WHAT A REAL PATRIOT IS!
A real patriot isn't someone who just mindlessly waves a flag and puts his hand over his heart when reciting the pledge of allegiance.
A real patriot isn't someone who says he stands for freedom, yet challenges other peoples rights to expression when they respectfully disagree.
A real patriot doesn't smear the integrity of other ethnic groups simply because they are different or in the minority.
A real patriot doesn't challenge someone's courage or loyalty simply because the thought of occupying another nation is abhorrent to their beliefs and values.
And finally a real patriot isn't someone who for one day claims to love his country, yet the rest of the year does everything possible to embarrass it.
No, a real patriot would be the exact opposite of the above and on this Independence Day, let's celebrate the ideals of such individuals. They are not fictional; they were our founding fathers, and their spirit lives on not just on July 4th, but on every day of the year.
While you're hoisting down a brew or eating a hot dog, remember their sacrifice today and try always to remember that real patriots don't just love their country they challenge it!
Friday, July 04, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
SO MUCH FOR NON-ACTIVISTS: The Supreme Court Shows Its True Colors on the 2nd 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."
When I was in school, many, many years ago, before cell phones, or computers, or fancy remote controls, it was widely established as a rule of punctuation that commas, colons, semicolons, dashes and hyphens used in mid-sentence were meant to infer a continuation of the same chain of thought. In point of fact it had the same effect as implying an "and" statement, not an "or" statement. It would be over a decade before I was to find a practical application of such a rule.
"We admitted we were powerless - that our lives had become unmanageable."
Anyone who has ever attended a 12-step recovery group – be it Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Al-Anon, etc, knows full well that the words powerless and unmanageable are not mutually exclusive; they are meant to infer the same thing. Any addict not in denial will tell you it is impossible to accept the first part of that sentence without accepting the second part. They go hand in hand. To be powerless is the same as to be unmanageable.
Well, apparently Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go to the same school I did, because when he read the 2nd Amendment, he evidently saw two distinct and separate points; one having to do with a well regulated Militia, which he ignored; the other having to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which he cited. What is particularly striking is that in writing his decision for the majority, if we are to believe that he saw the last fourteen words as being sufficient to survive on their own merits, he evidently never saw that in so doing he rendered the first thirteen hopelessly out in left field. For only someone either ignorant of the use of proper grammar; i.e. a fragment sentence [A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…], or ideologically predisposed to a fixated opinion, could miss the obvious: that the framers of the Constitution never meant to address the "right" of its citizens to bear arms apart from the militia. Had they intended to address those rights, they most assuredly would’ve written specifically about it and kept it separate and apart from any mention of "a well regulated Militia". The fact that the words militia, people and arms are mentioned in one sentence can and must mean only one logical thing: that they are all lumped together to form one coherent thought.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent. They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."
And therein lies what’s really behind the decision of the majority. The five justices who overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban are not ignorant of common English grammar. As legal scholars, all of them know full well how to read a complete sentence, and also know full well what a comma stands for. The reason for this unprecedented ruling is obvious. The majority was looking to "interpret" to their own philosophical inclination what the founding fathers meant rather than what was actually written. In essence they were actively "interpreting" the law rather than enforcing it.
Ironically the "non-activists" justices have been, by far, the most activist in their rulings. As I have stated before, conservatives’ calls for the nomination of so-called non-activist judges to the bench are bogus, primarily because it is not non-activism that they seek; rather it is conservative activism that they are truly after. Today it was the NRA that won a huge decision. In the future other landmark decisions will be rendered by this court that will belie the supposed purpose of the so-called non-activist ideal. If this decision is to be any indicator, the Republic and years of jurisprudence are in deep trouble.
"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."
When I was in school, many, many years ago, before cell phones, or computers, or fancy remote controls, it was widely established as a rule of punctuation that commas, colons, semicolons, dashes and hyphens used in mid-sentence were meant to infer a continuation of the same chain of thought. In point of fact it had the same effect as implying an "and" statement, not an "or" statement. It would be over a decade before I was to find a practical application of such a rule.
"We admitted we were powerless - that our lives had become unmanageable."
Anyone who has ever attended a 12-step recovery group – be it Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Al-Anon, etc, knows full well that the words powerless and unmanageable are not mutually exclusive; they are meant to infer the same thing. Any addict not in denial will tell you it is impossible to accept the first part of that sentence without accepting the second part. They go hand in hand. To be powerless is the same as to be unmanageable.
Well, apparently Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go to the same school I did, because when he read the 2nd Amendment, he evidently saw two distinct and separate points; one having to do with a well regulated Militia, which he ignored; the other having to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which he cited. What is particularly striking is that in writing his decision for the majority, if we are to believe that he saw the last fourteen words as being sufficient to survive on their own merits, he evidently never saw that in so doing he rendered the first thirteen hopelessly out in left field. For only someone either ignorant of the use of proper grammar; i.e. a fragment sentence [A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…], or ideologically predisposed to a fixated opinion, could miss the obvious: that the framers of the Constitution never meant to address the "right" of its citizens to bear arms apart from the militia. Had they intended to address those rights, they most assuredly would’ve written specifically about it and kept it separate and apart from any mention of "a well regulated Militia". The fact that the words militia, people and arms are mentioned in one sentence can and must mean only one logical thing: that they are all lumped together to form one coherent thought.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent. They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."
And therein lies what’s really behind the decision of the majority. The five justices who overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban are not ignorant of common English grammar. As legal scholars, all of them know full well how to read a complete sentence, and also know full well what a comma stands for. The reason for this unprecedented ruling is obvious. The majority was looking to "interpret" to their own philosophical inclination what the founding fathers meant rather than what was actually written. In essence they were actively "interpreting" the law rather than enforcing it.
Ironically the "non-activists" justices have been, by far, the most activist in their rulings. As I have stated before, conservatives’ calls for the nomination of so-called non-activist judges to the bench are bogus, primarily because it is not non-activism that they seek; rather it is conservative activism that they are truly after. Today it was the NRA that won a huge decision. In the future other landmark decisions will be rendered by this court that will belie the supposed purpose of the so-called non-activist ideal. If this decision is to be any indicator, the Republic and years of jurisprudence are in deep trouble.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Broadcaster Freedom Act: The truth about what’s really behind the resistance to the Fairness Doctrine.
In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."
For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.
But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.
"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."
When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.
In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.
Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.
And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"
The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.
Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.
This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.
In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."
For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.
But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.
"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."
When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.
In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.
Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.
And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"
The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.
Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.
This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The following info was sent to SignTheStatement@JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com:
Name: Peter Fegan
mailfrom: feego1@optonline.net
Religion: Charismatic
House of Worship: The Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Testimonial:
"It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, that James Dobson, and others like him, have uesed their position from the pulpit to advance a very narrow interpretation of scripture to fit their own political gains. It worked in 2000 and 2004, but by 2006, it began to wear off as more and more of the electorate, many of whom were Christians, grew wary of their motives. It is quite comforting to see many within the evangelical community wake up and realize that there is more to being a good Christian than just being against abortion and gay rights. Part of being a good steward means to care for one another as well as to care about the planet we inhabit. The Pharasees knew how to judge and divide, but Jesus exposed their hearts and, in so doing, called us all to love one another.
"Today the venom and hatred of the Pharisees is alive and well and living in the Christian Right. Only by, as Jesus did, exposing their hardened hearts can we begin the process of letting in the light of God and advancing His Kingdom on Earth."
I wrote the above due to the recent comments made by James Dobson in response to statements made by Barack Obama on his faith. I invite all of you to read them for yourselves and not take the word of somebody else.
If you agree with this point of view or would like to advance your own please visit this site and make your voice known.
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
Name: Peter Fegan
mailfrom: feego1@optonline.net
Religion: Charismatic
House of Worship: The Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Testimonial:
"It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, that James Dobson, and others like him, have uesed their position from the pulpit to advance a very narrow interpretation of scripture to fit their own political gains. It worked in 2000 and 2004, but by 2006, it began to wear off as more and more of the electorate, many of whom were Christians, grew wary of their motives. It is quite comforting to see many within the evangelical community wake up and realize that there is more to being a good Christian than just being against abortion and gay rights. Part of being a good steward means to care for one another as well as to care about the planet we inhabit. The Pharasees knew how to judge and divide, but Jesus exposed their hearts and, in so doing, called us all to love one another.
"Today the venom and hatred of the Pharisees is alive and well and living in the Christian Right. Only by, as Jesus did, exposing their hardened hearts can we begin the process of letting in the light of God and advancing His Kingdom on Earth."
I wrote the above due to the recent comments made by James Dobson in response to statements made by Barack Obama on his faith. I invite all of you to read them for yourselves and not take the word of somebody else.
If you agree with this point of view or would like to advance your own please visit this site and make your voice known.
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Outmaneuvering the Swift Boats: Obama learns from history.
OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?
While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:
1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of pu
blic money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.
2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.
3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."
Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.
Amen!
OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?
While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:
1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of pu
blic money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.
3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."
Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.
Amen!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Post Script to the previous blog.
FROM THE FRYING PAN TO THE FIRE: Clinton Makes RFK Assassination Remark.
Just when you thought you’d heard everything possible in American politics and believed that there was nothing more that could scorch your sensibilities, the right honorable junior senator from New York went the proverbial extra mile and, in what can only be described as a meltdown of epic proportions, stuck her foot on the third rail of politics, then quickly into her own mouth by referencing the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason to stay in the Democratic primary race. She also, just to pile it on as it were, referred to her husband’s 1992 primary bid, stating that he had not wrapped up the nomination until mid-June.
As for the latter reference, the former first lady seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. While it is true that Bill Clinton did not "officially" wrap up the Democratic nomination until after the California primary, which for some strange reason was held in mid-June that year, the results of that contest were at best academic. He had a huge lead in delegates, and the contest had all but been decided months earlier. The California primary was the cherry on top of his nomination. Anyone with access to a computer or history book would know that.
As to the former statement, it can now be said of Hillary Clinton that she has completely lost her mind. Her campaign has now become the laughingstock of this nomination process. To even suggest, with a straight face, that you are staying in a race because of a potential assassination attempt on your rival goes above and beyond the limits of even gutter politics and enters into an arena that is within the purview of individuals who know neither decency nor are affected by conscious. That the Clintons, who have never tasted defeat in their political lives, would pull out all the stops to win the nomination is certainly not front-page news; anyone who has ever seen them in action has not been surprised by the tactics that they have employed. But that they would sink to this level is appalling and despicable, and is evidence of a campaign whose wheels are finally coming off, and to paraphrase a now infamous Dick Cheney quote, "Is in it’s death throws." If she can quote Karl Rove, I can quote Dick Cheney!
Even Clinton’s half-baked apology, if you can call it that, lacked even a trace of humility; not to mention the fact that the junior senator from New York didn’t even have the courtesy of including Barack Obama in her half-baked apology. In deed, her "apology" lacked even a trace of remorse for the damage her words might have done. Instead she only expressed "regret" that if her words were interpreted as offensive, that was not her intention. Please! Spare us! Her inability to connect the dots and realize that for millions of African Americans who have faced centuries of racism in this country, the word assassination is not merely a historical reference to the Kennedy family, as Clinton tried to pawn off; it is a frightening specter that they live with every day. They are painfully aware that there still exists within our society elements that cannot accept the candidacy, much less the presidency, of a black man in charge of the country. Such elements would revel in taking out such an individual. That Clinton could not muster the slightest empathy over those fears should be all the evidence anyone needs that she is oblivious to everything but her ambition. It is obvious that nothing seems to be able to shame her and her husband, not even when it’s painfully obvious to all but the most rank Clinton apologists.
Hopefully, now, the super delegates will step in and end this charade. What Hillary Clinton could not do on her own, namely bring to a civilized end a long, drawn out and bitter campaign, the super delegates will now bring to closure. No matter what she decides to do in the weeks and months ahead, she has severely damaged her standing within the Senate, and all I can say is it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person.
Bon Appetite!
FROM THE FRYING PAN TO THE FIRE: Clinton Makes RFK Assassination Remark.
Just when you thought you’d heard everything possible in American politics and believed that there was nothing more that could scorch your sensibilities, the right honorable junior senator from New York went the proverbial extra mile and, in what can only be described as a meltdown of epic proportions, stuck her foot on the third rail of politics, then quickly into her own mouth by referencing the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason to stay in the Democratic primary race. She also, just to pile it on as it were, referred to her husband’s 1992 primary bid, stating that he had not wrapped up the nomination until mid-June.
As for the latter reference, the former first lady seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. While it is true that Bill Clinton did not "officially" wrap up the Democratic nomination until after the California primary, which for some strange reason was held in mid-June that year, the results of that contest were at best academic. He had a huge lead in delegates, and the contest had all but been decided months earlier. The California primary was the cherry on top of his nomination. Anyone with access to a computer or history book would know that.
As to the former statement, it can now be said of Hillary Clinton that she has completely lost her mind. Her campaign has now become the laughingstock of this nomination process. To even suggest, with a straight face, that you are staying in a race because of a potential assassination attempt on your rival goes above and beyond the limits of even gutter politics and enters into an arena that is within the purview of individuals who know neither decency nor are affected by conscious. That the Clintons, who have never tasted defeat in their political lives, would pull out all the stops to win the nomination is certainly not front-page news; anyone who has ever seen them in action has not been surprised by the tactics that they have employed. But that they would sink to this level is appalling and despicable, and is evidence of a campaign whose wheels are finally coming off, and to paraphrase a now infamous Dick Cheney quote, "Is in it’s death throws." If she can quote Karl Rove, I can quote Dick Cheney!
Even Clinton’s half-baked apology, if you can call it that, lacked even a trace of humility; not to mention the fact that the junior senator from New York didn’t even have the courtesy of including Barack Obama in her half-baked apology. In deed, her "apology" lacked even a trace of remorse for the damage her words might have done. Instead she only expressed "regret" that if her words were interpreted as offensive, that was not her intention. Please! Spare us! Her inability to connect the dots and realize that for millions of African Americans who have faced centuries of racism in this country, the word assassination is not merely a historical reference to the Kennedy family, as Clinton tried to pawn off; it is a frightening specter that they live with every day. They are painfully aware that there still exists within our society elements that cannot accept the candidacy, much less the presidency, of a black man in charge of the country. Such elements would revel in taking out such an individual. That Clinton could not muster the slightest empathy over those fears should be all the evidence anyone needs that she is oblivious to everything but her ambition. It is obvious that nothing seems to be able to shame her and her husband, not even when it’s painfully obvious to all but the most rank Clinton apologists.
Hopefully, now, the super delegates will step in and end this charade. What Hillary Clinton could not do on her own, namely bring to a civilized end a long, drawn out and bitter campaign, the super delegates will now bring to closure. No matter what she decides to do in the weeks and months ahead, she has severely damaged her standing within the Senate, and all I can say is it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person.
Bon Appetite!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The following is a letter I submitted to Hillary Clinton through her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
To Hillary Clinton,
It is very curious in deed that you seem to be redefining the rules of this primary contest. First you said that Florida and Michigan would NOT count, now they do. You then said that the total delegate count (both pledged and super) would be the determining factor, now it's popular vote count. And with regard to the delegate count, you agreed it would be 2025 (now 2026), now you have up'd it to 2210. Next you said that every vote counted, but now, apparently, only the votes in those swing states that you win seem to matter, and Obama's votes aren't as important. Now you are in Florida, citing a movie about the 2000 Florida recount that you haven't even seen yet. Your insistence on constantly moving the goal posts to serve your agenda would be humorous, if it weren’t so pathetic. Believing you are better than your opponent is one thing; asking rational people to undo a nine month process because you don't like the results is absurd.
Is there nothing you will not stoop to to capture this nomination? Your insistence that you be given all the Michigan votes - with none going to Obama because he was not on the ballot - is insulting to say the least. If every vote does in deed count, as you say, what about those people in Michigan who DIDN'T vote for you? Do you not think it logical to assume that had Obama been on the ballot that most if not all of them would’ve voted for him?
Face it, you have lost this race. There is no shame in admitting defeat, not when you've done the best you could. The only thing you can possibly accomplish by continuing this fight is to further polarize and divide an electorate going into the fall campaign. If you succeed at that you will forever have a footnote next to your name that will haunt you the rest of your days. Ask Ted Kennedy the next time you see him how he feels about the way he conducted himself in the 1980 Democratic primary. His actions severely compromised Jimmy Carter, making him even more vulnerable to Ronald Reagan in the general election.
I voted for you twice for senator; I even voted twice for your husband for president. But your continued irresponsible conduct over the last few days has given pause to many in the Democratic party and threatens to harm the party's chances in the fall. The fact that you are now quoting Karl Rove - an individual who clearly has no love loss for Democrats - only underscores the desperation of your candidacy. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, you are threatening to go all the way to Denver and force a brokered convention if your demands are not met. Enough is enough!
As someone who has seen enough of George Bush to last a lifetime, I am pleading with you to come to your senses and do what is right for the party you claim to love so much. If you act now, there will be plenty of time for healing the divisions within both camps. We need not fumble the ball on the one-yard line like we have so many times before!
Peter Fegan
To Hillary Clinton,
It is very curious in deed that you seem to be redefining the rules of this primary contest. First you said that Florida and Michigan would NOT count, now they do. You then said that the total delegate count (both pledged and super) would be the determining factor, now it's popular vote count. And with regard to the delegate count, you agreed it would be 2025 (now 2026), now you have up'd it to 2210. Next you said that every vote counted, but now, apparently, only the votes in those swing states that you win seem to matter, and Obama's votes aren't as important. Now you are in Florida, citing a movie about the 2000 Florida recount that you haven't even seen yet. Your insistence on constantly moving the goal posts to serve your agenda would be humorous, if it weren’t so pathetic. Believing you are better than your opponent is one thing; asking rational people to undo a nine month process because you don't like the results is absurd.
Is there nothing you will not stoop to to capture this nomination? Your insistence that you be given all the Michigan votes - with none going to Obama because he was not on the ballot - is insulting to say the least. If every vote does in deed count, as you say, what about those people in Michigan who DIDN'T vote for you? Do you not think it logical to assume that had Obama been on the ballot that most if not all of them would’ve voted for him?
Face it, you have lost this race. There is no shame in admitting defeat, not when you've done the best you could. The only thing you can possibly accomplish by continuing this fight is to further polarize and divide an electorate going into the fall campaign. If you succeed at that you will forever have a footnote next to your name that will haunt you the rest of your days. Ask Ted Kennedy the next time you see him how he feels about the way he conducted himself in the 1980 Democratic primary. His actions severely compromised Jimmy Carter, making him even more vulnerable to Ronald Reagan in the general election.
I voted for you twice for senator; I even voted twice for your husband for president. But your continued irresponsible conduct over the last few days has given pause to many in the Democratic party and threatens to harm the party's chances in the fall. The fact that you are now quoting Karl Rove - an individual who clearly has no love loss for Democrats - only underscores the desperation of your candidacy. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, you are threatening to go all the way to Denver and force a brokered convention if your demands are not met. Enough is enough!
As someone who has seen enough of George Bush to last a lifetime, I am pleading with you to come to your senses and do what is right for the party you claim to love so much. If you act now, there will be plenty of time for healing the divisions within both camps. We need not fumble the ball on the one-yard line like we have so many times before!
Peter Fegan
Monday, March 24, 2008
INTOLERANCE COMES IN MANY FORMS.
“What do you call a Negro with a PhD? A nigger!”
- Malcolm X
The incendiary and provocative views of Reverend Jeremiah Wright regarding the treatment of African Americans at the hands of the U.S. government has sent political shockwaves through the Obama campaign that at its very least will cost the Illinois senator a few percentage points in opinion polls; polls that, like the weather in Florida, change by the hour it seems. At its worst, however, Wright’s views and Obama’s long-standing relationship to him, may well indeed undermine his presidential bid. If that happens, it would be a crying shame, especially in light of the fact that, for all its controversial tones and antagonistic overtures, a lot of what Wright said, however uncomfortable it might be for some to hear, was, at its heart, accurate.
The United States has never fully come to terms with, nor reconciled, its sorted and bloodied past. Whether it’s the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian during much of the 1800s, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in the years after the Civil War: a period known by many blacks as the Jim Crow years, the anti-Semitism that aided and abetted the Nazi’s during World War II, or the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War, America has had its blood-stained hands full with acts of violence – both overt and covert – in its never-ending quest for, first, continental, then, global supremacy. A quest that, like the thirst of an alcoholic, knows no bounds or quenching.
Yes, we don’t openly call blacks “niggers’ anymore, and it is indeed rare when we hear of overt acts of violence like those that were committed in Mississippi and Alabama during the ‘60s. One could say that we have come a long way in the last three decades, and it would be tempting to even pronounce that the country has put its dark past behind itself. Such pronouncements, however comforting, are inherently wrong and dangerous, as Barack Obama courageously pointed out in his speech last week. The very fact that Reverend Wright’s words could illicit such an over the top reaction from most of white America proves that the nation still doesn’t get it. The analogy is that of the bully on the block who, having beaten to a pulp the puny kid several houses down, finally stopped the pummeling, magnanimously extended his hand and said, “Can’t we all just learn to live together,” only to be stunned to learn that the puny kid was still licking his wounds and wanted nothing to do with the empty gesture. No, “Gee, I’m terribly sorry; how can I make it up to you?” No, “I deeply regret the pain and suffering I inflicted on you.” Just a rather matter of fact, “Well at least we don’t string you up any more. What more do you want?” Even a dog that takes a crap on the carpet of your home shows more regret for his actions than most white Americans do when discussing their country’s atrocities against minorities. When forced to look at its ugly head even a little bit, the response usually goes something like this, “Ungrateful!” or “Today if you want to know who the real victim of racism is, it’s the white man!” or “If you don’t like the way you’ve been treated in America then get out!” Like a son or daughter that hasn’t come to terms with their parent’s drinking problem and reacts violently when confronted by it, most of white America simply doesn’t have the stomach to take a deep look into the abyss of three and a half centuries of racism and murder. Who would? To go back and examine it would be gut wrenching to say the least. So instead we suppress it and hope it goes away.
The problem though is that it doesn’t go away. It continues to fester deep within the races. Now and then someone comes along and picks the scab a bit and the centuries’ old wound bleeds a little as both sides come face to face with the staggering truth about their country. It is a truth that white America hopes will go away and one that black America knows all too well they can never escape from. Last year, Don Imus was made the poster boy for racial intolerance for his racist and insensitive remarks about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team. Finally, we were going to have a real adult conversation about race in this country and we owed it all to a 66 year old alcoholic loud mouth who made his living insulting just about every ethnic and racial group in America. Within weeks of Imus’ dismissal, however, both the issue and the opportunity vanished into the night, never to be heard from again. The bad guy got the boot, now we could all return to business as usual and be one happy family.
And then Jeremiah Wright’s comments surfaced. This time the scab was ripped right off and the blood flowed. Yet another opportunity has presented itself to have an intelligent discussion on race; instead all the media has wanted to focus on is Senator Obama’s lack of judgment and how it might hurt him in the general election. How could a prominent Presidential candidate associate himself with such a deplorable and, obviously, “divisive” individual? That became the topic of discussion in most white and even some black American homes. That Obama didn’t throw his “former” pastor under the bus is a tribute to his integrity. No matter how this plays out for him in the weeks and months ahead, my respect for him has grown tremendously.
But the greater issue, far more pressing than a mere presidential election, still awaits that ultimate reconciling. It is deeply rooted in our collective history and, whether we want to admit it or not, it defines our very existence. Denial only works for so long. Sooner or later the truth, like that proverbial 800-pound gorilla, will win out. We have passed laws that outlaw the deeds that were once a part of our every day lives as a nation, and that is good. But, like the addict in recovery who must now make an amends for past harms, in order to truly cleanse our souls, we must atone in our body politic for our nation’s sins. And we cannot do that until we first admit the heinous nature of the crimes for which we are guilty. We must stop lying to ourselves, stop blaming the victims of our actions, and stop hallucinating that somehow we are now the ones who are discriminated against merely because a black man got a promotion we thought we so richly deserved.
Reality is at hand, as is healing, if we truly desire it. We may not want to admit it publicly, but one day, hopefully, we may find, upon careful examination, that the words of Jeremiah Wright finally lead to a healthy debate that helped us along the path of true racial equality in America; an America where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words finally came to fruition: “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!”
“What do you call a Negro with a PhD? A nigger!”
- Malcolm X
The incendiary and provocative views of Reverend Jeremiah Wright regarding the treatment of African Americans at the hands of the U.S. government has sent political shockwaves through the Obama campaign that at its very least will cost the Illinois senator a few percentage points in opinion polls; polls that, like the weather in Florida, change by the hour it seems. At its worst, however, Wright’s views and Obama’s long-standing relationship to him, may well indeed undermine his presidential bid. If that happens, it would be a crying shame, especially in light of the fact that, for all its controversial tones and antagonistic overtures, a lot of what Wright said, however uncomfortable it might be for some to hear, was, at its heart, accurate.
The United States has never fully come to terms with, nor reconciled, its sorted and bloodied past. Whether it’s the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian during much of the 1800s, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in the years after the Civil War: a period known by many blacks as the Jim Crow years, the anti-Semitism that aided and abetted the Nazi’s during World War II, or the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War, America has had its blood-stained hands full with acts of violence – both overt and covert – in its never-ending quest for, first, continental, then, global supremacy. A quest that, like the thirst of an alcoholic, knows no bounds or quenching.
Yes, we don’t openly call blacks “niggers’ anymore, and it is indeed rare when we hear of overt acts of violence like those that were committed in Mississippi and Alabama during the ‘60s. One could say that we have come a long way in the last three decades, and it would be tempting to even pronounce that the country has put its dark past behind itself. Such pronouncements, however comforting, are inherently wrong and dangerous, as Barack Obama courageously pointed out in his speech last week. The very fact that Reverend Wright’s words could illicit such an over the top reaction from most of white America proves that the nation still doesn’t get it. The analogy is that of the bully on the block who, having beaten to a pulp the puny kid several houses down, finally stopped the pummeling, magnanimously extended his hand and said, “Can’t we all just learn to live together,” only to be stunned to learn that the puny kid was still licking his wounds and wanted nothing to do with the empty gesture. No, “Gee, I’m terribly sorry; how can I make it up to you?” No, “I deeply regret the pain and suffering I inflicted on you.” Just a rather matter of fact, “Well at least we don’t string you up any more. What more do you want?” Even a dog that takes a crap on the carpet of your home shows more regret for his actions than most white Americans do when discussing their country’s atrocities against minorities. When forced to look at its ugly head even a little bit, the response usually goes something like this, “Ungrateful!” or “Today if you want to know who the real victim of racism is, it’s the white man!” or “If you don’t like the way you’ve been treated in America then get out!” Like a son or daughter that hasn’t come to terms with their parent’s drinking problem and reacts violently when confronted by it, most of white America simply doesn’t have the stomach to take a deep look into the abyss of three and a half centuries of racism and murder. Who would? To go back and examine it would be gut wrenching to say the least. So instead we suppress it and hope it goes away.
The problem though is that it doesn’t go away. It continues to fester deep within the races. Now and then someone comes along and picks the scab a bit and the centuries’ old wound bleeds a little as both sides come face to face with the staggering truth about their country. It is a truth that white America hopes will go away and one that black America knows all too well they can never escape from. Last year, Don Imus was made the poster boy for racial intolerance for his racist and insensitive remarks about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team. Finally, we were going to have a real adult conversation about race in this country and we owed it all to a 66 year old alcoholic loud mouth who made his living insulting just about every ethnic and racial group in America. Within weeks of Imus’ dismissal, however, both the issue and the opportunity vanished into the night, never to be heard from again. The bad guy got the boot, now we could all return to business as usual and be one happy family.
And then Jeremiah Wright’s comments surfaced. This time the scab was ripped right off and the blood flowed. Yet another opportunity has presented itself to have an intelligent discussion on race; instead all the media has wanted to focus on is Senator Obama’s lack of judgment and how it might hurt him in the general election. How could a prominent Presidential candidate associate himself with such a deplorable and, obviously, “divisive” individual? That became the topic of discussion in most white and even some black American homes. That Obama didn’t throw his “former” pastor under the bus is a tribute to his integrity. No matter how this plays out for him in the weeks and months ahead, my respect for him has grown tremendously.
But the greater issue, far more pressing than a mere presidential election, still awaits that ultimate reconciling. It is deeply rooted in our collective history and, whether we want to admit it or not, it defines our very existence. Denial only works for so long. Sooner or later the truth, like that proverbial 800-pound gorilla, will win out. We have passed laws that outlaw the deeds that were once a part of our every day lives as a nation, and that is good. But, like the addict in recovery who must now make an amends for past harms, in order to truly cleanse our souls, we must atone in our body politic for our nation’s sins. And we cannot do that until we first admit the heinous nature of the crimes for which we are guilty. We must stop lying to ourselves, stop blaming the victims of our actions, and stop hallucinating that somehow we are now the ones who are discriminated against merely because a black man got a promotion we thought we so richly deserved.
Reality is at hand, as is healing, if we truly desire it. We may not want to admit it publicly, but one day, hopefully, we may find, upon careful examination, that the words of Jeremiah Wright finally lead to a healthy debate that helped us along the path of true racial equality in America; an America where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words finally came to fruition: “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!”
Sunday, February 17, 2008
EXIT STAGE LEFT AND RIGHT, ENTER CENTER STAGE or
M.O.R.: The Ultimate Four-Letter Word in Politics is Finally in Vogue.
A couple of weeks ago I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal was his guest. Stewart had an interesting thought regarding the candidates. He felt that “a McCain / Obama presidential election would be such a tonic for the country. Both are figures that seem not to be products of a pure political system.” Noonan agreed and added, “They don’t seem like (political) machine guys.”
No they do not, which might explain that while both have enjoyed huge success among likely voters, neither has gotten what can be reasonably called overly enthusiastic support from their respective party’s base. McCain, particularly, despite the political juggernaut he seems to be on, might as well be a leper as far as the conservative right is concerned. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has publicly stated he would "never" vote for John McCain. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, La
ura Ingraham, and basically the rest of the Rat pack of Right-Wing lunatics who seem intent on driving their ship into an iceberg, even with the prospect of a potential democratic win in November lurking over their heads, have gone out of their way to blast the Arizona senator for just about everything from being a luke-warm conservative to being the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas in November of 1963. (Come to think of it, you’d think given what happened that day, McCain might actually be a hero had he actually been there). All kidding aside, despite his persistent support of the surge in Iraq, McCain is the ONLY Republican candidate who I would even consider voting for. And, on the Democratic side, Obama, likewise, has garnered a more than favorable stance among likely voters who have grown weary of the business as usual political chicanery. It certainly doesn’t hurt matters that his name isn’t Clinton, either.
What is even more fascinating, and uplifting all at the same time, is that the current front-runners seem to be polling very strong among voters who do not normally identify themselves with either political party. These middle of the roadies have come out in full bloom and are making their voices heard. In the ‘80s they were called Reagan Democrats, in the ‘90s they were called Clinton Republicans. But basically they are average people who have seen the divisiveness of the last seven and a half years and, like that famous 1970s movie, Network, they have stuck their heads out their collective windows and, at the top of their lungs, are screaming, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
It has always been my contention that one third of the nation is conservative, another is liberal and the remainder votes either way, depending on who makes the more convincing and persuasive argument. While political pundits on both sides of the aisle continue to miss the overall picture and insist that the nation is either conservative or liberal, the simple and undeniable truth is that, at least on a national level, voters usually vote for the guy, or girl as it might be, that they feel will be the best choice for the next four years. How else do you explain a dichotomy like Reagan in the ‘80s with Clinton in the ‘90s? Either the nation is schizophrenic or it’s just possible that despite their philosophical differences both men galvanized enough of a nation to land them in the white house, not once but twice.
Eight years ago the nation was on the verge of having a McCain / Bradley general election, which, had it happened, would’ve opened the door for a real debate on the issues. Who ever would’ve won that election would’ve been a breath of fresh air in a country used to stale leftovers. Instead what we got was Bush / Gore and, well you know what happened. I don’t need to drill that tooth again.
This time, my hope is we finally have a real chance to debate some real issues. Both Obama and McCain have different views on what the role of government should be and should both get the chance to debate each other this fall it would be most illuminating to witness. I can’t imagine a presidential election without mudslinging but I’d like to see one. I think the nation would like to see it also. Maybe that’s why both these men have done so well among voters who seem to cross over party lines. They are viewed as moderates by Democrats, sellouts by conservative Republicans, but this year they may well determine who the next president will be, and that makes them my new favorite group of people in the whole wide world, and I'm one of them!
M.O.R.: The Ultimate Four-Letter Word in Politics is Finally in Vogue.
A couple of weeks ago I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal was his guest. Stewart had an interesting thought regarding the candidates. He felt that “a McCain / Obama presidential election would be such a tonic for the country. Both are figures that seem not to be products of a pure political system.” Noonan agreed and added, “They don’t seem like (political) machine guys.”
No they do not, which might explain that while both have enjoyed huge success among likely voters, neither has gotten what can be reasonably called overly enthusiastic support from their respective party’s base. McCain, particularly, despite the political juggernaut he seems to be on, might as well be a leper as far as the conservative right is concerned. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has publicly stated he would "never" vote for John McCain. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, La
ura Ingraham, and basically the rest of the Rat pack of Right-Wing lunatics who seem intent on driving their ship into an iceberg, even with the prospect of a potential democratic win in November lurking over their heads, have gone out of their way to blast the Arizona senator for just about everything from being a luke-warm conservative to being the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas in November of 1963. (Come to think of it, you’d think given what happened that day, McCain might actually be a hero had he actually been there). All kidding aside, despite his persistent support of the surge in Iraq, McCain is the ONLY Republican candidate who I would even consider voting for. And, on the Democratic side, Obama, likewise, has garnered a more than favorable stance among likely voters who have grown weary of the business as usual political chicanery. It certainly doesn’t hurt matters that his name isn’t Clinton, either.What is even more fascinating, and uplifting all at the same time, is that the current front-runners seem to be polling very strong among voters who do not normally identify themselves with either political party. These middle of the roadies have come out in full bloom and are making their voices heard. In the ‘80s they were called Reagan Democrats, in the ‘90s they were called Clinton Republicans. But basically they are average people who have seen the divisiveness of the last seven and a half years and, like that famous 1970s movie, Network, they have stuck their heads out their collective windows and, at the top of their lungs, are screaming, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
It has always been my contention that one third of the nation is conservative, another is liberal and the remainder votes either way, depending on who makes the more convincing and persuasive argument. While political pundits on both sides of the aisle continue to miss the overall picture and insist that the nation is either conservative or liberal, the simple and undeniable truth is that, at least on a national level, voters usually vote for the guy, or girl as it might be, that they feel will be the best choice for the next four years. How else do you explain a dichotomy like Reagan in the ‘80s with Clinton in the ‘90s? Either the nation is schizophrenic or it’s just possible that despite their philosophical differences both men galvanized enough of a nation to land them in the white house, not once but twice.
Eight years ago the nation was on the verge of having a McCain / Bradley general election, which, had it happened, would’ve opened the door for a real debate on the issues. Who ever would’ve won that election would’ve been a breath of fresh air in a country used to stale leftovers. Instead what we got was Bush / Gore and, well you know what happened. I don’t need to drill that tooth again.
This time, my hope is we finally have a real chance to debate some real issues. Both Obama and McCain have different views on what the role of government should be and should both get the chance to debate each other this fall it would be most illuminating to witness. I can’t imagine a presidential election without mudslinging but I’d like to see one. I think the nation would like to see it also. Maybe that’s why both these men have done so well among voters who seem to cross over party lines. They are viewed as moderates by Democrats, sellouts by conservative Republicans, but this year they may well determine who the next president will be, and that makes them my new favorite group of people in the whole wide world, and I'm one of them!
Saturday, October 13, 2007
HELL HATH NO FURY, LIKE A HATEFUL WOMAN
Throughout her many years of ranting and raving and spewing and spinning, Ann Coulter has made a career of enraging anyone left of Ronald Reagan, and, at times, even embarrassing some of her supporters on the right. Some of her more "engaging" comments have been to regret that the 9/11 highjackers didn't fly into the New York Times building, calling Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot,"calling Bill Clinton "a very good rapist," and suggesting that taking away the right of women to vote would eliminate the possibility of electing of Democrats.
And now she can add yet another feather to a skull cap that many thought was filled to the brim. The latest furor erupted over an exchange Coulter had Monday with CNBC host Donny Deutsch on his show, "The Big Idea," during which she said the country would be better off if everyone were Christian. When Deutsch -- who is Jewish -- asked if she wanted to get rid of Judaism, Coulter responded, "We just want Jews to be perfected."
The irony of the comment was not that it was offensive or bigoted; in deed it is difficult to find any comment that Coulter has made that hasn't been offensive or bigoted. But the real irony is that, without quite intending it, she has encapsulated what the Religious Right has been preaching for decades. These religious zealots, who call themselves Christians, have been actively trying to rewrite the Constitution, insisting that since the Founding Fathers were Christian, that America is a and should forever remain a Christian nation. But, rather than get all hot and bothered about Coulter's comments, it seems to me we owe her a debt of gratitude for bringing to light the real and dangerous intent that threatens the fabric of the Republic. For while only a lunatic would take Coulter's myopic world view seriously, behind the scenes there lies a far less benign contingent hell-bent on eliminating, or at the very least marginalizing, all who disagree with their strict interpretation of one nation under God. We may laugh at the clown with the bad makeup and defaming dialogue, but all of us who value freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech, should take special care lest the rantings and ravings one day turn to law.
As I have said on more than one occasion, do NOT think it cannot happen here. Look at Germany as an example of a weak democracy that eventually fell. Freedom may be a gift, but it is a fragile gift; one that we must all take measures to preserve.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Parting Is NOT Such Sweet Sorrow The Architect of the Imperial Presidency Steps Down, But Unfortunately Has Not Stepped Aside.
The resignation of Karl Rove from the Bush White House might seem like a moral victory for those of us who have had to endure six and a half gut-churning years of watching the Constitution subverted for political gain, but it is a hollow victory.
Sure, it will be somewhat amusing watching this President twist in the wind for the remaining 16 months of his ill-fated and, some would say, illegitimate administration, but that, as they say at Planet Hollywood, is where the party ends. Rove's resignation, unfortunately, does little to alter the present direction of this administration. Bush is hell-bent on staying the course in Iraq; his Vice President continues to call for armed intervention in Iran, and the Democratic Congress seems unwilling or unable to do anything to bring about any substantive change. Adding insult to injury, Rove, now that he is no longer a member of the Bush cabinet, can devote his full attention to the next Republican heir to this mangled throne.
Few, if any, in the Senate have shown any initiative towards bringing this administration to justice. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the few bright spots for the country. Leahy issued the following statement this morning, "The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House."
Would that everyone in Congress could show as much zeal as Leahy. Concerned citizens must act and continue to act. If you haven't yet done so, and are inclined to do so, please click on to the site below and cast your vote to impeach Bush and Cheney. The site will be self-explanatory. As Steve has pointed out, you don't have to be a Democrat to do so; in fact, many Republicans are breaking with this President because of his arrogance.
Karl Rove may have been the brains behind Bush - I knew they were somewhere - but it hardly makes any difference in the grand scheme of things. A president, no matter how inept he may seem, is ultimately responsible for his actions. We don't need forty years to decide. This IS the worst administration ever in the history of the United States.
Monday, July 16, 2007
KILLING THE PATIENT: How a Billion Dollar Industry, Entrusted With Saving Lives, Maybe Killing the Very Patients It Is Treating.
“The doctor of the future will give no medicine; but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.” - Thomas Edison
I first heard Gary Null on WBAI in the 1980s. His radio show, Natural Living with Gary Null, deals with alternative treatment for illnesses such as cancer, eating natural foods and maintaining a regiment of a balanced diet and exercise. During his career Null has been extremely critical of the medical profession for what he says is a steadfast refusal to consider the merits of alternative medicine as treatments for serious illnesses. His assertion is that rather than trying to save lives and bring about cures for diseases like cancer, the medical profession’s main goal is treatment. “There is no healthcare in the United States,” he says, “or in England, or anywhere else. It doesn't exist. We have sickness maintenance."
At the heart of the problem is the money the medical profession, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, rakes in each year from the treatment of these illnesses, to the tune of billions of dollars. “Any doctor in the United States who cures cancer using alternative methods will be destroyed." While stopping short of saying that physicians are guilty of conspiring with the pharmaceutical industry – he prefers to believe that they are simply trained to accept the premises of their profession – he does point out that doctors are given huge financial incentives for agreeing to dispense medications as the first line of treatment, while at the same time minimizing or suppressing alternative, non-evasive treatments “to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train.”
Critics of Null – and there are many – site his educational background, namely his PhD from Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, Ohio, in human nutrition and public health sciences. While the school is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools its accreditation does not cover awarding of PhDs in the sciences, only in the humanities. Another criticism regarding Null has to do with his methodology. James R. Laidler, MD, criticizes Null’s work for double counting statistics and for presenting a simplistic and skewed view of medicine. Still another area of criticism directed at Null has to do with the fact that he has overly and unjustly criticized the medical profession while failing to point out the good it does and how many lives it saves. Harriet Hall, MD, has accused Null of “doctor bashing,” while Dr. Stephen Barrett, who maintains a website he calls Quackwatch, disparages Null's PhD thesis, his alternative health claims, and several of his commercial products.[21]
Null’s latest venture will, like his previous ones, stir the pot on both sides of the debate. AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease. While AIDS grabs the headlines and raises billions of dollars with celebrity endorsements and billionaire endowments, Null says we are no closer to finding a cure than when the scourge first appeared 30 years ago.
Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? Doctor Robert Gallo who discovered the HIV virus said that there is no legitimate dissent when it comes to AIDS. But there are more than 5,000 physicians, microbiologists, journalists and activists who disagree and say that we have been misled about the real causes of AIDS and the nature of its treatment. The mainstream media has chosen not to provide an outlet for their opinions. In this important film, Null traveled to more than 30 countries over an eight-year period to seek them out and get their interviews.
The first issue that Null’s movie challenges is the assertion that HIV equals AIDS. In the first few years, there were no major dissenting voices on this issue. The medical community accepted the initial data and “lined up, virtually in unison, to get research grants to find the appropriate drugs or vaccines that would either help prevent or treat the condition.” That, by itself, would be inexcusable, but what happened after was, to Null, even more reprehensible. Whenever a scientist would challenge the data and findings, or even question the literature, he or she was criticized nonstop. They were intimidated, ridiculed and threatened with having their grants canceled. The lack of any open scientific forum, or dearth of any meaningful dissent at Congressional hearings meant a rubber stamp on the treatment of AIDS for more than 20 years.
Null takes a close look at AIDS treatments, particularly AZT, which is the number one treatment prescribed for AIDS’ patients. It was the first anti-HIV drug approved for use in the United States. But the inventor of the drug says, according to Null, the drug is too toxic for cancer patients. The “T” stands for DNA termination. “It’s a DNA disruptor,” Null says. “Can you imagine giving that to people.” One of the main points of the film is that AZT may actually be killing more people than the AIDS virus itself. But the medical profession continues to endorse and prescribe the drug, in spite of the overwhelming data. The slogan at lectures is, “Put time on your side and take AZT.”
Another point throughout the film that Null makes is the millions of dollars that AIDS groups are given to endorse the taking of AZT and other drugs. If they said “Yes, use condoms and take your drugs,” you got money. If you said, “Yes, use condoms but don’t take the drugs, rebuild your immune system,” you got nothing. As always, Null’s central theme is the money trail and where it leads. He refers to AIDS conferences as “an embarrassment. They look like an expensive flea market for pharmaceuticals. Dozens and dozens of booths. All about drugs. And, of course, who do they hire, and pay first class to get there? Gay activists. It’s all about, “Get this drug, this is the newest and hottest drug.”
Despite the recent uproar his movie is bound to cause, Null isn’t overly optimistic about the future. “Nothing will happen. They (the AIDS industry) will get away with it. I wish that I could say otherwise about the people who have exploited this crisis to their advantage, who have lied about it, who have kept false information going forward, and who have kept people in a panic. No body has ever been held accountable, as long as you’ve got a corporate title in front of you. Let’s face it. One hundred thousand people have died because of Vioxx*, and they knew in advance that it was dangerous, and they hid that information. Have you heard of a single person at Pfizer being held accountable? No. Only in America could you kill a hundred thousand people and get a raise!”
Like Michael Moore, Gary Null is unapologetically anti big business in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Curiously, while his critics have brought to light legitimate concerns regarding his education, methodology and lack of objectivity, what has never been questioned is his passion and dedication to uncovering issues and problems within the medical profession. His first paper on the harmful affects of caffeine was the first of its kind; he also was among the earliest professionals talking about the virtues of eating right and exercising regularly – unless, of course, you count Jack LaLanne. His latest movie, like Moore’s Sicko, uncovers important information and brings to light serious issues within the medical profession. It should be required viewing for all people, regardless of their political persuasions.
* These numbers have NOT been verified and are the opinion of Gary Null.
“The doctor of the future will give no medicine; but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.” - Thomas Edison
I first heard Gary Null on WBAI in the 1980s. His radio show, Natural Living with Gary Null, deals with alternative treatment for illnesses such as cancer, eating natural foods and maintaining a regiment of a balanced diet and exercise. During his career Null has been extremely critical of the medical profession for what he says is a steadfast refusal to consider the merits of alternative medicine as treatments for serious illnesses. His assertion is that rather than trying to save lives and bring about cures for diseases like cancer, the medical profession’s main goal is treatment. “There is no healthcare in the United States,” he says, “or in England, or anywhere else. It doesn't exist. We have sickness maintenance."
At the heart of the problem is the money the medical profession, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, rakes in each year from the treatment of these illnesses, to the tune of billions of dollars. “Any doctor in the United States who cures cancer using alternative methods will be destroyed." While stopping short of saying that physicians are guilty of conspiring with the pharmaceutical industry – he prefers to believe that they are simply trained to accept the premises of their profession – he does point out that doctors are given huge financial incentives for agreeing to dispense medications as the first line of treatment, while at the same time minimizing or suppressing alternative, non-evasive treatments “to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train.”
Critics of Null – and there are many – site his educational background, namely his PhD from Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, Ohio, in human nutrition and public health sciences. While the school is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools its accreditation does not cover awarding of PhDs in the sciences, only in the humanities. Another criticism regarding Null has to do with his methodology. James R. Laidler, MD, criticizes Null’s work for double counting statistics and for presenting a simplistic and skewed view of medicine. Still another area of criticism directed at Null has to do with the fact that he has overly and unjustly criticized the medical profession while failing to point out the good it does and how many lives it saves. Harriet Hall, MD, has accused Null of “doctor bashing,” while Dr. Stephen Barrett, who maintains a website he calls Quackwatch, disparages Null's PhD thesis, his alternative health claims, and several of his commercial products.[21]
Null’s latest venture will, like his previous ones, stir the pot on both sides of the debate. AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease. While AIDS grabs the headlines and raises billions of dollars with celebrity endorsements and billionaire endowments, Null says we are no closer to finding a cure than when the scourge first appeared 30 years ago.
Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? Doctor Robert Gallo who discovered the HIV virus said that there is no legitimate dissent when it comes to AIDS. But there are more than 5,000 physicians, microbiologists, journalists and activists who disagree and say that we have been misled about the real causes of AIDS and the nature of its treatment. The mainstream media has chosen not to provide an outlet for their opinions. In this important film, Null traveled to more than 30 countries over an eight-year period to seek them out and get their interviews.
The first issue that Null’s movie challenges is the assertion that HIV equals AIDS. In the first few years, there were no major dissenting voices on this issue. The medical community accepted the initial data and “lined up, virtually in unison, to get research grants to find the appropriate drugs or vaccines that would either help prevent or treat the condition.” That, by itself, would be inexcusable, but what happened after was, to Null, even more reprehensible. Whenever a scientist would challenge the data and findings, or even question the literature, he or she was criticized nonstop. They were intimidated, ridiculed and threatened with having their grants canceled. The lack of any open scientific forum, or dearth of any meaningful dissent at Congressional hearings meant a rubber stamp on the treatment of AIDS for more than 20 years.
Null takes a close look at AIDS treatments, particularly AZT, which is the number one treatment prescribed for AIDS’ patients. It was the first anti-HIV drug approved for use in the United States. But the inventor of the drug says, according to Null, the drug is too toxic for cancer patients. The “T” stands for DNA termination. “It’s a DNA disruptor,” Null says. “Can you imagine giving that to people.” One of the main points of the film is that AZT may actually be killing more people than the AIDS virus itself. But the medical profession continues to endorse and prescribe the drug, in spite of the overwhelming data. The slogan at lectures is, “Put time on your side and take AZT.”
Another point throughout the film that Null makes is the millions of dollars that AIDS groups are given to endorse the taking of AZT and other drugs. If they said “Yes, use condoms and take your drugs,” you got money. If you said, “Yes, use condoms but don’t take the drugs, rebuild your immune system,” you got nothing. As always, Null’s central theme is the money trail and where it leads. He refers to AIDS conferences as “an embarrassment. They look like an expensive flea market for pharmaceuticals. Dozens and dozens of booths. All about drugs. And, of course, who do they hire, and pay first class to get there? Gay activists. It’s all about, “Get this drug, this is the newest and hottest drug.”
Despite the recent uproar his movie is bound to cause, Null isn’t overly optimistic about the future. “Nothing will happen. They (the AIDS industry) will get away with it. I wish that I could say otherwise about the people who have exploited this crisis to their advantage, who have lied about it, who have kept false information going forward, and who have kept people in a panic. No body has ever been held accountable, as long as you’ve got a corporate title in front of you. Let’s face it. One hundred thousand people have died because of Vioxx*, and they knew in advance that it was dangerous, and they hid that information. Have you heard of a single person at Pfizer being held accountable? No. Only in America could you kill a hundred thousand people and get a raise!”
Like Michael Moore, Gary Null is unapologetically anti big business in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Curiously, while his critics have brought to light legitimate concerns regarding his education, methodology and lack of objectivity, what has never been questioned is his passion and dedication to uncovering issues and problems within the medical profession. His first paper on the harmful affects of caffeine was the first of its kind; he also was among the earliest professionals talking about the virtues of eating right and exercising regularly – unless, of course, you count Jack LaLanne. His latest movie, like Moore’s Sicko, uncovers important information and brings to light serious issues within the medical profession. It should be required viewing for all people, regardless of their political persuasions.
* These numbers have NOT been verified and are the opinion of Gary Null.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR!
A lesson is learned on the floor of the Senate; but will the Religious Right Take Notice?
The sight of a Hindu clergyman saying the US Senate's traditional morning prayer was too much for members of a Christian group, who yesterday tried to shout him down before being arrested.
As Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, offered the prayer, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" from the gallery.
The trio continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were taken away in handcuffs by police, yelling, "no Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "there's only one true God!". The male protester told the Associated Press, "we are Christians and patriots".
Police identified the protesters as Ante and Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Kristen, members of a Christian organization called Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.
The group said in a statement: "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the one true god, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers."
Reverend Flip Benham, the leader of the group, said: "Not one senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'."
Once more, a valuable lesson is dumped into our laps; an opportunity to see what happens when the lines between Church and State are blurred. The Christian Right's encroachment on civil liberties and their insistence on rewriting history books - they have a particular fascination for the founding fathers - has now come full circle. In what can only be described as the irony of the decade a religious group about as 180 from Christianity as any religious group can be, took to the floor of the Senate to exercise its freedom of religious expression and was met by a strong dose of reality. In this increasingly myopic nation of ours, freedom of religious expression is reserved for those whom God has chosen. The zealots who run the Republican party would have you believe that the actions taken by this lunatic organization were justified because the Hindu god is a non-monotheistic god, not consistent with the Judaic / Christian God of the bible. That's code for, no God but ours. Apparently religious freedom only counts when it concurs with the beliefs of the majority. So much for a Republic.
None of this surprises me. I have been saying this now for two years. We are witnessing the birth of the Imperial Presidency, and the growing emergence of a theocracy. I don't care whether you agree with Hinduism or not, or even whether you agree that it should be allowed on the floor of the Senate. What is at stake here is far more serious than a simple prayer.
We all saw what happened in Germany when learned men stood by and let a bunch of thugs hijack a nation by rewriting its history, and then "silencing" anyone who challenged the authority of its new authors. DO NOT think it cannot happen here. This isn't about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion you care to name; it's about the legacy of a nation founded by men who knew all too well the perils of a state dominated by religious oppression, whose leaders considered themselves ordained by God Almighty to rule without question. Above all else, they wanted to avoid a repeat of that very same system in this new country they had formed. This bold, new experiment is called the United States of America, and the document they wrote to protect us from just such a system is called a Constitution. And that Constitution does NOT, contrary to what the Religious Right says, care which religion you belong to. ALL are welcome, and ALL are free to express and practice their beliefs free from persecution and ridicule.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These historic words taken from our Declaration of Independence illustrate plainly the difference between a constitutional form of government and a monarchy. In the former, the government gets its power from the governed; in the latter it is derived from God. No matter what the zealots on the Right say as they pervert our history, the United States is NOT, and was NEVER intended to be, a Christian state. Such a state would have been inconsistent with the ideals and values of our founding fathers.
When you worship at your local church, you have the same rights as the Jew, the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the Muslim: the right to worship your God in your own way. There is no other country like this, and I will be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of religious Nazis steal away my heritage.
A lesson is learned on the floor of the Senate; but will the Religious Right Take Notice?
The sight of a Hindu clergyman saying the US Senate's traditional morning prayer was too much for members of a Christian group, who yesterday tried to shout him down before being arrested.
As Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, offered the prayer, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" from the gallery.
The trio continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were taken away in handcuffs by police, yelling, "no Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "there's only one true God!". The male protester told the Associated Press, "we are Christians and patriots".
Police identified the protesters as Ante and Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Kristen, members of a Christian organization called Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.
The group said in a statement: "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the one true god, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers."
Reverend Flip Benham, the leader of the group, said: "Not one senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'."
Once more, a valuable lesson is dumped into our laps; an opportunity to see what happens when the lines between Church and State are blurred. The Christian Right's encroachment on civil liberties and their insistence on rewriting history books - they have a particular fascination for the founding fathers - has now come full circle. In what can only be described as the irony of the decade a religious group about as 180 from Christianity as any religious group can be, took to the floor of the Senate to exercise its freedom of religious expression and was met by a strong dose of reality. In this increasingly myopic nation of ours, freedom of religious expression is reserved for those whom God has chosen. The zealots who run the Republican party would have you believe that the actions taken by this lunatic organization were justified because the Hindu god is a non-monotheistic god, not consistent with the Judaic / Christian God of the bible. That's code for, no God but ours. Apparently religious freedom only counts when it concurs with the beliefs of the majority. So much for a Republic.
None of this surprises me. I have been saying this now for two years. We are witnessing the birth of the Imperial Presidency, and the growing emergence of a theocracy. I don't care whether you agree with Hinduism or not, or even whether you agree that it should be allowed on the floor of the Senate. What is at stake here is far more serious than a simple prayer.
We all saw what happened in Germany when learned men stood by and let a bunch of thugs hijack a nation by rewriting its history, and then "silencing" anyone who challenged the authority of its new authors. DO NOT think it cannot happen here. This isn't about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion you care to name; it's about the legacy of a nation founded by men who knew all too well the perils of a state dominated by religious oppression, whose leaders considered themselves ordained by God Almighty to rule without question. Above all else, they wanted to avoid a repeat of that very same system in this new country they had formed. This bold, new experiment is called the United States of America, and the document they wrote to protect us from just such a system is called a Constitution. And that Constitution does NOT, contrary to what the Religious Right says, care which religion you belong to. ALL are welcome, and ALL are free to express and practice their beliefs free from persecution and ridicule.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These historic words taken from our Declaration of Independence illustrate plainly the difference between a constitutional form of government and a monarchy. In the former, the government gets its power from the governed; in the latter it is derived from God. No matter what the zealots on the Right say as they pervert our history, the United States is NOT, and was NEVER intended to be, a Christian state. Such a state would have been inconsistent with the ideals and values of our founding fathers.
When you worship at your local church, you have the same rights as the Jew, the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the Muslim: the right to worship your God in your own way. There is no other country like this, and I will be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of religious Nazis steal away my heritage.
Monday, July 02, 2007
SICKO IS AS SICKO DOES.
The Sheep and the Goats – Matthew 25:31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Whatever else you may think of Michael Moore, he is very good at two things: making an entertaining movie, and making you squirm in your seat. His latest film Sicko is a case in point; it takes a serious and critical look at the current state of health care in the United States. Like his other films – Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling For Columbine, and Roger and Me – Moore is hardly objective in his criticism of the current problems in America’s health care system. And while some of his data might be faulty – for instance he states that the average cost of health care for each U.S. citizen is $7500 compared with $25 for the average Cuban citizen, when in fact the actual numbers are $6096 and $226 respectively – Moore has on point nailed three undeniable truths.
1. Health care in the United States is run by the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. Both of these industries care about one and only one thing: how much profit they can make for their investors. Denying health care is an essential vehicle in increasing profit for the insurance industry, and prescribing medication – whether it is needed or not – is equally vital to the pharmaceutical industry. Both of these industries have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the United States government in an attempt to thwart even the suggestion of a universal health care system.
2. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the Western hemisphere NOT to have a universal health care system. Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan all have such systems and all enjoy the fruits of health care with no out of pocket expense. While there may be some issues with all of the universal systems, these “issues” have been dramatically blown out of proportion by the American media. France, vilified by the conservative press in this country, has the number one rated health care system in the world!
3. There is a rabid paranoia over any mention of such a system of universal health care within the United States. Those who attempt to do so are branded Communist and / or unpatriotic. Virtually every politician who has taken up the issue of universal health care has either been defeated or been forced to “see the light.” Hillary Clinton, as former First Lady, once championed the cause of universal health care. Now, as the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency, she has been strangely mute on the subject. Not coincidentally, she also has received almost a million dollars in campaign contributions from the insurance lobby – the largest percentage among Democrats. Hmmm.
It didn’t take long for Moore’s detractors to come out swinging against Sicko. Websites like freemarketcure.com are advocating that what is needed most is for the Congress to administer a strong dose of capitalism. “Cures” such as reducing the size of the FDA (you know that agency that determines if the drug or food you’re consuming is poisonous or not); giving grants to the states for Medicaid spending thus reducing overall costs of funding the program (where have we heard that one before?); and instituting HSA’s - Health Savings Accounts - to individuals that would act like the school voucher program proposal, allowing participants to “opt” out of an insurance plan that they don’t like. (Curiously, such proponents fail to point out that such defections from current health care plans would mean an increase in premiums for those still left in them. That increase would be born on both the employee AND the employer. Just goes to show you that even capitalists forget to use their calculator from time to time!)
No health care plan is perfect, that is for sure. But it is time for the United States to wake up and smell the anesthesia. Allowing almost 50 million people to be without health insurance is criminal; and yes, in spite of anything you may hear to the contrary like some “prefer” not to be insured, there are almost 50 million uninsured. Allowing those who do have insurance to be denied treatment on strictly financial grounds is equally criminal. And in a supposedly Christian nation, for us not be out front on this issue belies the very principles we espouse most.
There are many things that a free-market, capitalist society brings to the table, and certainly no sane person would wish for a society where we are told what to buy, what to do, what to say, and where to go. But a truly free-market approach to health care is simply inconsistent with a compassionate and caring society, and ultimately in such a society we all pay for its shortcomings, either morally (through our burning consciences) or financially (by subsidizing substandard care for us all).
The words of Jesus serve as a warning to us all. Isn’t time we heed them?
The Sheep and the Goats – Matthew 25:31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Whatever else you may think of Michael Moore, he is very good at two things: making an entertaining movie, and making you squirm in your seat. His latest film Sicko is a case in point; it takes a serious and critical look at the current state of health care in the United States. Like his other films – Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling For Columbine, and Roger and Me – Moore is hardly objective in his criticism of the current problems in America’s health care system. And while some of his data might be faulty – for instance he states that the average cost of health care for each U.S. citizen is $7500 compared with $25 for the average Cuban citizen, when in fact the actual numbers are $6096 and $226 respectively – Moore has on point nailed three undeniable truths.
1. Health care in the United States is run by the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. Both of these industries care about one and only one thing: how much profit they can make for their investors. Denying health care is an essential vehicle in increasing profit for the insurance industry, and prescribing medication – whether it is needed or not – is equally vital to the pharmaceutical industry. Both of these industries have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the United States government in an attempt to thwart even the suggestion of a universal health care system.
2. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the Western hemisphere NOT to have a universal health care system. Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan all have such systems and all enjoy the fruits of health care with no out of pocket expense. While there may be some issues with all of the universal systems, these “issues” have been dramatically blown out of proportion by the American media. France, vilified by the conservative press in this country, has the number one rated health care system in the world!
3. There is a rabid paranoia over any mention of such a system of universal health care within the United States. Those who attempt to do so are branded Communist and / or unpatriotic. Virtually every politician who has taken up the issue of universal health care has either been defeated or been forced to “see the light.” Hillary Clinton, as former First Lady, once championed the cause of universal health care. Now, as the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency, she has been strangely mute on the subject. Not coincidentally, she also has received almost a million dollars in campaign contributions from the insurance lobby – the largest percentage among Democrats. Hmmm.
It didn’t take long for Moore’s detractors to come out swinging against Sicko. Websites like freemarketcure.com are advocating that what is needed most is for the Congress to administer a strong dose of capitalism. “Cures” such as reducing the size of the FDA (you know that agency that determines if the drug or food you’re consuming is poisonous or not); giving grants to the states for Medicaid spending thus reducing overall costs of funding the program (where have we heard that one before?); and instituting HSA’s - Health Savings Accounts - to individuals that would act like the school voucher program proposal, allowing participants to “opt” out of an insurance plan that they don’t like. (Curiously, such proponents fail to point out that such defections from current health care plans would mean an increase in premiums for those still left in them. That increase would be born on both the employee AND the employer. Just goes to show you that even capitalists forget to use their calculator from time to time!)
No health care plan is perfect, that is for sure. But it is time for the United States to wake up and smell the anesthesia. Allowing almost 50 million people to be without health insurance is criminal; and yes, in spite of anything you may hear to the contrary like some “prefer” not to be insured, there are almost 50 million uninsured. Allowing those who do have insurance to be denied treatment on strictly financial grounds is equally criminal. And in a supposedly Christian nation, for us not be out front on this issue belies the very principles we espouse most.
There are many things that a free-market, capitalist society brings to the table, and certainly no sane person would wish for a society where we are told what to buy, what to do, what to say, and where to go. But a truly free-market approach to health care is simply inconsistent with a compassionate and caring society, and ultimately in such a society we all pay for its shortcomings, either morally (through our burning consciences) or financially (by subsidizing substandard care for us all).
The words of Jesus serve as a warning to us all. Isn’t time we heed them?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Much Ado About Nothing!
A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals. Among men ages 18-44, 92% said they were attracted “only to females” and 3.9% “mostly” to females. Among women, 86% said they were attracted only to males, and 10% “mostly” to males.
For most of the last four decades the prevailing sentiment, thanks in large part to the studies done by Alfred Kinsey, was that the percentage of homosexuals or bisexuals was around 10% of the population.
Not one to miss an opportunity, the Religious Right, in an obvious “We Told You So” manner has been harping on this latest evolution – oops, sorry, another dirty word – in theory. As usual, nothing seems to satisfy these myopic individuals. When it was thought that 10 percent of the population was gay or bisexual, their theme was to stop the homosexual agenda from ruining the American Way. Their fear was that homosexuals would spread their perversion – like it was some kind of black plague – throughout the millions of decent, upstanding heterosexuals. Now that the actual number seems to be approximately half of what it was thought to be, the goal is to slam the gay-loving scientists that spread their contempt for good old-fashioned family values, by conducting unscientific research.
Now frankly, I’ve always thought it extremely amusing that a group that has as much use for science as a roach has for a can of Raid, would make such a fuss about getting scientific research right, but in this case, I must grudgingly agree with them. Not because I agree with their views, but because bad science is just that: bad science. While no field of scientific endeavor is immune from its share of mistakes, when those mistakes are the result of bad research, and that research is followed up by still more bad research, it tarnishes the good research, thus giving religious groups the thunder and political capital to challenge other areas of scientific research; i.e. evolution, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, etc… The latest “push” by certain evangelical movements to foist Intelligent Design into public schools as a scientific theory equal to evolution is a classic case in point. When God wasn’t preoccupied with bending the light of stars that were millions of light years away so that they could be seen by us in the here and now, He’s making sure we all understand that he “limited” himself to a mere week to create everything we see and hear. This is the kind of nonsense St. Augustine addressed in 415 AD when he wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis. More than 1500 years later and we’re still dealing with this crap! These people won’t be satisfied until everything that disagrees with their world-view is eliminated or marginalized.
For my vantage point, having met and gotten to know several gay men, my feeling is that this is much ado about nothing. The only agenda here is the one that seeks to condemn a group of people who, regardless of their numbers, have been among us for thousands of years. Wishing them away because you feel superior to them, or because you find something intrinsically defective in them reminds me of the passage in John when the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus to be stoned who had been accused of adultery. They quoted the law of Moses, but Jesus refused to play along. Finally when they gave up and left, he asked the women where her accusers had gone. "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. Now I know what many of you will say next. Peter, you left out the part where Jesus says to the woman “go and sin no more.” True, but I’ve always wondered if that quote wasn’t meant as much for us as it was for her.
We are all sinners, but the greatest sin is believing you are superior to another of God’s creatures. Let us not forget the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18: 9-14. "Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Don’t we have enough Pharisees in this world?
A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals. Among men ages 18-44, 92% said they were attracted “only to females” and 3.9% “mostly” to females. Among women, 86% said they were attracted only to males, and 10% “mostly” to males.
For most of the last four decades the prevailing sentiment, thanks in large part to the studies done by Alfred Kinsey, was that the percentage of homosexuals or bisexuals was around 10% of the population.
Not one to miss an opportunity, the Religious Right, in an obvious “We Told You So” manner has been harping on this latest evolution – oops, sorry, another dirty word – in theory. As usual, nothing seems to satisfy these myopic individuals. When it was thought that 10 percent of the population was gay or bisexual, their theme was to stop the homosexual agenda from ruining the American Way. Their fear was that homosexuals would spread their perversion – like it was some kind of black plague – throughout the millions of decent, upstanding heterosexuals. Now that the actual number seems to be approximately half of what it was thought to be, the goal is to slam the gay-loving scientists that spread their contempt for good old-fashioned family values, by conducting unscientific research.
Now frankly, I’ve always thought it extremely amusing that a group that has as much use for science as a roach has for a can of Raid, would make such a fuss about getting scientific research right, but in this case, I must grudgingly agree with them. Not because I agree with their views, but because bad science is just that: bad science. While no field of scientific endeavor is immune from its share of mistakes, when those mistakes are the result of bad research, and that research is followed up by still more bad research, it tarnishes the good research, thus giving religious groups the thunder and political capital to challenge other areas of scientific research; i.e. evolution, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, etc… The latest “push” by certain evangelical movements to foist Intelligent Design into public schools as a scientific theory equal to evolution is a classic case in point. When God wasn’t preoccupied with bending the light of stars that were millions of light years away so that they could be seen by us in the here and now, He’s making sure we all understand that he “limited” himself to a mere week to create everything we see and hear. This is the kind of nonsense St. Augustine addressed in 415 AD when he wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis. More than 1500 years later and we’re still dealing with this crap! These people won’t be satisfied until everything that disagrees with their world-view is eliminated or marginalized.
For my vantage point, having met and gotten to know several gay men, my feeling is that this is much ado about nothing. The only agenda here is the one that seeks to condemn a group of people who, regardless of their numbers, have been among us for thousands of years. Wishing them away because you feel superior to them, or because you find something intrinsically defective in them reminds me of the passage in John when the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus to be stoned who had been accused of adultery. They quoted the law of Moses, but Jesus refused to play along. Finally when they gave up and left, he asked the women where her accusers had gone. "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. Now I know what many of you will say next. Peter, you left out the part where Jesus says to the woman “go and sin no more.” True, but I’ve always wondered if that quote wasn’t meant as much for us as it was for her.
We are all sinners, but the greatest sin is believing you are superior to another of God’s creatures. Let us not forget the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18: 9-14. "Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Don’t we have enough Pharisees in this world?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Looking Back Through the Key Hole: Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid!
One of my favorite TV shows of the last ten years was West Wing. I loved the topics, the writing and the acting on it. I also loved that in a nation that seemed to be getting increasingly conservative, it had the moral courage to stand up and provide a platform for those people, like my wife and I, who didn’t subscribe to the “belief” system being perpetrated on the nation. As the Clinton administration continued to crumble, partly due to the unwarranted crusade of Ken Starr, partly due to Clinton’s own personal failings as a man, the show actually set a standard that regardless of ideology served as a power of example for how all administrations should conduct themselves.
In one particular episode, Josh Lyman – the Deputy Chief of Staff for those of you not familiar with the show or its cast – is having a conversation with a Republican congressman. “It’s interesting,” Josh says, “how you people want to reduce the size of government just small enough so it can fit through a keyhole.” Josh had a habit of leaving his bedside manner home when it came to talking about such topics.
The scene got me thinking, though, about how different the Republican Party is from what it used to be. I’m not that old but I remember a time when learned men like William F. Buckley would vehemently argue for conservative capitalism and rage against oppressive government control and regulation. I remember watching him on his show, Firing Line, in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. While I agreed with some of his points, and strongly disagreed with the rest, I remember thinking how the argument was always about the role of government in the economy. Social conservatives, it was thought, were irrelevant. They were tolerated, only in as far as they could be counted on to get out the vote in certain strategic places in the South.
That was then, this is now. As some would say, this ain’t your daddy’s Republican party anymore. The party that espoused laissez-fair (which literally means let them do or hands off) economics has now been kidnapped by a gang of men whose goal is anything other than hands off. As Josh would say they want to peek through your keyhole to see if you’ve been naughty or nice.
Some of these men are very familiar within the conservative Right. The key players are Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins. I was going to mention Jerry Falwell, but alas nature took care of that.
Pat Robertson, born March 22, 1930, is the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and hosts the controversial program The 700 Club where he expresses his opinions on a regular basis. Some of the more notable have been as follows:
On January 14, 1991, on The 700 Club, Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."[20] He has never recanted this statement, though he has supported the election of certain Episcopalians. [1]
On the June 8, 1998 edition of his show, Robertson denounced Orlando, Florida and Disney World for allowing a privately sponsored "Gay Days" weekend. Robertson stated that the acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor."[25] The resulting outcry prompted Robertson to return to the topic on June 24, where he quoted the Book of Revelation to support his claims.[2]
While discussing the Mark Foley scandal on the October 5, 2006 broadcast of the show, Robertson condemned Foley saying he "does what gay people do".[26][3]
On his November 10, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson told citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania that they had rejected God by voting out of office all seven members of the school board who support intelligent design.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city", Robertson said on his broadcast. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because He might not be there."[39] [4]
The lead story on the January 5, 2006, edition of The 700 Club was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hospitalization for a severe stroke. After the story, Robertson said that Sharon's illness was possibly retribution from God for his recent drive to give more land to the Palestinians. He also claimed former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's 1995 assassination may have occurred for the same reason.[41] [5]
But the crowning achievement of his theology came on the August 22, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, when Robertson said of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez: “I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” [6]
I could go on and on. On the March 21, 2006 broadcast of The 700 Club, while reviewing The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz, the subject of which is radical academics in American universities, Robertson went on to say that the 101 professors named in the book are only but a few of "thirty to forty thousand" left-wing professors in the United States, all of whom he accused of being "racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda", further labeling them as "termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society".
Later in the broadcast, he went on to say, "these guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, they are, you know, some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order... you don’t want your child to be brainwashed by these radicals, you just don’t want it to happen. Not only brainwashed but also beat up, they beat these people up, cower them into submission."[66] [7]
And last but not least, in May 2006, Robertson declared that storms and possibly a tsunami would hit America's coastline sometime in 2006. Robertson supposedly received this revelation from God during an annual personal prayer retreat in January. The claim was repeated four times on The 700 Club.
On May 8, 2006 Robertson said, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." On May 17, 2006 he elaborated, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."[67] While this claim didn't garner the same level of controversy as some of his other statements, it was generally received with mild amusement by the Pacific Northwest media. It should also be noted that the History Channel's initial airing of its new series, Mega Disasters: West Coast Tsunami, was broadcast the first week of May. [8]
And these are only the highlights, imagine the low lights!
Tony Perkins, born March 20, 1963, has been the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think-tank and public policy foundation, a political offshoot of James Dobson's Focus on the Family since September 2003.
Perkins was one of the organizers and hosts of the 2005 Justice Sunday event organized by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, along with James Dobson and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The event was organized to mobilize the evangelical Christian base in putting pressure on Democrats to end the use of the filibuster to block the confirmation of nominees to the federal judiciary by President George W. Bush. [9]
Perkins has come under fire from various organizations for having appeared in 2002 as a speaker at the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group sometimes considered white supremacist in orientation. [3]
The Nation claims that in 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for use of his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was campaign manager for Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[2] [10] While both Perkins and The Family Research Council call the article’s claims false, stating that the Duke “connection was not known until 1999,” it is hard to believe that no one in the campaign knew of David Duke or his views.
Like many conservative evangelicals, Perkins is not a fan of the environmentalist movement. He was quoted as saying that global warming was “part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity. We're not going to allow third parties to divide evangelicals, and I think that is what is happening in part with the global warming issue." [11] Perkins was also one of the many conservative evangelicals who signed a letter in January of 2006 demanding that Richard Cizik, the Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), be restrained from putting forth his views on global warming. The following year, James Dobson – more on him later – called for Cizik to resign.
Perkins attended Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and when Falwell died earlier this month, said of him in his blog, “As a spiritual giant in the political world, Dr. Falwell stood for family, faith, and freedom—even when the stands he took were unpopular.” One of those “unpopular” stands occurred after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when Falwell said on The 700 Club, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" [12]
And now for the granddaddy of them all.
James Dobson, born April 21, 1936, is the chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization he founded in 1977. In this function, he produces the daily radio program Focus on the Family, which is broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on over 7,000 stations worldwide, and heard daily by more than 220 million people in 164 countries.[1] [2] Focus on the Family is also carried by about 60 U.S. television stations daily.[1] [13]
Dobson's Family Research Council is identified as an dominionist organization by TheocracyWatch[20][21], which says that the Congressional scorecard of the Family Research Council illustrates its success and the strength of dominionists in Congress.[22] Dominionism describes a movement among socially conservative Christians to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action — seeking either a nation dominated by Christians or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is matter of controversy.[1][2][3][4][5] [14] Chris Hedges described Dobson as "perhaps the most powerful figure in the Dominionist movement" and "a crucial player in getting out the Christian vote for George W. Bush." [15]
Although Dobson initially remained somewhat distant from Washington politics, in 1981 he founded the Family Research Council as a political arm through which Biblical values could achieve greater political influence.
In late 2004, Dobson led a campaign with social conservatives to block the appointment of Arlen Specter to head of the judiciary committee because of Specter's stance on abortion. Responding to a question by Alan Colmes, of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, on whether he wanted the Republican Party to be known as a "big-tent party," he replied, "I don't want to be in the big tent... I think the party ought to stand for something."[3] In 2006, Family Research Council spent more than a half million dollars to promote a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in its home state of Colorado.[4]
On January 1, 2005, The Washington Times reported that Dobson promised six Democratic senators "a battle of enormous proportions" if they filibustered conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. "He singled out six Democrats up for re-election in 2006: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida." According to a 2005 Washington Times article, in 2004 Dobson played an important role in the defeat of then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.[5] Five of the six senators went on to win reelection and the sixth, Dayton, was succeeded in office by another Democrat.
In November 2004, Dobson was described by the online magazine Slate.com as "America's most influential evangelical leader."[28] The article explained, "Forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who in their dotage have marginalized themselves with gaffes... Dobson is now America's most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak... Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.[28] Further, "He's already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush 'needs to be more aggressive' about pressing the religious right's pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would 'pay a price in four years.' [16]
Dobson has sometimes complained that the Republican party may take the votes of social conservatives for granted, and has suggested that evangelicals may withhold support from the GOP if the party does not more strongly support conservative family issues: "Does the Republican Party want our votes, no string attached--to court us every two years, and then to say, 'Don't call me, I'll call you'--and not to care about the moral law of the universe? ... Is that what they want? Is that the way the system works? Is this the way it's going to be? If it is, I'm gone, and if I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible."[2]
However, in 2006, Dobson said that, while "there is disillusionment out there with Republicans" and "that worries me greatly," he nonetheless suggested voters turn out and vote Republican in 2006. "My first inclination was to sit this one out," but according to The New York Times, Dobson then added that "he had changed his mind when he looked at who would become the leaders of Congressional committees if the Democrats took over."[29]
The Council for National Policy, of which Dobson is a member, emerged from a February 2007 meeting dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.[30] On May 17, 2007 Dobson announced that if Rudy Giuliani were to receive the Republican party nomination, he would not vote for him. "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision." [31] [17]
Besides his myopic views on politics and the environment, Dobson has some rather interesting things to say about women, education, and tolerance.
Women: While women are not inferior to men because both are created in God’s image, the wife must submit to her husband’s authority. He overtly advocates male leadership with regard to the Christian family and he functions in exactly the same way with regard to Focus on the Family's office, as if he believes there is a divine order in which men are ordained to lead corporations."[8] [18]
Education: Dobson is a staunch supporter of private school vouchers and tax credits for religious schools. His organization has consistently called for the removal of any mention of evolution from the public education system and has called for the teaching of intelligent design as a science, as well as school prayer. Curiously, Dobson favors student-led prayer in public school but doesn’t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage students “to pray to Allah, Buddha, or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students.”[2] [19] Apparently, it has never occurred to Dobson that there might be Muslim or Buddhist students in the school system who might actually enjoy praying to their God, and whose parents might actually WISH for that!
Tolerance: Dobson has been steadfast in his contention that tolerance and diversity are nothing more than buzzwords for the homosexual agenda. He recently went after the We Are Family Foundation founded by R&B artist Nile Rodgers on the grounds that because it promotes tolerance, diversity, respect, and multiculturalism among individuals of all ages, it has encouraged the very doctrines that have led to the decline of western civilization. Despite having no proof, Dobson has said of the Foundation that “childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children." [20] In actuality, The We Are Family Foundation celebrates the vision of a global family by creating and supporting programs that inspire and educate people about mutual respect, understanding, and appreciation of cultural diversity. [21]
So there you have it, the three unwise men. Like I said I was going to include Falwell in this and refer to them as the Fabless Four, but timing is everything. Still, you get the picture. These are the key role players in the power struggle within our country. Their obsession with homosexuality, evolution, abortion and anything that smacks of pluralism has blinded them to the true goals of Christ. They are more concerned with whether Rosie O’Donnell is a fit mother than whether a single mother can support her child. They care more about whether a child prays in school than whether he or she has enough food to eat; they care more about the interests of corporate America rather than worrying about how corporate America continues to destroy the very planet we are entrusted with protecting.
They have kidnapped the Republican party, put on stain on our faith, and severely divided and weakened a country that has been bitterly polarized for almost a decade. They are watching you and me and their agenda is obvious. They want to turn the United States into a theocracy. They have little or no regard for a constitutional form of government, since such a form of government would rest power in the hands of the people and their elected officials. In their narrow-minded view, only a Christian-based form of government is fit to rule over us, and any one who disagrees is threatened and intimidated. In their society, they would be the perfect arbiters of acceptable behavior.
A look at the latest round of political debates between the various candidates in both parties was most illuminating. The Democrats seemed to engage the issues and had some real ideas about how to lead; the Republicans seemed overly concerned that their answers appeal to their base. Guess which side was quaking in its boots?
It is not too late to stop these ideologues. People of good conscious, be they Christian or not, can and must stand up to them. The last two years have given hope to those of us who still believe in democracy. As the Bush administration continues to plunder its political capital and bring about its own mini division among prominent Republicans, the Democrats must seize the opportunity. They cannot run away from God like it’s a dirty word, and hence be thought of as the party that opposes God; rather they must embrace their own form of spirituality and remind the nation that the Religious Right does not have a monopoly on faith or, for that matter, even speaks on behalf of the millions of God-fearing people, both Christian and non. The choice in ’08 cannot and must not be between James Dobson’s world-view and atheism. I fear that if that is the choice than we may have lost the war after all, and I’m not talking about Iraq.
In the meantime, look back through the keyhole. Be afraid, but be resolute. Pray to God. Write your congressman, senator, governor, whomever you can. Remind them that not all Christians believe or behave as these modern-day Pharisees do. Also remind them that your vote counts as much as any one’s and that you’re looking for real leadership. There’s always a light at the end of the tunnel; sometimes it’s not even a train!
____________________________________________________
[1] From Pat Robertson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson.
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] From Tony Perkins, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(evangelical_Christian_figure)
[10] ibid.
[11] Global Warming Gap Among Evangelicals Widens, CNN reports, see link http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
[12] From Jerry Falwell, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell.
[13] From James Dobson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson.
[14] From Dominionism, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
[15] From James Dobson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
[16] Ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] ibid.
[19] ibid.
[20] ibid.
[21] We Are Family Foundation, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_Family_Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)