.S. citizens have always enjoyed, not least of which is the right to habeas corpus, and it makes life even more difficult for non-citizens who are caught up in the government net, from which they may never extricate themselves, if this bill is enforced. Why is it that the U.S. and its allies were able to give fair trials to the worst perpetrators of Nazi atrocities after World War II, but we find ourselves unable or unwilling to give accused terrorists--just accused, mind you--the same right?

28 September 2006

A Devil of a Joke. There has been a lot of righteous indignation in recent days over statements comparing certain political leaders to the Prince of Darkness. First, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez got the right up in arms because he compared President Bush to Satan, then Jerry Falwell riled up the left by comparing Hillary Clinton to Lucifer. Come on people, both comments were jokes! People who get upset over a joke, even if they don't think it's funny, can't expect other people to take them seriously. It's worse to call someone evil and mean it than to call someone the devil in a joking way. And it's even worse to respond to perceived evil with evil. There are plenty of things in the world worth getting upset about. Comparing someone to the devil is not one of them.

26 September 2006

Habeas Corpus. As currently formulated, the law being debated in the Senate concerning the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would deny prisoners their right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is an important legal principle that dates back to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in England, though its roots in the common law are much older, predating the Magna Carta of 1215 and perhaps going back to Anglo Saxon times. Habeas corpus guarantees prisoners the right to be tried for specific offenses, rather than held in prison for an indefinite period of time without recourse to the court system. It is a bedrock principle of English common law, and it is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) and in the Bill of Rights (Amendment 6). The Constitution says explicitly, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Since neither rebellion nor invasion are pertinent in the case of the Guantanamo prisoners, the law under consideration in the Senate is clearly unconstitutional on its face. Furthermore, it represents a violation of the fundamental principles of justice on which America was founded. The president and those members of Congress who are in favor of this portion of the bill are attacking the very foundation of the American justice system, and they cannot be allowed to succeed.

25 September 2006

Hugo Chavez. While late-night comedians find Hugo Chavez's comparison of George W. Bush to the Prince of Darkness fodder for a string of jokes, others are outraged that Chavez would have the audacity to say such things on American soil (although technically, the U.N. building is international territory). I wonder which is worse, Chavez calling Bush the devil or the Bush administration plotting with members of the Venezuelan opposition to overthrow Chavez's government? It seems that Chavez has the moral high ground here, relatively speaking.

"War" on Terrorism. Leaked information from the latest National Intelligence Estimate says that the war in Iraq is making America less safe from terrorism rather than more safe. Is this a surprise? Intelligence experts for months have been saying the same thing, and in fact many people, both in and out of the intelligence community, argued before it started that a war in Iraq would become a rallying cry for terrorists. One of the president's biggest weaknesses is his inability to admit that he made a mistake, and his comments in the wake of this report so far suggest that he continues to believe that once he's made a decision, he can't reverse, or even modify it. So the war will go on. . . .

6 September 2006

Secret Prisons. The president today admitted publicly for the first time what everybody already knew, that the CIA has been keeping people in secret prisons outside even the most basic protections of the law. He announced that the remaining fourteen prisoners in these secret prisons will be transferred to a military prison in Guantanamo Bay, where they will receive the protections of the Geneva Convention. Of course, the only reason they will be protected by the Geneva Convention is that the new rulebook governing military prisoners specifies that protection. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had previously said that some of the provisions of the Geneva Convention were "quaint," while Bush claimed that the U.S. Constitution didn't apply in Guantanamo Bay, because it wasn't on American soil. I'm glad that people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, are in prison, and they should stand trial for their crimes. Nevertheless, we need to make sure that they receive all the protections that a civilized society offers its prisoners, not just for their sakes, but for ours as well.

U.S. Constitution. The president has said that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply in Guantanamo Bay, because our military base there is on Cuban soil rather than U.S. soil. Similarly, since secret prisons are in other countries, the Constitution is not applicable there. Perhaps the president was skipping class that day in high school or at Yale when the Constitution was discussed in his government class. Every real American knows that the U.S. Constitution is more than just a set of laws that shifty government lawyers can circumvent at will. The Constitution is a set of principles on which our nation was founded. It does not just apply on American soil. It applies wherever Americans are representing their nation, at home or abroad, in the U.S. proper or in Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe or Asia. If Bush doesn't believe that the Constitution applies in those places, then he doesn't believe in the ideals of the Constitution, and he has no business being the president of the United States.

4 September 2006

Steve Irwin. The Crocodile Hunter died today as a result of an improbable stingray attack. Irwin was renowned worldwide as a man who loved to be out in nature, to film animals in the wild, and to talk with exuberance about animals to anyone who would listen. He was an ardent conservationist, and there was never any doubt that he loved his work. He was so enthusiastic about what he did that his life and work were a joy to behold. He died like he lived, doing what he loved. He will remain an inspiration not only to budding conservationists and nature lovers, but to anyone who enjoys life. We'll miss you, Steve!

1 September 2006

The Wall. Another name for the proposed wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico: the world's longest spite fence.

30 August 2006

Church and State. Katherine Harris, U.S. Representative from Florida and infamous for her role in the Florida fiasco of 2000 that gave the election to Bush, gave an interview last week with the Florida Baptist Witness, a weekly Baptist newspaper. She said that the separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told" and that it is wrong "because God is the one who chooses our rulers." I guess that explains why she abrogated her responsibility to count the votes when she was Florida Secretary of State. If God had chosen Bush, who were the voters to stand in his way? Baptists have traditionally been strong advocates of separation of church and state, though admittedly there are many today who think it only applies when Baptists are out of power in Washington. Separation of church and state--really of religion and state--has been a bedrock principle of U.S. governing philosophy since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson, who said in a letter to the Danbury Baptist (!) association, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Clearly Jefferson understood what Harris doesn't, that when the government attempts to enforce one particular set of religious beliefs on its citizens, freedom is lost, and basic human rights are in serious jeopardy. Need proof? Consider the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the various European religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, the French persecution of the Huguenots, the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and the current state of Iran, just to name a few examples.

27 August 2006

Pluto. 1930-2006. R.I.P. (Retired Itinerant Planet)

Corporate Sponsorship. I heard a story on NPR about all the corporations that have naming rights to sports stadiums and sporting events, and it hit me that corporate sponsorship was the ideal solution to two problems perennially plaguing politics--influence peddling and fundraising--so I have a modest proposal: let's make corporate sponsorship of politicians legal, from the highest office in the land to the lowest. Everybody knows that a politician who accepts large amounts of campaign cash from a corporation, industry, or interest group will probably be more beholden to the contributor than to the average constituent. If money didn't buy access to power, corporations and other groups that crave access would stop giving. The nice thing about corporate sponsorship would be that corporate influence would be right out there in the open, for all to see. Gone would be the days when politicians would try to hide their lists of major contributors or would claim that, despite all the money involved, they were unaffected by corporate donations. Influence peddling would become mainstream and above board. Furthermore, fundraising would no longer be a problem, either, because any candidate with half a chance of winning would be able to find corporate sponsorship, relieving taxpayers of the burden of paying to support candidates who, once they got to Washington, would just abandon them for corporate sponsors anyway. I can see it now. The Oil Industry President of the United States. The Halliburton Vice President. The Wal-Mart Senator from Arkansas. The Jiffy Lube Representative from Georgia. Even the Purina Puppy Chow Dogcatcher from Muleshoe. Corporate sponsorship could also shore up sagging budgets by soliciting companies to sponsor various appointed jobs. The UPS Postmaster General. The Heidi Fleiss, Inc., Solicitor General. The John Birch Society Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The FedEx-Kinko's Director of the CIA. The AT&T Director of the NSA. The mind boggles at the possibilities!

16 August 2006

Israel. According to news reports, many Israelis are upset with their government and their military for their failure to prevail decisively in the recently ended war with Hezbollah. Many citizens and low-ranking soldiers seem to think that the IDF should have used more firepower, sent more ground troops in sooner, and made a more concerted effort early on in the conflict. Then everything would have been better, they think. This sort of thinking afflicts many Americans, too, who haven't learned the lesson of Vietnam. More firepower, more bombs, and more troops don't necessarily win wars, particularly when they're fought in someone else's country. Maybe twenty times as many Vietnamese as Americans died in that war, yet Vietnam ultimately prevailed, because all they had to do was resist and inflict casualties on an invader. The same is happening in Iraq, and the same happened to the Israelis in Lebanon. It's also the reason why all the Arab countries in the world combined could never destroy the nation of Israel, even if they were inclined to try. There are three reasons for this. First, people fight for their homelands with more resolve than invaders. Second, when a person defending his homeland falls, there is always another one--or two--to take his place. Third, even if an invading force subjugates a people, no such victory is ever final. It may seem obvious, but the only hope for peace in the world is to wage peace, not war.

Iraq. The American death toll in Iraq has reached another tragic milestone, 2600. To echo Thomas Friedman, it's time to stop throwing good lives after good. Bring the troops home now.

8 August 2006

Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman has lost his bid to be the Democratic nominee for senator in Connecticut in the fall, even though he is the incumbent. Over the past few days, Lieberman began to criticize the president for his handling of the war, but it was too little, too late. Lieberman appealed to voters to remember his strong Democratic voting record over the years, and he is right: he has had a strong record on many issues. However, on the issue that many voters consider to be the most important, the war in Iraq, Lieberman has been consistently wrong. He was wrong in the beginning to support the charge to war, but then so were most other senators. The difference is that many of them, including some Republicans, have since realized that their initial support was misplaced. Lieberman still doesn't get it. It's not just that the war hasn't been run very well, it's that it was morally wrong. It's one thing to make an error in judgment, like Lieberman did in voting to give the president power to invade Iraq. It's another to be unable to admit a mistake. Maybe Bush's inability to admit error has rubbed off on Lieberman. Thanks for your service, Joe, but it's time to let someone who more closely reflects the view of the majority on the fundamental issue of the day take office.

Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia McKinney has lost in the primary as well, not because of her political positions, but because she has been an embarrassment to her constituents one time too many. She sealed her own fate when she whacked a Capitol Hill security guard who tried to stop her from entering the Capitol several months ago, because he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing her name badge. Rather than simply stop and explain who she was, and maybe show some ID, she treated the officer like he was beneath contempt for not recognizing her. That sort of arrogance no one needs in Congress. And I say that as someone who agrees with McKinney's positions on most issues (but not her conspiracy theories concerning 9/11).

Israel. In an interview on NPR this afternoon, a reporter was speaking from the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona, which has suffered from Hezbollah rocket attacks. As the reporter was talking, the anchor asked her about the noise in the background. Was it more Hezbollah rockets? "Oh, those are outgoing," she said. So Israel has rocket launchers near a civilian area? Isn't that the same thing they have criticized Hezbollah for on many occasions? In the meantime, civilians on both sides continue to die. . . .

30 July 2006

Israel. This morning the so-called "Christian" radio station in my home town was advising its listeners to pray that Israel would be protected from its enemies. I support that, but there was no reciprocal mention that listeners should also pray for Israel's enemies to be protected from Israel. Earlier today the Israeli military dropped a bomb on an apartment building in the Lebanese village of Qana that killed at least 60 civilians. By my calculations, that's more civilians killed with one Israeli bomb that all the Israeli civilians who have been killed by Hezbollah rockets at this point in the conflict. Why does the radio station, as well as many other Americans, think that Lebanese lives are less important that Israeli lives? Such a position, which is the official position of the U.S. government, is hopelessly immoral. For the sake of all the civilians on both sides of this conflict, it's time to stop the insanity.

Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson was arrested this weekend for DUI, and reports say that he reproached the arresting officer with a number of anti-Semitic remarks. He has since apologized profusely for his comments and his behavior, but the whole incident revives the controversy surrounding his movie The Passion of the Christ, which many people thought had anti-Semitic undertones, but which others praised as a masterpiece. For years Gibson has tried to distance himself from the views of his father, an infamous Holocaust denier, and in fact Mel is currently at work on a TV miniseries based on the memoir of a Dutch Jew during World War II. His recent behavior reminds us that although it is difficult to overcome the prejudices with which we were raised, it is imperative that we do so. Anti-Semitic attitudes and actions have been a terrible part of the history of Christianity from the earliest times, and though the church has made great strides forward in overcoming this despicable legacy, it is clear that we still have far to go. One thing Christians need to understand is the importance of re-telling the story of Jesus in each new generation in language that reflects current thought and sensitivities. Language that communicated one message when Christians were a minority community that was sometimes persecuted by Jews may communicate something entirely different when presented in a time in which Christians vastly outnumber Jews worldwide, particularly when the church has a history of persecuting Jews.

19 July 2006

Lebanon. According to a CNN poll, 65% of Americans want the U.S. to stay out of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The only problem is, the U.S. is already involved. As Israel's arms supplier, the U.S. is already involved. As Israel's leading cheerleader, we're already involved. As Israel's chief enabler in a codependent relationship, we're already involved. What we need to do is not stay out of the conflict, but stop taking the side of the aggressor.

Web Freedom. Catherine Sanderson, a British secretary working for a French firm, has been fired for keeping an online journal of her life, which included comments that her employer considered not particularly flattering. Now she is suing her former employer, claiming they violated her right to free speech by "doocing" her (i.e., firing her for what she wrote in a personal blog). The ease with which people can publish their thoughts online is leading many people to create blogs and Web pages as ways to express themselves, and bloggers need to be aware of the potential dangers they face by doing so. On the other hand, laws need to be written to establish the right to free speech in the blogosphere, and some employers need to lighten up considerably. Certainly employees should not be allowed to reveal trade secrets or confidential information (unless that information involves illegalities on the part of the company--whistleblower protection is also needed), and adverse comments about company policy or products that might negatively impact the company and its other employees can be enjoined (again, unless illegalities are involved). However, harmless comments about coworkers and company shenanigans should be protected speech, just as such comments are if spoken to friends. Furthermore, comments by bloggers that express opinions different from the official positions of their employers--whether involving politics, religion, philosophy, or sports--should be explicitly protected. More pervasive criticism should be allowed if the company and the blogger are not identified by name, as was the case with Sanderson, who was known to her readers only as La Petite Anglaise. Until these laws are passed, however, let the blogger beware!

Net Neutrality. Another threat to those of us who produce material for the Web is the death of net neutrality, the principle that allows everyone equal access to the Web, regardless of ability to pay. Some of the big corporate owners of Web pipes want to start charging a premium fee for people and companies that use a lot of bandwidth, such as Internet service providers and big search engines like Google. If they are successful in their attempts, two things will happen. First, those costs will inevitably be passed down to individual consumers, one way or another. Second, the Web will cease to be an Information Superhighway, open to all, because those who pay for the toll lanes will get premium service, while the rest of us will rot in data traffic jams. The Web offers the little guy (and girl) the chance to compete in the world of ideas with the corporate world and political powerhouses. It is the first truly democratic medium of publication ever invented. It must be protected.

18 July 2006

President Bush. So President Bush cusses when he thinks the microphones are off. Is this news? Is it a big surprise to anyone? After all, it's not the first time he's been recorded using somewhat salty language. I suppose the story has legs because of the president's self-proclaimed affiliation to Christian conservatives, who criticize such language and tend to avoid it, at least in public. However, I'm reminded of this anecdote about Tony Campolo, a respected, religiously conservative spokesman for social justice. Campolo has sometimes begun his speech to students at Christian colleges in this fashion. "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." People should pay more attention to those who suffer as a direct result of Bush administration policies, for example in Iraq, than to whether or not the president uses foul language. Which has a greater impact?

16 July 2006

Soldiers vs. militants. A headline from the CNN Web site says, "Two Palestinian Militants Killed in Gaza Airstrike." Throughout the article, Palestinian fighters are called militants, while Israeli fighters are called soldiers. The article also quotes a Hamas spokesman as admitting to "terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians" as well as attacks on the Israeli military. However, nowhere in the article are Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians characterized as terrorist attacks. As long as the news media continues to use different vocabulary for referring to the same phenomena being carried out by opposing sides in a conflict such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, readers will continue to get the subtle message that one side is almost wholly in the right while the other is almost wholly in the wrong.

13 July 2006

Israel. In response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Israel has invaded Gaza, launched innumerable rockets, and killed many Palestinians, including dozens of civilians. In the process, several Israeli soldiers have been killed as well. When members of Hezbollah in Lebanon kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers, Israel responded with a massive bombing campaign in Lebanon, again killing many people. In neither case have those holding the Israeli soldiers hostage released their prisoners or modified their demands that Arab hostages be released from Israeli prisons. The traditional Just War doctrine states that military reaction must be in proportion to the offense, but Israel is apparently following instead the Powell Doctrine of demonstrating overwhelming force in any military conflict. It hasn't worked for the U.S. in Iraq, or at least it hasn't worked for ordinary Iraqis, and it won't work for Israel in its struggle with its neighbors. Until Israel gets serious about making peace with its neighbors, instead of lashing out violently and massively against every affront, the region will continue its downward spiral of violence, the state of Israel will be increasingly less secure, and civilians on all sides will suffer the consequences.

8 July 2006

First Amendment. Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart has become the first U.S. soldier who was a member of the Wiccan religion to die in combat. The normal practice for memorializing a fallen soldier is to put his name and a figure symbolizing his religion on a brass plaque at one of the veteran's cemeteries. However, his widow has been unsuccessful in convincing the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs to add the symbol for Wicca, a pentagram, to Stewart's plaque. This refusal to recognize his religious preference flies in the face of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Despite the fact that 38 different religious groups have been approved by the VA as appropriate for display on a plaque, the VA--having accepted distinct symbols for various kinds of Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and even atheism--apparently draws the line at Wicca. The government's refusal so far to intervene in this case does dishonor to a soldier who earned both a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, and it is a clear attempt to establish a set of religions as acceptable, while defining others as not acceptable. All this despite the fact that more than 1,800 Wiccans are on active duty in the U.S. military, and their religious preference is inscribed on their dog tags!

Religious Extremism. A court in Yemen has thrown out charges against 19 accused al Qaeda suspects, saying that Islamic Shariah law permits jihad against occupiers. Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is running for reelection, and opponents accuse him of influencing the court to throw out the case in order to pander to Islamic extremists prior to the vote. What a terrible situation! The next thing you know, the president will try to amend the constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag, ban unpopular marriage contracts, and raise other issues that fire up his country's religious extremists.

30 June 2006

First Amendment. The library director at the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Mendell D. Morgan, Jr., has canceled the library's subscription to the New York Times, in protest against an article the Times published dealing with government investigations of the bank accounts of U.S. citizens. Morgan has every right to disagree with the wisdom of the Times article. He has no right as a librarian to censor the material his patrons may access because of his personal political views. While other librarians around the country are confronting law enforcement officials over invasions of their readers' rights to privacy in the library, and others perennially stand firm against the plague of censorship for any number of reasons, Morgan is violating his charge as a librarian. The American Library Association lists as one of its five key action areas Intellectual Freedom, describing its commitment as follows: "Intellectual freedom is a basic right in a democratic society and a core value of the library profession. The American Library Association actively defends the right of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment." By removing his patrons' access to the New York Times in his library, Morgan is abrogating his duty as a librarian, and especially as an academic librarian. He may also be endangering his school's academic accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, whose Principles of Accreditation include this requirement for its member schools: "The institution provides facilities, services, and learning/information resources that are appropriate to support its teaching, research, and service mission." Hopefully Morgan will see the light, hear the voices of protest from his own institution and elsewhere, stop getting ideas from the local comic strip "Nacho Guarache," and reverse his decision. Note: one day after the local newspaper made Morgan's censorship of the Times public, he reversed his decision, though without admitting that he'd made a mistake.

28 June 2006

First Amendment. In response to the New York Times story revealing yet another secret Bush administration program that violates the civil rights of Americans--this time they're monitoring the personal banking records of Americans without warrants--the president said, "We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America." I agree that we're at war with people who want to hurt the U.S., but it's the Bush administration and their congressional allies who are the enemy of the U.S. By systematically setting aside the hard-won civil rights that are crucial to our identity as a nation, Bush and company are transforming the U.S. into a police state, where the executive branch is unfettered by the Constitution, reminiscent of Germany or Italy in the 1930s or Chile in the 1980s. The First Amendment guarantees the right of newspapers to publish, and citizens to read about, the government's abuse of power when it occurs.

Flag Burning Amendment. The U.S. Senate, by a one-vote margin, turned away the most recent attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag. Almost all Senate Republicans, together with about a third of the Senate Democrats, voted to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration, but they failed to reach the two-thirds majority necessary for an amendment to be sent to the states for ratification. Supporters of the amendment made a variety of outlandish claims in its favor. "It's important that we venerate the national symbol of our country," said Orrin Hatch of Utah. Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said, "The American flag deserves every protection that we can afford." South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said, "When you desecrate or defile the flag, that to me is a destructive act, not symbolic speech." They are all wrong. The flag is a symbol of the country, nothing more. The federal government does not need to force people to venerate it. If people don't respect the flag and what it stands for, government coercion will not change their minds. The flag is a piece of cloth, and so needs no protection. The poor and people without health care and women in abusive relationships need protection, not the flag. Burning the flag may be a destructive act, but it is also symbolic speech. If it were not symbolic, why would so many people be so upset about it? A Constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration would weaken the First Amendment protection of free speech for the first time in U.S. history. Those who push the amendment remind me of those who convinced King Nebuchadnezzar to pass a law requiring that all citizens bow down and give homage whenever they heard the Babylonian national anthem played, on pain of death. Is that what we really want in this country?

14 June 2006

Public Broadcasting. Republicans in Congress are again trying to cut funding from PBS and NPR. Shows like Sesame Street teach children to respect each other, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Tolerance and respect are not values that all in the "values party" endorse. Public broadcasting offers programming that challenges viewers/listeners without being insulting or condescending. It offers thoughtful, provocative, quality programming from a variety of perspectives. Imagine a broadcast landscape with nothing but corporate-sponsored news, insipid reality shows, talk show hosts screaming at their guests, and one formulaic sitcom and cop show after another. That's what we'll have without public television--oh yeah, we'll have sports, too. Without NPR, all the news on the radio will be presented either as two-minute segments with four local stories, traffic, and weather, sandwiched between five minutes of commercials, or it will be loud-mouthed blowhards bloviating on one topic or another about which they know next to nothing. It is essential that America hold on to the only broadcast forums that represent all of us. After all, we are the "Public" in PBS and NPR.

Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter makes a living insulting people on the political left, and pretty much any one else who disagrees with her. That's fine--there are left-wingers who do more or less the same thing (although the latter usually refrain from explicit calls for murdering their opponents, even in jest). However, now she has taken to vilifying 9/11 widows, having made a test-run on Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq. Surely there must be a rhetorical limit beyond which pundits on either side of an issue will not stray, but Coulter is either blissfully unaware of such a limit or else she lacks the self-control to prevent herself from transgressing that limit. Ironically, her newest rightwing attack on the left is called Godless, referring to her political opponents. It should have been called Soulless, referring to the author. What do you call someone who picks on widows and those who have lost their children in war?

11 June 2006

Israel. After Israeli artillery killed a Palestinian family of seven on a Gaza beach on Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defended the Israeli Defense Force, saying, "The IDF is the most moral military in the world; there has never been--and there isn't now--a policy of attacking civilians." However, even if the government does not advocate attacking civilians, it also clearly doesn't care that civilians are routinely killed in official attempts to kill militants. Even if Palestinian militants sometimes attack civilians, one cannot on the one hand condemn such acts and at the same time defend Israeli killings of Palestinians civilians. Artillery attacks and bombings will inevitably kill or injure unintended people, and the world must condemn all such attacks, regardless of who the perpetrators are, Israeli or Palestinians, American or Iraqi, etc.

8 June 2006

United Nations. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton on Wednesday criticized the U.N.'s number two diplomat, Mark Malloch Brown, for a speech the latter made on Tuesday, whose general topic was the need for U.N. reforms. Malloch Brown criticized the U.S. for using the U.N. to further its international goals, while failing to inform the American public of the U.N.'s successes abroad. In fact, he suggested, what the average U.S. citizen hears concerning the U.N. is only its failures and problems, and diatribes by U.N. detractors in the media go largely unchallenged. Bolton responded that he had never heard such scurrilous accusations from a chief U.N. official, and he said, "Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations." In other words Bolton was shocked--shocked!--to find that anyone in the U.N. hierarchy was critical of the U.S. Of course, though Malloch Brown didn't say so, Bolton is one of the harshest critics of the U.N., and he is on record as saying, "If [the U.N. secretariat building in New York] lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Prior to his recess appointment as U.N. ambassador (President Bush knew that Bolton's nomination would have difficulty gaining approval in the Senate), 59 former diplomats signed a letter urging Senators to oppose Bolton's nomination, in part because of his "insistence that the UN is valuable only when it directly serves the United States," pretty much the same criticism that Malloch Brown made in his speech. In light of Bolton's record of animosity toward the U.N., it is clear that despite his actual words, what he meant was, "Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I hope, will be the United Nations." Malloch Brown's statements accurately reflect the attitude of the Bush administration, and especially John Bolton, toward the U.N. Bolton can't be replaced too soon.

7 June 2006

Geneva Conventions. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Bush administration has removed a reference from the latest version of the Army Field Manual that requires soldiers to observe the restrictions of the Geneva Convention regarding the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. In the light of atrocities that have taken place at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, as well as the reports concerning the secret prisons in Eastern Europe and the practice of extraordinary rendition (delivering prisoners to a third country where they will be tortured), the omission of prisoner protections in the Field Manual is not only immoral, it is criminal. This is the professed policy of a president that many of his most ardent supporters see as a man of God?

1 June 2006

Haditha. In the wake of the massacre of two dozen unarmed civilians in Haditha by U.S. Marines, American military leaders in Iraq are calling for all troops to undergo Core Values Training. Teaching ethical values is a good thing pretty much any time, but if people don't see any ethical problem with executing unarmed men, women, and children, is a little extra training really going to solve the problem? Are they likely to say, "Oh, I didn't get it before! It's actually wrong to kill unarmed civilians!"? How can we expect soldiers to behave ethically within a larger unethical act, the war itself?

31 May 2006

Separation of Powers. The U.S. Congress is up in arms about federal agents searching the office of a member of Congress, William Jefferson (D-LA), who is suspected of public corruption. I agree that the separation of powers doctrine precludes FBI agents, who work for the Executive Branch, from searching Legislative offices without a court-issued search warrant, and there are certain other constitutional restrictions as well, as delineated in Article 1, Section 6: "[Members of Congress] shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Members of Congress are outraged that their rights are being violated. Where is the outrage over the government violating the privacy rights of millions of ordinary Americans by tapping their phone calls? Where is the outrage over the government's spying on what we read in libraries or purchase in book stores? Where is the outrage over the government's violation of the human rights of hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in secret prisons around the world? Where is the outrage over the millions of poor people in our country with insufficient access to food and health care? If only we had a Congress that was as attuned to the injustices that their constituents face as to those that they face, maybe we would have a better, more just country.

19 May 2006

Domestic Spying. Polls that show that most Americans don't have a big problem with the government listening in on their private phone conversations remind me of the story about how to boil a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out, but if you put it in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, it will just stay in the water until it is cooked. That outlook seems to be one shared by many Americans. First the government claimed it was only eavesdropping on a very few overseas phone calls, looking for terrorists. Then they admitted that there were, in fact, many overseas calls that had been monitored. Then they said that a few domestic calls might have been part of the monitoring effort. Then they admitted that potentially millions of calls had been monitored, though of course, they say, they hadn't actually listened to the calls. Now the nominee to head the CIA, General Michael Hayden, who designed and implemented the domestic spying program at the NSA, says that sometimes there's no time to get a warrant to listen to a phone conversation, implying that the NSA has in fact been listening to conversations, not just tracking calling patterns. In addition, ABC News claims that their reporters have been targeted specifically by the domestic spying program. Will the news media stand up and protest their need to preserve the confidentiality of their sources? Will the American public react strongly against the clear violation of their right to privacy? Or will we all just sit calmly in water that's getting hotter and hotter, just waiting to boil?

The Rise of the Political Left. The accession to office of Italy's new prime minister Romano Prodi raises an interesting notion. President George W. Bush is not well-loved around the world, but it's time for many to re-think their opinion of him. He has actually done a great favor for many people in the world by fueling the successful electoral campaigns of left and center-left governments in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, and elsewhere. Where would the left be without Bush?

12 May 2006

Government Spying. So it turns out that the federal government is not only monitoring telephone calls between U.S. residents and people in other countries, they're also keeping tabs on who is calling whom within the borders of the U.S. "It's all perfectly legal," they say, "because we're not actually listening to the calls, we're just looking at the phone numbers and the times and durations of the calls." That's what they say now, but I seem to recall that the Bush administration at one point claimed that they were only monitoring international calls after getting warrants, and then after evidence to the contrary came to light, they said that they hadn't monitored very many calls. That, of course, turned out to be false as well. And now they're telling us that they're just looking at the records of my calls to my family, my friends, my students, and business associates, but they're not really listening to them. Number one, why do they need this information on me, or on you, and number two, why should I believe that they're not listening in?

Zacharias Moussaoui. News reports say that one juror who wanted to give Moussaoui life in prison held out against all the others who wanted to sentence him to death (on two charges there were two dissenters, on one charge only one). Despite repeated votes, the other jurors couldn't persuade the lone holdout, nor could they determine who it was, since all the votes were done by secret ballot. Moussaoui now claims to be innocent of conspiring in the 9/11 plot, and he says that his surprise confession in the courtroom was a lie. He figured that it would be impossible to get a fair trial in a U.S. courtroom, so he might as well paint himself as a martyr for the cause. The truth seems to be somewhere in between. Moussaoui will not be a martyr for the cause, nor was he intimately involved in the 9/11 plot, but he did have knowledge about the plot that might well have saved lives. The proper place for Moussaoui is behind bars for life, but he might not be getting what he deserves but for the courage of one lone juror.

10 May 2006

Tax Cut. The House today passed an extension on tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealth