Tortured Logic
Obama Administration DOJ Does It Again!

For those who still believe that we who voted for Obama are somehow in the tank for him, this should hopefully dispel such notions.

This was taken straight off Glenn Greenwald's blog. I will print it in its entirety. It speaks for itself, but I know some, if not all, of you will share my outrage at the continuation of this practice and the reluctance of Eric Holder to prosecute, at the highest level, those who stained our nation and did so believing that they were justified in their actions.

Appalling!

I urge all of you to write your congressmen and senators, and while you're at it the White House, and demand that the DOJ immediately start criminal prosecutions of high-ranking officials who sanctioned these disgusting practices. We may not make a difference, or change policy, but God will hear our collective voices and take note of our steadfastness.

What was that about those who sit by idly and do nothing...


Monday Aug. 10, 2009 11:11 EDT

Tortured logic

Editor's note: Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week. Digby is guest-blogging today.

We weren't sure he was going to even go this far, but according to news reports over the weekend, Attorney General Holder has decided on a "narrow" investigation into torture. In fact, it's so narrow that it won't investigate any of the torture that was authorized by DOJ functionary John Yoo at all. Using inverted pretzel logic, they are apparently going to go after those who failed to follow John Yoo's directives.

For instance, according to the LA Times, Holder will not investigate allegations of waterboarding in themselves, but rather if they failed to properly follow their waterboarding instructions to the letter:

The inspector general also voiced alarm over how much water was being used. Rather than dripping liquid from a canteen, as the 2002 memo envisioned, CIA interrogators "applied large volumes of water," raising questions about whether the method "was either efficacious or medically safe." Because of such documented discrepancies, Justice Department officials and legal experts regard the waterboarding abuses as cases that hold the most promise for prosecution.

I think we can all see the problem here, can't we? By prosecuting waterboarding "abuses" we are essentially declaring waterboarding under John Yoo's only slightly less sadistic guidelines to be legal. Evidently, the new standard will be that if you're going to torture, you'd better do it right.
But it is actually worse than that. Buried in the LA Times story is an item I hadn't heard before, but which one would think would be important in all this:

Officials said it wasn't clear that any CIA interrogators were ever informed of the limits laid out in the Justice Department memo. "A number of people could say honestly, correctly, 'I didn't know what was in it,' " said a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the inner workings of the interrogation program. The CIA report also cites cases in which interrogators engaged in potentially illegal improvisations. One interrogator brandished a gun, former CIA officials said. Other prisoners were reportedly threatened with bodily harm, including being buried alive.

It's hard for me to see how these memos can be considered legally binding if the people who allegedly followed them didn't know they existed. And if they didn't know of the memos, the obvious question is what legal basis they thought they had for doing any of it? If they can't be held liable for "abuse" of the torture techniques because they didn't know the techniques could be abused, did they think they could do anything at all? These seem like questions worth asking.
If these questions aren't asked, you end up with an incoherent legal structure that says that if you waterboarded a prisoner "properly," that is by using the legally sanctioned amount of water to temporarily drown them, you cannot be prosecuted. But if you merely threatened the prisoner with bodily harm, you could be in big trouble:

The CIA report also cites cases in which interrogators engaged in potentially illegal improvisations. One interrogator brandished a gun, former CIA officials said. Other prisoners were reportedly threatened with bodily harm, including being buried alive.

Meanwhile, such truly horrible psychological techniques such as long term sleep deprivation escape scrutiny altogether.

One begins to see why the CIA is so threatened by all this. They are being asked to answer for something that makes no sense. (Obviously, they all have free will and could have declined to participate at all, but that's another subject.)

And, of course, even worse than all that (if that's possible) is the fact that by validating John Yoo's directives, they are also validating the idea that obscure Justice Department officials can be granted the authority to essentially immunize officials at all levels of the government, from the president down to the lowest field officer, by issuing a secret memo. This is very important new development in western jurisprudence and one that surely requires more study and consideration. If Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had known about this, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

Andrew Sullivan says that Holder's plan is much worse than nothing because it is:
...the kind of split-the-difference pragmatism that will end up alienating everyone. It is vital that the Obama administration does nothing to imply that what was authorized within the rules under the Cheney torture program is in any way legal, defensible or moral.

It strikes me that this isn't actually pragmatism at all. It will protect Cheney and his lieutenants, to be sure, but doing this is going to cause a great deal of dissension among the intelligence services for no real purpose. The bad apple approach doesn't solve the political, legal or moral problems. Indeed, that seems so clear that you have to wonder if this isn't being done to serve some other purpose.

As it happens the UK is dealing with some similar issues right now, with the Binyam Mohammed case heating up with the revelation that the government lied about knowing he was imprisoned in Morocco. (MI5 is accused of being complicit in Mohammed's horrifying torture after he was "rendered" there in 2003.) As Glenn discussed at length when it was revealed, the Obama Administration issued a memo to the UK that the US would withhold vital anti-terrorism information from the British Government if they allowed their judges to release information to the public about the torture programs. I personally always felt this was unlikely to have been a real threat, but rather a result of collusion between the two governments to keep the information under wraps.

But one wonders, considering the recent activity on this front in both countries, if they both haven't decided that they are both better off conducting some show trials on the torture issue rather than trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug. If pragmatism is what's guiding the administration on this, I suspect it's this kind of Real Politic pragmatism rather than domestic political considerations. Otherwise they wouldn't be making the laws governing this issue even more obscure than they already are.

UPDATE: The ACLU produced this powerful video, also called Tortured Logic, featuring the actual words of the notorious OLC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjoX59e75L4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F&feature=player_embedded

Stupid is as Stupid Does!
Formerly titled You Can’t Make This Stuff Up.

While President Obama continues to decide whether he has the stomach to take seriously and challenge the extreme conservative flank of the Republican Party on health care reform, it’s always refreshing to know that we can count on some of the more unhinged of the conservative movement to strut their stuff and give us a few lowlights.

So, with that in mind, I have decided to launch a new monthly entry, titled, Stupid is as Stupid Does. Each month I will pick three contestants who have distinguished themselves in the annals of stupidity. I know it will be difficult, given that there are so many contestants to choose from and so little space. And, of course, there are some individuals who will be frequent flyers, if you know what I mean.

So let's start the festivities, shall we?

First Place in this month’s contest goes to Sarah Palin, now former governor of Alaska, who just can’t resist reassuring the millions of Americans who didn’t vote for her last year that they made the right choice. Seems she’s been blogging on her Facebook page and had some choice words about President Obama’s health care plan.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Now of course Palin is not the only conservative who has deliberately distorted for political purposes what’s in the health care plan, but not even the most partisan hacks have invoked the term death panel. When you’re further to the right than most of the space cadets who have shown up at the town hall meetings and engaged in staged shouting matches you’re about as fringe as it gets. Rumor has it that Palin has decided to go out on the stump for Republican congressmen and senators during the 2010 mid-terms and that the vast majority of them have not returned her phone calls. I can’t imagine why.

Runner up goes to the self-proclaimed “mobfather” of the lunatic Right, Rush Limbaugh, who never lets an opportunity to embarrass himself go by. This time he has truly gone all out by comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler.

“Ms. Pelosi, you asked for this. Here you go. Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. His cabinet only met once, one day. That was it. Hitler said he didn’t need to meet with his cabinet. He represented the will of the people. He was called The Messiah. He said the people spoke through him. Do you know what the very first law that Hitler ordained was? The very first law was a law declaring how to cook lobsters. They were to be boiled. That was deemed to be the least painful. The law was sent around to all the restaurants. Now, does this sound like something any conservative president has ever done or does it sound like the things that liberals are doing all over this country? The links to show you just how off-the-wall radical environmentalist the Nazis were are posted now at the top of RushLimbaugh.com. Okay, Ms. Pelosi. You say you see swastikas? Well, when it comes to it, you look much more like one than any of us ever will.”

BTW, the reference that Limbaugh is making regarding Pelosi has to do with a comment she made about some of the, shall we say, more enlightened of the town hall meeting attendees who were sporting swastika tattoos. She was not insinuating that these deranged individuals were in any way connected to the Republican Party; merely that they were being incited by radical elements within it. Not that that matters to the likes of a Limbaugh. The only thing he seems concerned about these days is his maniacal hatred for anything Obama.

But our third place winner this month is a tie between personal favorites, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck. Talk about persistence paying off. Malkin appeared on last week’s The View, which for her is analogous to a vampire staying up to see the sunrise. Malkin is promoting her new book “Culture of Corruption” to people who actually read, which means she has to leave the comfort zone of her fan base who are barely above crayons. The book, all 400 pages of it, chronicles all of the scandals and lies of President Obama. While I haven’t had the honor and privilege of picking it up, much less thumbing through its pages, what puzzles me is how this so-called journalist can write a comprehensive book on a 6-month old administration, yet said virtually nothing during the interminable eight-year reign of King George II. Hmmm. As for Captain Video, who was last month's winner all by himself with his now infamous interview of Michael Scheuer in which Scheuer said that the only chance we had was for bin Laden to attack us again with Smiley just nodding stupidly throughout the whole interview. Well this time all he managed to do was call the President a racist, joke about Nancy Pelosi drinking a glass of wine that he had poisoned, and drum roll please, state that the government, through its Cash for Clunkers Program, was looking to take over your computer. He referred to a link on the government website cars.gov which states that your computer is “now the property of the United States.” Turns out the alleged link was never on cars.gov, but on another site where dealers had to register to get their rebates; the consumer was never under any threat alleged or real of losing their privacy, not to mention their computers. Seriously, Glenn, I know all of you are paranoid about the government and even more pissed off that you have to look at a Democrat in the Oval Office for the next three and a half years, but enough is enough. I don’t expect much when I watch Fox, which thankfully isn’t all that often, but calling the President a racist and just flat out making up stuff about government programs you have stated you don’t like in the first place is beneath even you.

So there you have it. This month’s “Stupid is as Stupid Does” awards. Stay tuned next month to see who our winners will be; or you can just watch Fox News.

Et Tu Obama?
Why the Right Will Never Go Away!


Watching politics in this country, it is often said, is like watching a good tennis match between two excellent servers. We wait for the serve that can’t be returned to know who won. But some of the more astute have a different opinion. It’s more like the scene after the “Et tu Brute” moment in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”. You keep waiting for Mark Antony to appear and rile up the mob to turn on its hero, Brutus. Those who studied the play in school will note that the fatal error Brutus makes is believing that the mob will have enough intelligence to see the assassination of Caesar as a virtuous thing. After all, after he explains the rationale for the deed, they cheer him as the true patriot of Rome. But almost as fatal as Brutus’ overestimation of the crowd’s intelligence and sophistication is the decision to leave it in the hands of Antony. Nature abhors a vacuum and will look to fill it anyway it can. Within a few short minutes, Antony’s “Friends, Romans, countrymen” speech turns the crowd decidedly against Brutus and the rest of the assassins. Soon it is Brutus who is on the run for his life. The irony is that Brutus uses rational logic to make his point to the people, while Antony resorts to emotional manipulation. Guess which tactic works in the end. I’ll give you a hint for those who never read the play: it doesn’t end up well for Brutus.

Now look at the current debate on health care and tell me if you don’t see this scene playing out. Bill Maher said on his Real Time program last week that “Democrats never learn.” The Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in 2004 was thought to be juvenile and was never taken seriously. Kerry was quoted as saying that the American people would see through the lies. He was wrong. Like Brutus, he gave the mob a bit too much credit and paid for his overconfidence. By the time Kerry woke up and fought back, it was too late. The mob had turned on him. The lead over Bush evaporated and he lost the election.

Now enter Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States. He swept into the White House with about as decisive a victory as any Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election. Opinion polls were decisively in his favor. He enjoyed a honeymoon unlike any President in almost a century. The Republican Party, by contrast, was in retreat and when it did occasionally voice an opinion, it sounded lame and irrelevant by comparison. Brutus stood over the dead body of Caesar and had made his case; Romans everywhere rejoiced that the tyrant had met the fate he deserved. Hail Brutus!

But Mark Antony was waiting in the wings for his opportunity. In deed, you could say he was there from the very beginning, chirping and chirping and chirping away, undaunted by anyone’s opinion of him, relentless in his onslaught. “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears,” he kept repeating over and over. Soon the silliness and irrelevance began to take hold. “I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts. I am no orator, as Brutus is; but, as you know me all, a plain blunt man, that loves my friend and that they know full well that gave me public leave to speak of him --- for I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, action nor utterance, nor the power of speech to stir men's blood.” Does that not sound like something the GOP could’ve written? In deed did we not hear all throughout the 2008 campaign shouts of elitist whenever Obama would speak out against the policies of his opponent? Weren’t the Joe Sixpack and terrorist sympathizer comments made by Sarah Palin nothing more than attempts to win over by subterfuge an audience that had grown weary of the status quo? Was not Bush Caesar?

That the attempts failed was fortuitous for the country, mainly because, like Mark Antony, the enemy was never vanquished. He kept at it. The DOW was plummeting throughout December and January. It was Obama’s fault, even though he not yet been sworn into office. The stimulus package was runaway spending without accountability, even though Bush had signed off on it back in September. The budget was evidence of a government hell bent on the ruination of free-market capitalism that would lead to record deficits, even though the last two two-term Republican presidents had more than doubled the debt during their time in office. And now the health care bill is socialized medicine that will lead to rationing, old people being killed off and the end of life as we know it. Even Mark Antony would choke on some of the rhetoric being used.

It is often said that all glory is fleeting. Sadly, the rhetoric of the Right appears to be working and it is working for two main reasons that owe their genesis to that famous play. The first is that at their core people have very short memories. They are easily manipulated. Look at how quickly Antony turns the mood of the people against Brutus. Within a few minutes, the crowd goes from hailing Brutus as an honorable man who liberated Rome from the would-be imperialist to wanting to hunt him down and murder him. History is replete with similar examples, though not filled with nearly as much alacrity. But the main reason that Antony is able to turn the crowd so effectively is that Brutus hands him the stage. It is Brutus’ naiveté, his over confidence in the population to have the capacity to understand his motives and see beyond mere emotion, that affords Antony his opportunity and would eventually lead to his demise. It was the same error John Kerry made in 2004, and Barack Obama is making it again five years later.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Facts are not driving this debate, anymore than they did in ’04. Every thinking, rational human being knew there was no truth to the Swiftboat claims, and yet the GOP kept repeating them over and over and over and over again. Say something often enough and it becomes fact, no matter how ludicrous. Health care reform is no different. So far, the only legitimate criticism that responsible conservatives like David Brooks have been able to make is the issue of costs. No matter which plan emerges from Washington, unless it can deal effectively with bringing down the spiraling costs of treatment, it will ultimately fail. On that, everyone seems in agreement. But that argument, alone, is insufficient to stop the reform legislation from being passed, and the Right knows it. Hence, the town hall meetings over the last few weeks and the “outrage” of “ordinary” citizens who show up and shout down elected members of Congress and the Administration.

Shouts of socialism, fascism, euthanasia, fill every town hall meeting. Throw in a few birthers for good measure and you have an insane asylum. Inaccuracies are given legitimacy by conservative talk-show hosts. Seeds are planted, given fertilizer and spring up as full-bodied weeds intent on devouring all living plants that get in their way. The truth is buried alive amidst the distortions and deceptions. And, all the while, proponents of real change sit by and naively believe that in the end reason will win out and the people will come to their senses and reject the lies. Truth will vanquish fear, and all will be well with the universe. Brutus has left the building and Mark Antony is preparing his eulogy. Oh, death where is thy sting?

When will they ever learn? You do not lie down in the middle of a busy intersection and not expect to get run over. The idea that because the Republicans got routed in last year’s election that they would go quietly into the night is arrogant to say the least and incompetent to say the worst. It is one thing to be mugged in the middle of the night; it is quite another to hand over to the mugger the gun and wallet before hand and then have the temerity to claim you are a victim of some foul mischief.

If universal health care meets its death this fall it will not be because the Republicans killed it; it will be because a Democratic president and a Democratic congress left the building, took a long stroll down a short peer and gave the murder weapon over to the very foes they should’ve known could not be trusted with it in the first place. They will have no moral high ground from which to shout foul from, for they ceded the very debate they had hoped to wage. No matter how rational and logical your argument is, if you cannot defend it against all manner of criticism and do whatever is needed to protect it from harm, in the end you will be vanquished. It is that simple. The sad truth is that American politics is not about separating truth from fiction; if it were that easy, we would’ve had universal health care in this country decades ago. It is about winning and losing. Those who are resourceful enough to do whatever it takes to make their point often win; those who don’t lose.

And all we are left with are two telling, yet ominous, quotes to sum up what this might well be about in the end.

“Good countrymen, let me depart alone,
And, for my sake, stay here with Antony:
Do grace to Caesar's corpse, and grace his speech
Tending to Caesar's glories; which Mark Antony,
By our permission, is allow'd to make.
I do entreat you, not a man depart,
Save I alone, till Antony have spoke.”

"Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot.
Take thou what course thou wilt."

History is cruelest of all, is it not?

The Enemy's Real Goal

The below was taken directly from Sojourners: Faith, Politics, Culture and was posted in facebook by Linda Hope from the church. I believe it states not only my viewpoint perfectly, but others in the church as well.

There are two predominant voices on the Right who shout out socialism whenever universal health care is mentioned: the misinformed and the miscreants. Both are injurious to our nation. The former because they simply lack the facts to form a truly cogent opinion; the latter because they have deliberately misrepresented the facts to suit their own agenda.

The Right's opposition to universal health care is based on one fundamental and overriding premise: to protect an industry which has made billions of dollars treating its customers - us - as nothing more than numbers on a profit and loss statement. I rarely invoke Satan directly - frankly I think we as Christians sometimes give him a bit too much credit - but in this case he is behind this and has been for quite some time. All of us need to rise up and do what we can to spread the truth to those who don't know and to shout down the liers who do.

As Linda said, making sure every human being in America has health care may cost all of us a little bit more, but in the long run we will be richer for it by decreasing overall costs, living healthier lives, and simply knowing that we have done the right thing by our fellow man. The only question we need ask as Christians is this: What would Jesus want us to do here?

Thank you Linda for the post.

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/07/22/is-nationalized-health-care-hazardous-to-your-health-check-the-facts/


Is National Health Care Hazardous to Your Health?



Check the Facts

by LaVonne Neff 07-22-2009

Various Web sites and e-mails are reporting that cancer survival rates are much higher in the U.S. than in various European countries. Some quote Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner, who quotes Jim Hoft in the American Issue Project, who quotes Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute, who quotes … well, quite a group of conservative pundits and politicians are involved. They appear to be using the same set of statistics to argue that national health care results in dramatically increased mortality rates from breast, prostate, and other cancers.

To check the facts, I went to the World Health Organization and made myself a chart.

Using the most recent statistics available, I compared the health outcomes of six Western nations. No nation’s health-care program is totally private, and no program is totally nationalized. Government funds pay for a percentage of health-care expenses in all six countries: the United States (45.8 percent), Germany (76.6 percent), Italy (77.1 percent), France (79.7 percent), the Netherlands (81.8 percent), and the United Kingdom (87.4 percent).

Do mortality rates increase with a higher percentage of government funding? Here’s what I found:

The United States ties with Italy for the lowest cancer mortality rate of all six countries. Interestingly, the U.S. and Italy also have the lowest smoking rates. The Netherlands and the U.K. have the highest smoking rates and also the highest death rates from cancer. The cancer mortality rate in the Netherlands is 15 percent higher than that of the United States and Italy.

However, cancer accounts for fewer than a quarter of all deaths in the United States. Heart disease is an even bigger killer, and statistics on cardiovascular mortality are not so good in America. Of the six countries, the U.S. has the second highest mortality rate, with 59 percent more heart-related deaths than France.

The U.S. also has the second highest death rate from injuries. American mortality in this category is more than 100 percent higher than that of the Netherlands.

In the largest category, non-communicable diseases, the United States has the highest mortality rate of all six countries, with 25% more deaths than France.

The adult mortality rate — that is, the probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 60 — is highest in the United States. The next runner-up, France, is 20 percent lower, and Italy is 70 percent lower.

Personally, I don’t want to die from cancer. I don’t want to die from heart disease or other non-communicable diseases either, and I’d rather not be smashed to death in an accident. In fact, I’d just as soon stay healthy as long as possible, so I’d be very happy if the United States had the best health care in the world. Alas, we have a long way to go.

Of the six countries I compared, the United States is at the bottom in terms of healthy life expectancy: 69 years here compared to 71 in the Netherlands and the U.K., 72 in France and Germany, and 73 in Italy.

The U.S. is also at the bottom in terms of total life expectancy: 78 years here compared to 79 in the U.K., 80 in Germany and the Netherlands, and 81 in France and Italy.

Please, when you get an e-mail or see a Web page giving statistics to argue that the United States already has excellent health care and doesn’t need to revamp the system, stop and ponder. We currently spend roughly twice as much per capita on health care (counting both public and private sources) as these European countries.

What lots of Americans don’t realize is this: The U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries — over 50 percent more than the Italian government spends, for example. And yet the Italians manage cancer just as well as we do, and their health-care outcomes are better than ours in every other category.

LaVonne Neff is an editor, writer, and publishing consultant in Wheaton, Illinois, who blogs on book, bodies, and belief at livelydust.blogspot.com

Mr. President, Have Pity on the Poor White Man!

Original lyrics by Randy Newman
Alterations and additions made by Peter Fegan

The events of the last few days involving Henry Louis Gates’ arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the comments made by the President have prompted this blog. I hope some of you enjoy the pun. But in all seriousness, though, no one who is white can ever know the humiliation and fear that a black man or Latino man feels when confronted by a cop, especially in his own home. You may say that Gates overreacted and Obama mis-spoke, but that doesn't hide the fact that this nation has had a terrible stain on it that is 300 years old and still has not been fully removed.

Here's a question for every white man out there. Would any of you right now trade places with an African American or Hispanic? You needn't bother replying. You and I already know the answer. Face it, no matter how you spin it, being a white man in America is still the best gig in town.

Here's another question. How did we get to be such an endangered species anyway?

And now for our song of the day...


We've taken all you've given
But it's gettin' hard to make a livin'
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

We ain’t askin’ for you to love us
You may place yourself high above us
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

I know it may sound funny
But white brothers ev'ry where are runnin' out of money
We just can't make it by ourselves

It is cold and the wind is blowing
We need something to keep us going
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

Don’t you know how great we’ve been
We’re the best race that you’ve ever seen
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

Maybe you're cheatin’
Maybe you're lyin'
Maybe you have lost your mind
Maybe you're only thinking 'bout yourself

No reverse discrimination against our kin
Don’t hold it against us because of our skin
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

We made all them laws and all them rights
Now you say we need to call it a night
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

I know it may sound funny
But white brothers ev'ry where are runnin' out of money
We just can't make it by ourselves

Too late to run. Too late to cry now
The time has come for us white boys to say good-bye now
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man
Mr. President have pity on the poor white man

Unity Does Not Mean Silence or Complicity

This has been on my heart now for quite some time and I believe it is long overdue. A number of years ago I had been receiving, unsolicited mind you, a plethora of emails from fellow Christians on various issues of the day: the war in Iraq, patriotism, gay marriage, prayer in public schools. The theme was decidedly conservative and very presumptuous. The conservative part I could forgive – everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of what I may think of it. But what really burned me up was the arrogant assumption that just because I attended the same church as they did, that meant I would automatically subscribe to the same line of reasoning

After several heated exchanges with a few “brothers” and “sisters” all of which involved replying to all in the email so that everyone had a chance to hear my heart, I received, shall we say, a very pointed and admonishing reply from a church leader – his name will not be posted here – who basically said that what I was doing was creating disharmony and disunity within the Body of Christ and that I should stop it. In other words, even if I didn’t agree with what the others were saying I should zip it as it were rather than cause dissention. Getting called out like that was one thing, but what I protested most was that this particular member held most of the same opinions that the others had. In other words, I was being reprimanded by an individual who already had made up his mind about where he stood on these issues and was not interested in hearing a differing opinion. How convenient.

Now to put it in context, this was the period of time between 2004 and 2005, just as the nation was beginning to ask some profound questions about the direction the country was headed. In other words we were beginning to emerge out of the ether of the post 9/11 haze. Many conscientious Americans were challenging the Administration’s take on the build up to the War and what it was continuing to cost us as a country to continue fighting. Some of those Americans were Christians. I had hoped I could find some within my church. Not only did my search prove fruitless, but now one of the leaders of the church, who has hardly hid his own personal bias mind you, blasted me for standing up to the consensus under the banner “United we stand, divided we fall.” It was a great song in 1970, but I felt slighted and betrayed because his words were far more self-serving than they were biblical.

Disconsolate, I contemplated leaving the church altogether. Not leaving Jesus, mind you, but simply finding a place where my own personal beliefs and convictions were not subject to biblical hostage taking simply for expedience sake. I decided to seek out some advice, so I went to see Steve at the church. I had called this church my home since, well, Christmas of 1991, and now I was planning on leaving it. Steve listened to my concerns and encouraged me not to leave; he said the people I was looking for were here, maybe not in the majority, but definitely here. They were worth seeking out. He introduced me to something he had been doing for quite some time: blogging. He said it was a great way of expressing yourself and that it was a great outlet. It could also be an opportunity to reach out and have dialogue with fellow Christians who shared my views and concerns.

His words sounded intriguing. I had no place else to go, and I did want to see if I could somehow salvage this thing. After all what if I left and found out that there were people who felt as I did? Not only that, but what if the next church I landed in ended up being worse? Also, though I disagreed with their opinions, I actually liked many people in the church. Maria and I both had friendships within the church that we would be leaving behind if we left. I decided to give it one more shot.

My first blog hit the blogosphere on Friday, September 2, 2005 under the banner Christians Against Hypocrisy and was well received by a handful of people, including Steve. Thank you, kind sir. Since then I have continued to speak out against what I perceive as hypocrisies within the Church and to call out certain belief systems that the conservative factions within the Church have embraced that are I believe at their core hypocritical. In this I have been undaunted and while I may not have found the audience I was looking for, the exercise proved extremely satisfying and therapeutic. Cathartic would be a better word.

I have also come to a realization that unity means different things to different people. For some it means that they are free to spew and defame the very faith they so fervently claim to defend, but the moment someone attempts to challenge them they are called out and made to feel like an outcast that is causing dissention and allowing “the enemy” to build momentum. Bull.

I have a differing opinion of unity. It goes something like this. We are all Christians who believe that Jesus is our Lord and savior, that he died on the cross for our sins, and that his resurrection gives us eternal life in heaven. After that we are free to hold any belief we deem important to us. Here are some of mine.

1. I believe that God gave us not only free will, but also the intelligence to reason things out and discover certain truths about the universe and how we came to be. Hence I do not think it is heresy to believe that the universe and all we can see is billions of years old, anymore that I think that interpreting certain chapters of the book Genesis as parables and not necessarily as historical references (see my blog on Genesis) is biblically wrong. If Jesus taught in parables why not us?

2. I believe that the government is NOT the antichrist and that this incessant mindset among conservative Christians that good old-fashioned self-reliance and profit motive alone can cure all that ails us financially is not only historically inaccurate, but biblically untrue. Will someone please find me the scripture that reads: “God helps those who help themselves.” Whether you are a fiscal conservative or liberal, the truth is that the government has played a crucial role with respect to dealing with poverty in this country that quite frankly, Adam Smith notwithstanding, the private sector is simply ill equipped to deal with, and that includes, gulp, getting involved in health care! BTW, the Bible does speak to this, if we’re willing to look for it (Hint, Matthew 25:31-46).

3. I am adverse to stances within the Church that oversimplify and misrepresent what the Church’s real calling ought to be. You are against abortion, gay marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, global warming, fine, that is your opinion. But must you narrowly define for millions of people what an entire faith represents? Of course not. So how about aid for pregnant mothers to carry their babies to term so that the number of abortions is reduced? Or how about teaching teenagers about the changes in their bodies and what that can mean to them, instead of just telling them to abstain from sex? Or how about not referring to doctors who perform abortions as mass murderers, thus inciting unstable people to commit murder in the name of a God they will never understand? How about not demonizing homosexuals, thus driving them away from the so-called salvation you wish for them? My own opinion on this has changed over the years. While I do agree that some men and women who engage in an alternative lifestyle do so because of some sexual abuse issues they suffered when they were younger; there are way too many of them to suggest that all of this can be simply explained as a form of deviant behavior, and until we know their hearts, or walk in their shoes, we should, none of us, be judging or condemning them. How do we know what happens in the birth canal? What if we discover that gender orientation is as genetic as hair color or pigmentation? What then? And while we’re at it, let’s stop the “God doesn’t make mistakes” line. People are born with birth defects all the time. Did God blink? As for evolution and global warming, here’s a suggestion: if it offends you to hear something that contradicts your interpretation of Genesis take your kid out of public school and place him in a religious school, instead of insisting that the science text books be rewritten to accommodate your narrow viewpoints; then buy some beach-front property and live there for the next twenty or thirty years. Send me a postcard when the water is knee deep in your living room. What I’m saying is this: instead of shouting out to the world what we’re against, let’s state what we’re for. Let’s start with love and compassion and then build from there. There is no room within our ranks for religious zealots with closed minds and closed hearts.

4. Stop the countdown to Armageddon! If Jesus didn’t know when He was returning, why are you so preoccupied with it? Put away your stopwatch and get a life! Waiting around for the Tribulation while there are starving children to feed, the homeless to shelter, and the sick to be cured not only goes against the teachings of Christ, it is perverse. We should be pro-active, not reactive. The book of James carefully outlines what our correct actions should be. Our faith needs to be lived out, not spoken out. We will be judged by what we did not what we said we’d do. You want to save someone’s soul, don’t preach about when you think Jesus is coming back, buy them lunch and pay their electric bill first. As a wise man once told me, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” There are plenty of preachers who shout down fire and brimstone from the pulpit; what we need more of are true Disciples of Christ.

5. Call it as we see it, or more appropriately, speak the truth in love. I am doing my part, such as it is, but we all have a responsibility to call out injustice, not only in other countries, but here at home as well. When we hear anti-Christian statements coming out of the mouths of supposedly Christian leaders, we must challenge and refute them. Paul did this consistently throughout his letters and the Church was better for it. Whether it is on facebook or Myspace, or other chat rooms or venues, stop being the silent, innocent bystander. Stand up and raise your voice when you see something that you know in your heart is wrong. Another old saying goes like this, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll go for anything.” Too many of our flock have been reluctant to speak out for fear they will not be liked. Get over it. When it was his time Jesus was not captured by the Romans, he delivered himself into their hands willingly and thwarted attempts by Peter to resist arrest. Speaking out against the intolerance of some of our leaders – even those in our own church - will be costly, but it pails in comparison to what Jesus suffered in our name.

6. We are all, each and every one of us, hypocrites in our own hearts. Left to our devices none of us can walk this walk. Only through the mercy of Christ and the conviction that is brought about by the Holy Spirit can we live out the promise that we see in the Gospels. By being the humble servant that Christ was during his time on Earth, we might just win over the hearts and minds of those who don’t have what we have, and in the process shame those who should know better into changing their ways.

Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?!

As the manager of the 1962 New York Mets, Casey Stengel was never at a loss for words whenever he found himself near a club reporter. After one particularly hideous loss – one of the 120 the team would endure that season – Stengel cut loose and blasted his team in the above, now infamous, quote, which was posed as a question, but which really was more a rhetorical indictment. Stengel knew the answer, as did anyone with half a brain. The Mets were dreadful and most of their roster was comprised of over the hill, washed up veterans and over rated rookies, most of whom would mercifully have a very short career in the major leagues, which reminds me of another of Stengel’s more endearing quotes. "See that fella over there? He's 20 years old. In 10 years, he's got a chance to be a star. Now that fella over there, he's 20 years old, too. In 10 years he's got a chance to be 30."

Watching broadcast journalism these days is sort of like watching that 1962 Mets team. You can’t help but ask yourself that same rhetorical question, “Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?” The game back then was baseball and the very best were hall of famers; the game today for our purposes is being a journalist and not simply a stenographer. Sadly most of the best are dead. Murrow, Sevareid, Cronkite, are all gone, but in reality what they brought to their industry died a long time ago. The courage and relentlessness that these legendary pioneers possessed must have been something to behold to anyone with a TV back then. With the scarcest of resources at their disposal, they probed, prodded, refuted, rebuked and challenged their sources and the powers that be until they got at what they fervently believed was the truth, caring not what others thought of them; their only concern being the integrity of the story. Television may have been in its infancy, but broadcast journalism was in its heyday. Those were the days.

Since then we have witnessed a steady and consistent collapse of this once venerable profession. Despite a plethora of technology at their disposal and the emergence of 24-hour news channels, today’s news journalists – and I use the term loosely – barely scratch the surface when they report on a story. More often than not they look more like hosts of an infomercial than investigative reporters. The last ten years have been particularly distressing to watch. The conduct of the industry during the weeks and months after 9/11 was beneath contempt as it did a complete lay down to the Bush Administration’s policy machinations. Even when it realized its complicity rather than look in the mirror and admit their wrong, they blamed it on the “mood of the country” and the “patriotic wave” that swept the nation. Five years after the United States was hoodwinked into an unjust war, MSNBC’s David Gregory still didn’t get it. "I think there are a lot of critics who think that in the run-up to the Iraq War if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role"

Then whose role is it, David? Perhaps it is the role of the multitude of twitter users who now share their deepest thoughts and concerns with Rick Sanchez of CNN so that Rick can include them in his “news” segment. That’s it! That’s the ticket. The answer was there right in front of us all along. We no longer need news professionals schooled in asking the tough questions; we now have news by committee. What’s your opinion? We’d like to know. Twitter us now and you too can have your 15 seconds of fame. The ghosts of Murrow, Sevareid and now Cronkite have been supplanted by the likes of oxfordgirl, claritybleeds and whisper1111.

Incredible, but regrettably true. The news media has now co-opted the general public to do the job it was hired to do. No need to have an informed opinion based on evidence corroborated by trustworthy sources when you can ask your viewers to chime in with their own “informed” opinions. What do you think of the recession? What’s your take on Sotomayor? How do you feel about your health care coverage?

Now there’s nothing wrong with an opinion, and everyone is entitled to voice it, but allowing it to be substituted for actual news is an affront to all that the news industry is supposed to stand for. To put it in perspective imagine for a moment the next time you went for a physical your doctor asked you for a diagnosis of your problem, or if the next time you brought your car in for an overhaul the mechanic handed you his tools and told you to get to work, what would you think? I know what I’d think. What am I paying you for?

But that is exactly what appears to be happening in the media today. Whether it’s the fact that these “news” organizations simply have too much time during the day to kill or that the people they have in their employ are not up to the challenge of being worthy news journalists, the simple and painful truth is that more and more the guy or gal in the street has more to say on the day’s relevant issues than the guardians of the microphone in the studio.

So the next time you go to Citifield or Yankee Stadium, just help yourself to a bat in the bat rack, step up to the plate and take a swing or two or three. If the umpire objects just tell him Rick Sanchez sent you; it should be OK? Who knows you might be just as good, if not better, than the “professional” on the home team. Just make sure the public address announcer gets your name right. “Now batting for the Mets, Oxfordgirl.” Certainly can’t be any worse than Marv Throneberry. After all a little viewer participation is good isn’t it? And what harm can it do?

A Brave New Venture!

Over the next few weeks I will be sharing with you the writing of a new book, titled:

"Sketch: An Insider's View of Retail. What you don't know is hurting you."

I will devote an entirely new blog to this venture, and hopefully someone who knows a publisher - hint, hint - will alert such a person and I will get published.

Over the last few weeks I have been bothered by what I have witnessed at my job, and I feel a strong calling to shed light on it.

My hope is that God will bless it, and use it to help others.

What Would Jesus Do?

Those Who Live in Glass Houses, Usually Throw the Largest Stones!

I recently had a chance to hear Congressman Peter King’s comments about Michael Jackson on youtube and quite frankly was deeply disturbed by them. While it is true that the media has bored us to tears with the over the top coverage of his death, referring to him as a low life is beneath contempt. Those who applaud such comments should examine their own hearts, or perhaps their closets. Sitting in judgment on someone is easy, but is that really what Jesus would’ve done? I doubt it. Jackson had personal problems and what he allowed to happen to himself was a tragedy. He was an incredibly talented individual who was doubtless deeply troubled, as anyone who saw the movie about his life would've known had they bothered to watch it.

Jackson grew up with an overbearing father who never praised his sons and often manipulated them to meet his ends. He had no childhood worth a damn and didn’t even have much of a teenage existence. By the time he was 20, just as “Off the Wall” was hitting the charts, the pattern of abuse that defined his entire life had already taken hold of his soul. All you have to do is look at what he did to his face and skin over the next twenty years to realize that he hated who he was and was desperately trying to run from it at all costs. Like most mega stars he found drugs a convenient way out, and he took them right up until the time his body couldn’t take anymore.

All that wealth and he could not buy happiness. He entered this world a child prodigy, and he left it a caricature of himself. His critics, many of them “God-fearing” people, will no doubt feel justified in their condemnation of who he was and what he was alleged to have done – let’s not forget he was NEVER convicted of the charges against him – but none of us, fans or otherwise, could ever have traded places with him, nor would we have wanted to. Imagine living that life; imagine hating yourself so much that you will stop at nothing to destroy your face and live in virtual seclusion.

No, what Michael Jackson needs from us is not our judgment or our snide remarks about pedophilia; if we are in deed the Christians we claim to be, what we should be hoping and praying for is that in death, Jackson somehow found the peace that alluded him most if not all of his life. A peace we would wish on any fellow brother or sister at an alter call. It is no less deserving of a man, who more than most, probably could’ve used it.

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up, Continues

I have been holding back with this topic, primarily due to two factors: 1. I was hoping to be more optimistic and this stuff just burns me up; 2. I was a bit lazy! Probably more the latter. But this time, I just couldn’t resist.

Glenn Beck is At It Again; or should I say more accurately, he never stopped. On his July 1st show he had on a guy named Michael Scheuer, a former CIA operative, who said the following:

“The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and to detonate a major weapon in the United States, because it’s going to take a grass roots, bottom up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It’s an absurd situation again, only Osama can execute an attack, which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence that is necessary.”

Throughout this whole diatribe, not once did Beck interrupt or correct Scheuer; in fact near the end, Beck can be seen nodding in agreement. I have attached the link to this show for your review, assuming of course that you have the stomach to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJVhNH99c

The Right has certainly gone out its way to blast the current administration for its stance on the economy – going so far as to call Obama a socialist – but when one of your guests actually comes right out and says that an attack upon the United States by a terrorist is “the only chance” the nation has, and you sit there nodding like some moron, you have crossed whatever line there is not just for decency, but for treason.

I have heard enough stupidity from these bozos to last a lifetime. When their man was in power, they went out of their way to praise him and ridicule anybody who would even dare intimate some of the suggestions that have surfaced over the last few months, like secession. Now that they are out of power, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. Tea parties sponsored by corporations, neo-cons suggesting attacks on our own country, and polls taken to decide which form of insurrection would be desirable to rescue the nation from the socialists hordes are now becoming all too common with this lot.

I am growing more and more nervous with each passing day. The only thing scarier than having to listen to such fools spew would be if they actually got what they were wishing for. That is my ultimate fear. The simple truth is that the United States will probably be attacked in the future. What 9/11 should have taught us is that we are not nearly as untouchable as we thought we were. An attack on our soil, I’m afraid, could push the nation backwards into a myopic, nationalistic mode that would rival even what we witnessed in the months after the initial attack in 2001. That is the last thing the United States needs. With all that is at stake in the world, let’s pray that Glenn Beck and his ilk are not right. Let’s hope that America is made of better stuff than what Fox News believes about it.

Jon Stewart: Smart-Ass or Modern-Day Prophet?

For well over six years now my wife and I have faithfully watched "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". What we have seen take place during those years is nothing short of a metamorphosis from what many considered to be an above average stand-up comic with a gift for interviewing guests to an often irreverent but essential disseminator of information to an audience, the majority of whom neither had the intellectual prowess to understand what he was saying, or the sophistication to care what the ramifications of the program’s material content portended. But, whether the bulk of his audience got it or not, the rest of us not only got it, but applauded, for what might have been initially thought of in its early days as nothing more than a stand in and filler for "South Park" addicts and "Chappelle Show" devotees, has become, ironically enough, THE most topical and informative program on cable television today. Fake news has now trumped “real” news to the dismay of the established “real” news networks, and all I can say is WTF?

How did this admitted pot smoking, smart-ass, stand-up comic, whose crowning achievement was the B-movie flop "Death To Smoochy", rise to such heights? The fact that collectively CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC and CBS can’t do in 24 hours what Stewart does in thirty minutes, should appall any and all who have even a minute interest in the day’s events. Honestly, would any network news program have dared done to Mad Money’s Jim Cramer what Stewart did in his now infamous March 12th interview? http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4668112/12478589

I doubt it. And therein lies the problem. Jon Stewart has ascended to the lofty status of political hatchet man extraordinaire more as a result of an industry’s incompetence and indifference than on the merits of his talent. Not that he isn’t funny and salient, but the fact that he is one of the few courageous voices on television challenging politicians on both sides of the political aisle, as well as taking on the very industry tasked with reporting on their actions in the first place is a sign that something very serious is wrong with the mainstream media. Jon Stewart, for better or worse, has now become the guardian of journalistic integrity. Take out PBS, which does, on a whole, a very good job at reporting the news stories of the day, and the sad and painful truth is that among the rest of the media, you’d be hard-pressed to find enough qualified “journalists" doing the job they were hired to do to fill a small row boat.

Shameful would be a word in a half. How did this travesty happen? As Steve alluded to in one of his comments to my Tim Russert piece two weeks ago corporations now control much if not all of the media reporting that goes on in this country. That isn’t to suggest that parent companies restrict news directors from what they can or can’t report on, but it would be naïve to believe that corporate bottom lines don’t ultimately have the final say in which shows air and when, which stories get promoted, and how “tough” the actual reporting will be. Witness the interview that John King of CNN did with former Vice President Dick Chenney last March. King might just as well have phoned it in as it were. Not once during the entire interview did King challenge Chenney’s assertions. Can you imagine Jon Stewart laying down for that interview? Corporations care most about profits not truth-finding. News shows that show reporters digging in their heals and challenging guests on the truthfulness of their answers may win the respect of colleagues and academicians, but when the average guy in the street turns the channel for a softer, more palatable program, profits plunge. So the message is report, yes, but don’t dig too deep, lest ye lose corporate sponsors.

And you wonder why the Right has been touting the abolishment of Public Broadcasting for years. Were it not for National Public Radio and Television, I dare say most if not all of us would be getting our information from the BBC.

So, for now, we have Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer, and maybe a handful of others standing in the way of total mediocrity. Edward R. Murrow must be spinning around in his grave over the condition of the industry he helped create in the 1950s. In deed in a speech he gave in 1958 to the RTNDA the warning he issued is both ominous and, I’m afraid to say, self-fulfilling. Below is an excerpt from that speech:

“Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

"For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

"I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.”

What we desperately need today is a latter day Edward R. Murrow, who calls it as he sees it, doesn’t back down, and who challenges the powers that be. In lieu of someone rising up to recapture the mantle that Murrow built in what currently passes for the mass media in this country, looks like we’ll have to settle for Jon Stewart.

Pro Life vs. Pro Choice: An interesting dialogue.


Below is a link to a discussion between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that I got from Steve. I agree with the comments made by Jim Wallis. Why can't there be more thoughtful discussions on this admittedly provocative subject?



http://blog.sojo.net/2009/06/24/jon-stewart-and-mike-huckabee-on-abortion/

Time for the Neo-cons To Take A Hike

The events in Iran over the last few days have stirred emotions in all of us. It would be impossible not to be moved by the violence take is taking place in cities like Tehran. Unquestionably the election results were fixed so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would win in a landslide; it is obvious that he has the backing of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as the Majlis – the Iranian equivalent of a legislative body. It is equally obvious to all with eyes that this is a test for the American government, and for once we have a president who is passing the test.

The last thing the United States needs to do is get involved in the internal affairs of another Middle Eastern country. Despite what conservatives and Republicans – it is getting more and more difficult to tell them apart these days isn’t it? – are saying, President Barack Obama has chosen wisely to not bite on the apple of intervention. He has condemned the violence without taking sides. He has chosen to let the Iranian people fight their own revolution, if that’s what in deed happens.

The truth is we have had a deplorable track record with respect to the Middle East. We badly overestimated our presence in Afghanistan, needlessly invaded Iraq, and inflamed the passions of countless millions of Muslims around the world against us, who see us as invaders and occupiers of their holy land.

What we need now is restraint and patience, not more of the same disasters that have been the stuff of countless failed neo-con game plans. When are we finally going to get it through our thick skulls that the United States is NOT welcomed in this part of the world; that we have earned our badly scarred reputation, and that by staying the hell out of a conflict and not inflicting our own brand of democracy, things do have a way of working out? If we want someone to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East all we have to do is look in the mirror. It was our support of the Shaw of Iran that brought about the revolution of 1979. The whole 444 days episode that helped bring about the end of the Carter Administration in 1980 could have been avoided had we simply stayed out of Iranian affairs in the first place.

And now the people of Iran will decide which course of action to take. If we truly desire democracy than let’s do our part by not sticking our nose in places where it doesn’t belong. The religious authorities are paranoid about what the West will do and are looking for any excuse to blame us. Let’s not give them that excuse. For once let’s let our principles and values speak louder than our bombastic voices and our military might. The President’s wisdom is the correct path; for our sake let’s hope the rest of our leaders get it.

Alternative Politics: The Moderates are Coming! The Moderates are Coming!


For those of you who have been growing concerned that there seems to be only two political viewpoints being articulated in the nation - the extreme Left and the extreme Right - I found this article by David Brooks in The New York Times on March 2nd of this year. While I don't agree with all of Brooks' concerns or conclusions, and would definitely position myself to the left of his stances, I admire his intellect and his passion. I therefore thought the article deserved to be included in this blog. What we really need is an open and honest debate on the issues, free of the ideologues that too often poison our minds with narrow-minded and defeatist attitudes.


A Moderate Manifesto


By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 2, 2009

You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.


But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.


So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.


The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.


The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.


The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.


The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.


Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”


Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.


Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.


The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.


But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.


Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.


They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity.


If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes.

Remembering Russert



It was one year ago this past weekend that Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, died suddenly of a heart attack. His loss dealt a staggering blow to an industry that has struggled to replace, in vain, his journalistic integrity.

Russert was a throwback, a diamond in the rough and a maverick among his peers. Respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and equally feared, Russert became an iconic figure in American culture, as well as the very face of politics itself in Washington. His no-nonsense, non-partisan style of interviewing was refreshing to watch, especially in lieu of what usually passed for the plethora of weekly programs that his competition felt obliged to produce.

Throughout the 2008 presidential primary campaigns, Russert was, if nothing else, relentless in asking the tough, probing questions that few, if any, of his contemporaries had the stomach to ask. He was a devout Catholic, but he never let his faith interfere with his interviewing technique. He had no patience for tabloid journalism, which sadly has risen to almost epic proportions throughout the 24-hour news channels. He equally had little love or use for pandering to prominent politicians who appeared on Meet the Press. He had a job to do, and that was getting at the truth, no matter how excruciating it might be for the guest. He felt he owed it to the viewers, as well as to his guests, to be both tough and fair-minded, and the results spoke for themselves.

Over the last twelve months many have speculated what the political landscape would’ve looked like had Russert not been cut down so tragically; sadly we will never know. What we do know is that his like will never be seen again, at least not for quite some time. His successor on Meet the Press, David Gregory, has done a credible and competent job, but has not come close to replacing Russert.

For my part, what I miss most is how superbly Russert cut to the chase and forced so many of his guests to admit to mistakes or misjudgments that lesser journalists would’ve winced at. He was the ultimate gotcha journalist in an industry that loves the likes of a Larry King and who sought a kinder, don’t rock the boat approach from its “professionals.”

That he is still revered by so many one year after his passing is a tribute to the man’s authenticity and accomplishments; that no one has come close to replacing him speaks volumes for the industry he loved so much and worked so hard at dignifying.

The Garden and the Journey: Making Sense Out of Genesis.

I have always been fascinated by the attention so many Christians pay towards the book of Genesis. It is a book, like Revelation, that has been the center of attention of biblical scholars for centuries, not to mention the subject of countless controversies. St. Augustine devoted an entire book on the subject, aptly titled “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” in 415 AD.

We all heard the account, either in Sunday school, or as in my case, Catechism. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, resting on the seventh day. His crowning achievement, man, was created on day six, though we’re not quite sure when he created woman. He told the man and woman (Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and increase in number.

Everything was going according to plan until the serpent (Satan) tricked Eve into eating from the “forbidden” tree. Eve then tricked Adam into doing the same, and thus “The Fall” occurred. Adam and Eve were banished from paradise and all their descendents have had the stain of original sin ever since.

Literalists – those who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis – are convinced that everything happened just like it was written. The heavens and earth and all that we see were created in six actual days; that there were two actual people named Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that their first two children were Cain and Able; and from these two individuals – both men by the way – all civilization descended.

Those who take a more literary stance, suggest that the biblical account of creation is more a sonnet than an actual historical account, much like popular songs of today with verses and refrains. Adam and Eve are more symbolic characters meant to represent not so much the origin of man like some genealogical lineage but rather mankind in general. The Garden of Eden is less a place than a state of being in which man was given the choice to live under God’s will or to choose to go his own way. The serpent represents the dilemma of free will and the apple represents what happens when we chose unwisely.

The journey that is Man’s is always played out in the biblical account of Genesis, for this is where so many literalists go awry. The Garden is not some mythical place that we need to search for like the Ark. It is found within our hearts and minds. For every day of our lives – in deed every waking minute – we are given the choice to live under God’s will for us, or to eat of the apple and proceed under our own unaided will. The expulsion from Eden is our choice, just as it is our choice to come back into right relationship with God. It is both the blessing and curse of that ultimate gift called free will. We get to choose whether we will live in peace under the guidance of a loving God or to toil and struggle with the sin that exists within our hearts and pay the ultimate price: separation.

The most interesting thing about the biblical account of Genesis that often goes unmentioned is that God could’ve roped off the forbidden tree making it impossible for Eve to get to; instead he left it totally accessible. Thus God introduced temptation to us. And like those two fabled individuals whose constitution failed them when it was needed most, we too fail when tested. Our struggle is not with the forbidden fruit, but with what it represents. Deep down, man has always struggled with submission. We often think of it has defeat. What we have deep down always craved is to be as powerful as God. Our demons are those lies that we listen to that tell us we don’t need any help, least of all from some God who only seeks to rule our lives and kill our joy. We can have it all without any consequences; all we have to is move away from God (eat the apple) and be our own gods.

Simple and equally false. The enemy is not some mythical serpent in paradise but rather our own arrogance; and that arrogance leads to our own individual falls as we misuse that which God gave us freely. In short we are given the keys to freedom but instead prefer imprisonment. But escape, like a get out of jail free card, is available anytime we seek it. For in the final analysis the garden was never taken from us; we walked out of it with our eyes wide open. We can always return to it any time we choose. It is a choice we have been given by a God who knew all too well what we were capable of and who, in spite of our sinful ways, still loves us and wants us back in the fold.

Who Is To Blame?
Domestic Terrorism and the Anti-Abortion Lunatics Who Encourage It.

Whatever your personal views on abortion, know this: the murder of Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of the Reformation Church in Wichita, Kansas this past Sunday by Scott Roeder was nothing short of an act of domestic terror. No building was brought down, or jet hijacked, or car bomb detonated. And yet, the forces that brought about this hideous act of violence within the supposed safe confines of a church sanctuary are as diabolical as the actions of those who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. For in the final analysis, Scott Roeder was merely a pawn used by those to achieve their ends by any means necessary.

And who is to blame? All of us, that’s who. Like so many other conscientious Christians, I have written many times about the inability or unwillingness of the Church to call out the Pharisees within its ranks, to no avail. The result has been a myopic, almost single-minded movement that has taken root and come to represent what to many unbelievers is the predominant voice in Christianity. A voice which is neither predominant, nor representative of the Body of Christ.

Sick, twisted individuals like Randall Terry, who founded “Operation Rescue” in 1987, and who basically ran out on his first wife, have gone out of their way to rile up their minions to fever pitch and helped set in motion the events which culminated in Tiller’s murder. He and his ilk are as guilty as the lunatic who pulled the trigger. But all of us are culpable as well. Our silence and, yes, indifference allowed the rage against Tiller and other doctors like him to build to fever pitch, until there was no place for it to go.

When these hate-filled organizations encourage acts of violence against doctors just because they perform a procedure that is offensive to them, where is the indignation from the true believers? Did Jesus kill or encourage the killing of those who sinned? Of course not. Just the opposite. Christ loved the sinners of his time, and was more often than not seen with them. It was the proud and righteous - the religious elders – that he shunned.

2,000 years later it is still no different. Witness the statement that Terry issued immediately after the shooting. “George Tiller was a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”

Where is the humility or the mercy of Christ? There is not even a miniscule of regret for his own role in inciting the very act. The word “peacefully” is comical in its context. No one who has ever had to contend with such venom would ever mistake such actions for those of peace-minded and God-loving folk. Such individuals are psychotic, nothing more, nothing less; as psychotic as the hijackers who flew those planes into the Twin Towers almost eight years ago. Worse, for the Islamic extremists who felt compelled to hate us enough to go to such lengths to kill us did not know any better. Theirs was an ideology and a philosophy that blinded them to the truth that all men are children of God. Christians, it is said, are supposed to know better. Our bible commands us to love one another, even those who do things that we consider sinful. We are to hate the sin, not the sinner.

And as long as we allow those who hate and condemn to death the sinner without reproach, and in the process allow them to define our faith for us in the eyes of the world, we will forever have the stain of innocent blood on our hands. Now is the time for all of us to speak out against this insanity; to rise up in righteous rage, like Christ did when he discovered his father’s temple was being misused. You needn’t have approved of what George Tiller did for a living to be outraged by his murder. That people who do not call themselves Christian get that is the irony or ironies; that many of our flock sadly do not is the shame of our faith.