Tribe Platypus

Too Good to Pass Up

2006-12-22T01:36:00.000-05:00

Virgin Birth Expected at Christmas -- By Komodo Dragon

Nature, following the liturgical year of Christians, had somehow chosen to mimic at least part of the Nativity Story by reproducing the "immaculate conception" in a komodo dragon. The biological term is parthenogenesis, which in this case simply means a female komodo dragon ovulated and had her own eggs begin to divide and produce new life without the help of any male sperm.

This "miracle" is of scientific note. Though what is even more amazing is that the komodo dragon joins a list of other animals known in nature to be able to "immaculately conceive."

Of course, speaking from a purely spiritual point of view, all life is in some sense at its base, truly miraculous. Though this is again fodder for the creationists and evolutionists who tend to get tripped up in such glad tidings of great joy.

Defending the Slippery Slope

2006-12-22T01:06:00.000-05:00

N.J. governor signs gay civil unions law
Tom Hester (AP Writer)

"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.

NJ becomes the third state in the Union to legalize some form of same-sex relationships. The new law provides many of the same legal protections and rights for heterosexual couples but opts to call this "civil union" rather than marriage. Opponents as well as gay activist worry that this may set up a parallel track of separate (equal or not) cases leading to more complicated and uneven legislation. Other more conservative or traditional people tend to see it as an eroding of social fabric and the institution of (heterosexual) marriage.

"It's same-sex marriage without the title," said John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage. "It uproots the cardinal values of our culture."

While I can understand some of Mr. Tomicki's sentiment, I feel like he's only looking at one half of the puzzle. The other half is that what uproots marriage, whether it is heterosexual or same-sexed, is the high rate of divorce. If you want to protect the institution of marriage, then your focus ought to be about strengthening the partners in a relationship, not scapegoating someone else's relationship to explain why your own institutional view and lifestyle is failing.

For a Wandering People: Why is this night different than any other history?

2006-04-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

The Past Meets the Future [David Brooks, NYT 041306] *

The central lesson of the past three years is that societies are not that malleable. Evils do not grow out of manageable defects in the environment that can be neatly fixed. We need to change our mentality, scale back to more realistic expectations.

David Brooks TimesSelect piece written between first and second Passover seders attempts to bridge the story of Exodus with the situation in Iraq, the story of liberation, and the historical process of democratization. However, he fails to do so adequately because his dialogue and dichotomy between a cynical, caustic Mr. Past and a patient, long-term optimistic Mr. Future fails to grasp the inimical persistence of evil alluded to above and the history of salvation through which humanity is liberated and redeemed.

He fails to do so because he filters out God’s role in the story of Exodus, preferring instead to say “[t]he finest things humans have done have been achieved in the Exodus frame of mind”.

While Brook’s dialogue between Mr. Past and Mr. Future models in some respects the seder’s format of a dialogue between generations, between parents and their children, it fails to grasp the overall import of the Passover celebration.

While his sentiments for true liberation encapsulated in the traditional proclamation of “Next Year in Jerusalem” are in the right place, he forgets that this toast is the last of four cups poured out, blessed, and shared on this night unlike any night. For we were a wandering people, adrift, before our own history was drawn up in an eternal covenant.

Why is this night, this time now, different than all others? Four cups of wine on this night to proclaim God frees us from our labors, delivers us from slavery, rescues us, and takes us as God’s own. (cf. Exodus 6:6-7).

Human history is not a compromise between Mr. Past and Mr. Future waiting for what will prevail. Without salvation history we flatter ourselves with our godless accomplishments or continue to wander the same unbroken pattern of a history built upon sand.

*This is a TimesSelect article. Unfortunately, only members have access to the full article.

Bush Leaks, Honestly

2006-04-10T13:48:00.000-05:00

Bush's Search for Leakers Leads to His Mirror: Margaret Carlson [Bloomberg Op-Ed]

"The president wasn't unaware of the leaks; he was on top of them. And he isn't just a leaker, but a hypocritical one. He calls leakers of intelligence treasonous and vows to prosecute them. "

My word! While it's easy to be fatigued by the polls that trace the downward trending of Pres. Bush from "I've got a mandate" and "I'm going to spend my political capital" to "I'm a lame duck", I'm still quite shocked by the bald impunity of actions such as these.

Margaret Colson goes on to muse about abuse of executive powers during a time of war: the president through secret fiat does not "leak" but rather selectively "declassifies" information so that an aide, through his vice president can share such information with a NY Times reporter. Unbelievable!

But, this is the same president who wiretaps without warrant and can hold prisoners indefinitely without charge. "It's all of a piece, " she writes. "Since Sept. 11, Bush has acted as if he can do anything he wants because we're at war. How extensive are his war powers and when do they end? When Osama's captured? When the Iraqi Army ``stands up''? Before his term ends? He doesn't say."

Meanwhile, we seem to still be doing his dirty work unwittingly, by reflecting on the ill-conceived war in Iraq and giving credence to the outlandish and also ill-advised sabre-rattling about military (including nuclear) options against Iran.

The NY Times today shared at least two different stories about the sagging tide of democratization in the Middle East and the radicalism of U.S. military options in Iran. While one may argue that there should be no misunderestimating here because we should be able to see this time around who this maverick is, I'd prefer to see it in these simple terms: A loss of credibility.

I think of the SNL caricature of Mr. Bush fumbling over the maxim: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, you can't fool me again."
Credibility. And just plain stupidity.

Additional Articles:

Democracy in the Arab World, a U.S. Goal, Falters (NY Times)
Yes He Would (Paul Krugman, TimesSelect)*
Leaker in Chief (Newsweek)

*Unfortunately, TimesSelect is a subscription service, so you may only be able to read the summary.

"Trust Me, I'm the Leader" is Whistling in the Dark

2006-03-06T12:10:00.000-05:00

Nuclear Madness [TimesSelect Editorial]*
Mr. Bush's "historic" nuclear deal with India seems to further undermine his admnistration's credentials, but puts him well on his way to repeat history.

"Presidents from both parties - from Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton - had refused to make this deal, which India has wanted for more than three decades.
'It's a terrible deal, a disaster,' said Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment. 'The Indians are free to make as much nuclear material as they want. Meanwhile, we're going to sell them fuel for their civilian reactors. That frees up their resources for the military side, and that stinks.'
With President Bush undermining the nonproliferation treaty, critics are worried that it's only a matter of time before other bilateral deals are made - say, China with Pakistan, which has already asked Mr. Bush for a deal similar to India's and been turned down."

*(Unfortunately, TimesSelect is a membership service, so full articles may not be available to all readers).

Remember when the simplicity of living was to have a strong moral resolve, to know the difference between good and evil, and to trust and support your leader and the government because ultimately they knew what was best for us? In the current nadir of the Reagan Era reprise of Republican rule of governmental branches, we were brought to this brink under the idea that the Bush Administration made us safer at home by championing (and even defending) our democratic values abroad.

It was a simple concept that was only rankled by "facts on the ground" of a "reality-based" minority, or those spinmeisters and ad-hoc professionals of the "liberal inteligentsia" or "liberal media." Such twisted talking points were revisted by General Peter Pace's interview with Tim Russert this past Sunday on Meet the Press.

While Gen. Pace hedged his optimistic view of Iraq by saying "he wouldn't paint a big smiley face on it" he nevertheless thought that the failure of the media to report on things like peaceful elections and troop training was a partial explanation for the sagging support for the war effort. (aka "It's the media's fault.") Can this truly be believed? Is there anyone here who missed the "purple-finger day" and all the clapping it received at the State of the Union in January? There was no mention of the uproar and violent upheaval around the Danish cartoons by Russert. There was no mention that in terms of Iraqi troop readiness, the number actually fell from one (1) to zero (0). Instead, Russert simply mentioned that in the last few weeks, we saw an esacalation of violence in which Iraqi citizens were killing each other.

What was Gen. Pace's response? Ultimately, the stability of Iraq is up to Iraq. They need to step up and provide their own governmental structure and they need to step up and provide their own security to their own nation.

Agreed. But, perhaps now, the idea that "We'd be greeted as liberators" or that "Freedom is on the march" (never mind "Mission Accomplished") must also be seen as bumper sticker logic. ".22 Caliber thinking in a .357 magnum world."

And even that level of thinking isn't enough.

Paul Krugman writes in Feeling No Pain (another TimesSelect piece) that Mr. Bush's trip to India showed his disconnect between his bullet-point agenda regarding economic trade and globalization and how these things actually are experienced by working people in the U.S.
When asked specifically about job-outsourcing to India, Mr. Bush replied: "Losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find — fill the jobs of the 21st century. And let's make sure that there's pro-growth economic policies in place. What does that mean? That means low taxes; it means less regulation; it means fewer lawsuits; it means wise energy policy."

Krugman underscores the disconnect by asking, what does this answer really mean to a 50 year old worker whose job's gone overseas? Bush's reply seems more appropriate to entrepreneurs and corporations, not real working Americans. Additionally, since India's surge has been particularly in the technology industry, workers of any age will find that 21st Century education isn't enough, since India is meeting that cutting edge competion myth head on.

My point at the moment is simply this: Our president lives in a bubble. And like it or not, things are particularly bad enough that each of us is living in our own defensive bubbles too. It's what we have to do to get by. For some, it's sticking to the "Trust the leader" mantra, which is effective, so long as you never admit that things could be better some other way or that you are not the one suffering.

But at some point, you have to face the music. I don't think the body counts in Iraq are liberal spin. I think it's dangerous to make the world less safe for nuclear proliferation by bilateral agreements that weaken past precedence with no upside except, if memory serves me, for Republicans who seem to like to rule under increased nuclear armageddon. But if memory serves me too, I don't think one can ignore the economic trend for that same period of time. "Between 1979 and 2003", writes Krugman, citing a recent IRS report, "the share of overall income received by the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers fell from 50 percent to barely over 40 percent. The main winners from this upward redistribution of income were a tiny, wealthy elite: more than half the income share lost by the bottom 80 percent was gained by just one-fourth of 1 percent of the population, people with incomes of at least $750,000 in 2003."

So if you're with the "haves and have mores" that make up Mr. Bush's base, everything is fine. You've done well by "trusting that leadership." SNAFU might even be the better military phrase. But given enough time, the next hurricane season, the 2006 midterms, 2008, or reaping the horrendous seeds being sown abroad, SNAFU may become another military turn of phrase: "Cluster F**K!"

Beaver Tail-Otter Like

2006-02-24T14:08:00.000-05:00

Looks like a beaver, swims like a platypus? [World- The Age]

The extinct species appears to have been an amalgam of animals. It had a broad, scaly tail, flat like a beaver's. Its sharp teeth seemed ideal for eating fish, like an otter's. Its likely lifestyle — burrowing in tunnels on shore and dog-paddling in water— reminds scientists of the modern platypus.

Fossils unearthed in Liaoning province, China push back the time period for when the earliest mammals may have begun to roam the earth. The latest find has no immediate connections to any modern day mammals, but seems to have had a beaver like tail for swimming in the water, teeth capable of eating fish, and believed to have a burrowing lifestyle similar to the platypus.

What to make of this 50 centimeter long creature? So far it has been named Castorocauda lutrasimilis, which in "Dances with Wolves" Latin means "beaver tail and similarity to the otter."

If anyone finds an artistic rendition of this creature, please pass it along.

Teaching Intelligent Design as an Elective

2006-01-11T08:50:00.000-05:00

California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course
[New York Times]:

The school district, with 1,425 students, serves several towns in a mountain area where many students are home schooled. The special education teacher, who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church, amended her syllabus and the course title, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained. The course was approved by the trustees in a 3-to-2 vote, despite testimony from science and math teachers that it would undermine the science curriculum. The parents who brought the lawsuit said 13 students were enrolled in the class.
Kitty Jo Nelson, a trustee, said the community was split.
"If we had to describe this in one word," Ms. Nelson said, "it would be controversial'."

It is unclear to me from the details of this article whether the parents bringing the case, represented by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have a strong case. On the one hand, there is nothing unconstitutional about teaching Intelligent Design in this format. However, it does not appear that the curriculum for this class is very good. It is heavy on the use of the videotaped format "produced or distributed by religious organizations [that] assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." Special speakers included in the syllabus to represent evolution appear to either have declined the invitation or are simply dead.

As in the previous cases where this issue has entered into political and legal terrain, the question is not whether Intelligent Design is true or not, nor is it whether belief is being persecuted. The issue is one of education and whether the students who are subject to idealogues are being well served.

Xmas Over It's War on the Book of Daniel Now

2006-01-09T13:21:00.000-05:00

Two NBC affiliates throw book at 'Daniel' : [Reuters]

The network stands by the series, according to Vivi Zigler, executive vp current programming at NBC Entertainment, who cautioned not to judge the series on the basis of promotions for the show.
"People are reacting based on not having seen it," she said. "They're seeing the advertising, not seeing what the core of the show is."
Jack Kenny, executive producer of "Daniel," dismissed claims that the series is anti-Christian. "We are not in any way satirizing Christianity or Jesus," he said. "It's done with love, honoring those things."
But Lammers isn't taking exception with "Daniel." Rather, he is using the pre-emption to air multiple grievances with industry practice -- especially network-affiliate relations.

The Book of Daniel, a new series, which began January 6 stirred up some protest prior to its release, prompted in part by Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA). I’m not an avid broadcast TV watcher, having seen some of my favorite shows of the past either get cancelled or succumb to imaginative fatigue. I get most of my media exposure via NPR radio and the internet. And it was actually through a bit of “spam” sent to me from a relative on the AFA email list that I head about this show.

Much of the upset centers around the characters of the show: Fr. Daniel Webster, an Episcopalian priest with a vicodin addiction, his alcoholic wife, a homosexual son, and a drug selling daughter. If you want to dig deeper, there’s more: an adopted son who is “getting it on” with the bishop’s wife, a grieving lesbian sister-in-law, a Catholic priest friend with mob ties, and lets not forget that Fr. Webster has regular conversations with a Jesus he can see…and it’s the easy on the eyes fair-skinned Jesus.

I didn’t buy into the alarmist positions of the AFA and wasn’t personally offended by the characterizations as being anti-Christian, (I’m Christian, but Roman Catholic, so what do I know about Episcopalian priests?) However, as a lay minister, and former media critic, I was interested in how Fr. Webster (played by Aidan Quinn) could actually pull this off.

I think the show is able to suceed because its overall point isn’t to ridicule Christian beliefs and practices, but rather to show the small-town zaniness of a Waspy neighborhood through one of its prominent members. While it has been written elsewhere that this is NBC’s attempt to compete with the likes of ABC’s Desperate Housewives, I tend to see this show in the racy tradition of HBO’s Sex and the City, or the quirky tradition of its Six Feet Under, CBS’s eclectic Northern Exposure, or the family-values antics of Picket Fences. All are shows that may not be for all viewers and may or may not have passed their peak of imagination and influence.

I am critical of The Book of Daniel too. I found the weakest parts in the first episode to be Fr. Webster’s sermon (an ode to “O Happy Fault”), which though theologically defensible, was ill worded (his bishop thought so too). I also felt the set-up to pulling the plug on a parishioner to be neither dramatically understated nor well executed as well. (I’ve seen NBC's Scrubs handle these moments way better. They even won an award for an episode dealing with death).

But, in much the same way that clips and sound bites for NBC’s “Must See TV” tend to hyper-exaggerate and even misrepresent what a show or episode is really about, I believe the hype thus far for The Book of Daniel is off base.

Again, as a minister, I don’t know how close to the bone or offensive the Webster family, their town, or the adventures of Fr. Webster are. (I was more taken aback that they had a black housekeeper.) But I do know that I found Fr. Webster’s predicaments compelling. I thought his talks with Jesus are moments of levity for Aidan Quinn’s straight man routine of trying to juggle all these events without losing it. And while I do believe the sheer number of intersecting problems he has to deal with may push the envelope on believability—I simply wager that endurance against the possibilities of encroaching imaginative fatigue.

I know that requires a bit of faith in things not seen and not the simpler calculus of viewer simplicities.

We shall see.

Other Articles:

A Three Hour Tour

2006-01-05T12:35:00.000-05:00

Ted Koppel and Crew to Join Discovery [NY Times]

"Mr. Koppel said that no broadcast network would be interested in the kinds of programs he and his team want to make, which he said would occasionally take the form of a one-hour documentary-style special followed by a two-hour town-meeting discussion. If he asked for three hours of prime time on ABC or even on a cable news network like CNN, Mr. Koppel said, he would have had no chance of success.
'That kind of programming simply doesn't fit anymore' on network television, he
said."

I was wondering, in this day and age, with the passing of Peter Jennings, the retirement of Dan Rather, the end of days of Brokaw and Koppel, what would become of the age and image of the broadcast news anchorman?

Ted Koppel and long time executive producer, Tom Bettag, have accepted a deal to work with Discovery. Several other members of the "Nightline" team will also be part of the new programming at Discovery. Although talks initially looked like Koppel's vision for hard-hitting, documentary style news might find a new home via HBO without the competing commercial interests and pressures to entertain younger demographics, Koppel felt Discovery was ultimately "a better fit."

I'm interested to see what kind of future programming comes from this new deal. Mr. Koppel has been given the title of managing editor over at Discovery, a title he says applies only to his team and not to Discovery programming as a whole. I wonder if public broadcasting's "Frontline" or cable's "The History Channel" might provide some similarities or precedent. In any case, I wish him well and hope to stay tuned (even though, I myself have neither HBO or extended cable).

The NY Times article mentions that until now, some of the most popular programming at Discovery has been documentaries on sharks. Alas, in broadcast TV, even the dinosaurs are on Discovery.

No "Mission Accomplished"

2005-12-29T12:41:00.000-05:00

Bush Team Rethinks Its Plan for Recovery [Washington Post]

"The Iraq push culminated the rockiest political year of this presidency, which included the demise of signature domestic priorities, the indictment of the vice president's top aide, the collapse of a Supreme Court nomination, a fumbled response to a natural disaster and a rising death toll in an increasingly unpopular war. It was not until Bush opened a fresh campaign to reassure the public on Iraq that he regained some traction."

Would you be surprised to learn that it took more than half the year for the Bush administration to pare down its State of the Union goals and accept the war in Iraq as its lasting legacy?

Iraq as albatross or standard bearer for G.W. Bush, we will enter into 2006 with much changed in an embattled presidency. It seems a new language and vision is in order. We have moved from foreign policy (jingoist and jihadists) to deficit domestic policy. For a time, we waltzed with executive powers over how best to "keep us safe" (cf. enemy combatants, wiretaps), but one way or another, we have returned to three branches of government in defiance of a "mad King George" monarchy.

Will anyone remember the name "Harriet Miers?" mused Trent Lott. Will anyone remember Mr. Bush's domestic agenda, which included a State of the Union message of "No Doping"?

I look toward the new year and the State of the Union 2006 with that same sort of dismal fascination that we greeted Y2K. There we were, gathered under the voices of Peter Jennings and others for views around the world and of Times Square.

And we watched the ball fall, not quite sure what we expected to happen next. Did it go dark? Did civilization end?

Quoting a Millennium character, Jose Chung:

Well, all's well that ends well. Though that's easy for Shakespeare to say -- he'll be around for another millennium. But what of our own millennium? Will it all end well? No one can know, but that of course doesn't stop anyone from guessing. And the nature of those predictions always revolve around the usual suspects: salvation and/or self-satisfaction. With that in mind, I humbly add my own prophecy of what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth: one thousand more years of the same, old crap.
--Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense

How unimpressive and yet dismally fascinating the first half decade of this millennium has been.

Judged in Time for Christmas

2005-12-20T11:19:00.000-05:00

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' :

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," [Federal Judge Jones] wrote.

In a marred travesty of merry-go-round, in which science and religious faith were conflated rather than respectful of their disciplines, the town of Dover had to turn to judicial proceedings of what is lawful within the public science classroom.

At least it did not succumb to disgraceful outbursts and violence (cf. Prof. Mirecki of University of Kansas).

It would not be in keeping with the season:
Merry Christmas to all and to all a Happy Holiday.

Other Articles:
Flawed Methodology at the Outset
Full Text of Court Ruling (PDF FILE)

When in doubt, give a speech

2005-12-13T10:46:00.000-05:00

Thursday's Election Won't Stop Violence in Iraq, Bush Says
[New York Times]:

Mr. Bush, who does not often take questions after his prepared speeches, was asked by one member of the audience why he invoked the attacks of Sept. 11 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed."
The president responded that "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat,' and the Sept. 11 attacks extenuated that threat." Mr. Bush added that "knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again."

This is Mr. Bush's third speech to rally flagging support for the war in Iraq by being more forthcoming about the the situation on the ground and realistic about the sacrifice and cost. The first two speeches were criticized as bulletpoints masquerading as strategy and a coherent plan. Mr. Bush followed his prepared remarks with a rare Q & A session in which he answered a direct question about the number of Iraqi civilian and military casualties. He estimated them credibly at approximately 30,000.

But the question and response quoted above has me stymied.

I heard an NPR report recently that the most common word looked up on the internet for the past year was the word "integrity". (You can draw your own anecdotal conclusions about American culture from that). But if you look up the word "extenuate", does that render Mr. Bush's response any better? Or would the next word that comes to mind be "obfuscate"?

Stocking Stuffer to Think About

2005-12-07T10:47:00.000-05:00

This is the very first image to be uploaded and posted on this site. It seems wholly appropriate to give advanced praise for this upcoming book, written by bloggers Jerome Armstrong (MyDD) and Markos (DailyKos) Zuniga, from reputable Working Assets Publications.

While this book could certainly be cast as partisan, I prefer to back the progressive activism expressed.

$25 Advanced Limited Edition Copies available here.

Click on the cover to order.

I know that the "people-powered" movement, which has expressed itself time and time again throughout history in world events, also has had a particular expression and impact in my life and others.

Online activism, blogs, RapidResponse Networks, action-alerts, etc. have galvanized a movement, harnessed accesible technology, and turned disengagement, mistrust, and apathy into inspired and committed citizenry.

Hats off to my wife, who introduced me to the online progressive movement, for getting me involved in Dean For America and MeetUP in May 2003, for pointing me to DKos, for getting me started on StreetProphets, and for keeping me informed by her consistent commitment to progressive politics, sensible debate, and deep faith.

More Links:

Time to Step Up

2005-11-21T15:10:00.000-05:00

Time to Leave- New York Times Select:

"Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices - higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft - that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's."--Paul Krugman, 11/21/2005

TimesSelect is a subscription service, full-text limited to subscribers.
Click for a 14-day free trial

Everyone has their own pet issues. While I did not single-issue vote in the 2004 presidential election, it's obvious that foreign policy, the ill-advised war of choice in Iraq, the chain of eroding civil liberties in the ultra-reactionary response to 9-11, were among the character flaws I saw in "staying the course" with the present leadership.

I know others felt differently. And indeed, by a slim margin that was hailed as a national mandate, Mr. Bush was re-elected.

Despite that, my original issues of interest and my ongoing concern has not changed. Neither has my opinion of the present leadership. And, for whatever reasons, public polls seem to have drifted my way.

It's easy to dismiss polls--how accurate are they? Why would you fashion such important policies after their statistics?, etc. But I do have to ask some simple questions that do deserve follow up.

What one or two things were people expecting Mr. Bush to deliver? Not something vague like "keeping us safe at home" or "fighting for our freedoms abroad." But something specific. Job creation, economic stimulation? Alternative fuels? Educational assistance? Some type of social issue? Environmental protection? Smaller government? Fiscal responsibility?Whatever it was (and I do believe publically it was something about social security and tax reform), what can one point to that says "He's delivered."

And, if you can actually do that, how does that measure up on balance against the outlines of my ongoing concerns?

I just don't see where he's delivered. As the quote above suggests, there's nothing in the policies he did enact that seems to have helped my list of concerns, or even helped Mr. Bush to accomplish his own agenda.

How did they help you?
Other people are dying. It's time to weigh in on your vote.

Other Links:

Iraq Body Count (26994 civilian dead)
Iraq Coalition Body Count (2.35/day average)

Veterans' Day:Both Sides Talking

2005-11-11T09:35:00.000-05:00

His Image Tarnished, Bush Seeks to Restore Credibility
[New York Times]:

"I point out that some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said Thursday at a news briefing. "They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

I can already telegraph in my mind what Mr. Bush's Veterans' Day speech in PA today will say. Many on both sides of the aisle and in the international community believed in intelligence reports that overstated the WMD capabilities of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans, basing much of their confidence in those reports, then voted in favor of authorizing the use of force.

John Kerry, in his presidential election bid had the very hard and presumably unconvincing task of explaining how he voted for this authorization, but then later was opposed to the war. He used rhetoric about "how we did it in the wrong way." Mr. Bush, in the first presidential debate with Kerry, characterized this criticism dubiously by saying Kerry was asking the international community "to come join us in this grand diversion."

But there are certain things we know much more clearly now than we did then. THERE WERE NO WMD's FOUND. The intelligence reports were wrong. They were based on faulty information and outright forgeries. Colin Powell was sent on a fool's errand to the U.N. backed by the Rumsfeld/Cheney neo-con vision of imperialism in the middle east to use that same information to garner international support. Much of the international community and world religious leaders were not convinced.

And it turns out they were right not to be.

Why is it so hard for democratic and republican leaders alike to cough up a believable mia culpa. Is Bush's tactic going to be "we're all to blame, so no one's at fault?" as the sleight of hand that passes the buck? Congress may have approved the order, but this is Bush's war.
We've passed the 2000 mark of American dead in Iraq. Civilian casualties and war injuries are dramatically higher than these figures. This too we now know as a result of our misinformed adventure. Can we not say we've reaped what we've sown?

Mr. Bush will most likely attempt to spread the blame as a soft approach to accepting responsibility and leadership. He will then follow up with a sense of firmness and resolve (despite this mistake) to claim that staying the course is still of the highest and purest moral integrity. God knows good can come from that which is not good. But that has never excused us from saying, "We were wrong."

Playing Chicken A Little

2005-11-09T12:07:00.000-05:00

The Note: "God Is Not a Republican" [ABC]

the discipline of the Rove-Mehlman team in keeping negative the-sky-is-falling quotes out of the papers today is remarkable (but just wait until tomorrow)
if the Republicans can avoid mass retirements in Congress, even a politically weak Bush probably won't cost them control of either chamber (but they will obsess about all this for quite some time)
the Washington Post Metro staff needs some deprogramming to get over its Mark Warner Stockholm Syndrome
thank goodness that the Schwarzenegger political consultants aren't afraid of Maria Shriver
Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean are friggin'geniuses
winning is better than losing
if John Kerry could talk as comfortably about his personal faith as Tim Kaine can, he would be the President of the United States right now
if Howard Dean could talk as comfortably about his personal faith as Tim Kaine can, he would have been the Democratic nominee in 2004
and, one of the few positive trends in American political journalism is the vast curtailing of the practice of over-reading the results of off-off-year elections.
Everybody happy now?
Let's hope so.

Trying its best not to oversimplify the off year election results and what that may portend for 2006 and 2008 elections, ABC's the Note offers this wide-spray snippet. I think Tim Kaine will be tested by his Republican Lieutenant Governor. Additionally, whatever extent Tim Kaine was elected by coat-tails or continuity with Mark Warner, will be tested by Kaine's ability to work in a bi-partisan, moderate way. And to what extent those talents and inroads may run counter to the Republican conservatism, that at least in rhetoric, came out to challenge him and lost.

As in my previous post, this isn't the time to gloat. But it is a time to change.

The Note goes on to quote the Washington Post Editorial Board:

"Kaine's triumph in Virginia's gubernatorial race is a watershed — the victory of a southern Democrat who prevailed despite his principled opposition to the death penalty and his refusal to rule out new taxes."

And contrasts that with the Stu Rothenberg of the Washington Times attributing Kaine's win in Virginia to "a lack of enthusiasm and energy among Republicans."

Senators and Congressman can count themselves lucky for now. But we still have three more years to wear this President. And he's got a lot of stepping up to do.

See Also:

President Bush's Walkabout [NYT]
Vision Check for the Democrats [E.J. Dionne, Jr.]

VA Election: The End May Already Be Here

2005-11-08T16:05:00.000-05:00

Voter Fraud Crackdown for Tuesday's Va. Election
[WTOP Radio]:

"Because the Virginia gubernatorial contest is so close, there are some concerns about problems at polling places, including voter fraud.
For the first time the U.S. Department of Justice will be monitoring for voter fraud in a statewide election in Virginia. The Election Day Program is designed to deter election fraud and discrimination at the polls."

I don't know how the VA Elections will turn out. I do know that the polling going in had Tim Kaine and Jerry Kilgore in a very tight race. Over this past weekend, just days and hours before the election day, I've also witnessed smear campaigns typical of my part of NoVa.

Today's Washington Post Today notes:

The State Board of Elections fined the Kilgore campaign $100 yesterday for sending a misleading mailing to Democratic voters. The mailing purports to be a "progressive, Democratic" voters guide comparing Potts and Kaine but actually was produced by the Kilgore camp. Last week, the board fined Kaine for producing a similar mailing that appeared to be from a conservative anti-tax group.

But this doesn't even make mention of the robocalling incident launched late over the weekend. (My wife and I received two different versions of the call on Sunday and Monday).

Daily Kos offers this diary entry:

So here's the deal -- the Republicans took statements Kaine has made and spliced them together to put together this out-of-context call. The horrible music in the background is there to mask the splicing.
This call is being played in liberal areas. A different spliced version of the call, talking about how liberal he is on choice and all those other hot-button social issues, is being played in conservative areas.

The text and MP3 of the robocall are available here.

Again, I don't know how the election will end. But I do know that I am sickened and appalled at how low and dirty local and state politics has become. And I am certain it has become so in part because of the increasing polarity played out with increasing hubris on the national level.

A modest proposal: For all the grassroots growing that my wife and I have entered into since May 2003 on behalf of many a progressive group, individuals of good will, and people of faith, we hope that we can "take back our country" not by running our wing against their wing. We hope instead to bring moderates of both sides together because the worst in each end is tearing us apart.

We believe in better angels. And we believe in a better end than just winning.

Taxable Woes

2005-11-02T13:41:00.000-05:00

Tax panel would slash deductions, cut rates:
[Reuters Busines Channel]

"Both plans would replace the current mortgage interest rate deduction, which taxpayers can claim on mortgage debt up to $1.1 million. Instead, the panel proposes a home credit equal to 15 percent of mortgage interest paid.
A credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax, while a deduction is an amount that reduces the income subject to tax."

I admit that when I hear the daily market report the S&P, Dow, and NASDAQ numbers don't make much sense to me. I also get that there are positive connotations to the notion of tax reform. However, none of the coverage I've read so far is very encouraging.

It would be helpful if someone would point out not just the differences such as one of the (rather objectionable) changes noted above. But also indicated how the basic formula has changed. Currently, the tax payer states income, subtracts deductions, and pays taxes on an adjusted gross income. Or they take their adjusted gross income and apply a standard deduction.

So far, I understand that the two proposals want to replace deductions with credits, but I haven't been told how that relates to a final tax table. Nor have I been told what the rationale is behind the two new plans. At least with the old plan, I understood that there were certain ways (incentives) in which you could spend or invest your money and this helped bring your tax liabilities down by adjusting your income. One of the major ways to do this was home ownership and the tax deductions of interest mortgage.

Why don't these business people simply give us everyday people some simple old way/new way numbers and examples to show how each system works and whether or not it looks promising. So far, it sounds like the beginnings of a failed ad campaign in the footsteps of the new old Coke is better.

Geography Lesson

2005-10-28T11:52:00.000-05:00

Robert Bork on Fallout from Miers Withdrawal: [WPost]

"Chicago, Ill.: Is it possible that the Miers withdrawal will embolden Democrats and New England Republicans to band together against the next well-qualified originalist or conservative nominee?
Robert Bork: I think it's highly likely that the northeast Republicans and quite possibly Sen. Specter will band together against a nominee that might be suspected of wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade. The northeast Republicans are often called moderates. They are in fact Democrats, if not in name, certainly in substance."

It would be interesting to see the new electoral map of the United States, if prevailing ideologies could have their sway. If anything else proved the point this week, the Republican Party, often famed for their discipline, formed their own form of a circular firing squad. Mr. Bush poked the eye of the Senate for treading too close to his "red line" of executive privilege. The Senate, who in a bi-partisan way, seemed willing to go forward with hearings for Harriet Miers, bristled at the stunning example of how an angry contingent of the Republican right-wing (often confused as simply being Mr. Bush's conservative base) had made their voices heard and made Mr. Bush cry "Uncle."
Mr. Bush can certainly find new ways to renew his affair with his base and may very well nominate someone else even more divisive who may make it harder for Democrats to keep as quiet and controlled as they did this time around. And this may indeed be the way we go. Mr. Bush has proven to be tenacious and surprising in his results when pushed into a corner.
With the indictment of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in the CIA Leak and Karl Rove left hanging as an exposed flank in the investigation, one could make a case that the time is ripe for Mr. Bush to show his famous turn around tenancity. But so far, he's left town, feigned a deaf ear to reporters and offered them some "head fakes".
So get ready. Who knows what else will be coming down the pike.

Other Stuff:

"Scooter" Libby Resigns [ABC News]
Bush looks for new nominee [Reuters]
More subpoenas for Tom DeLay [Herald Times]

Froomkin and Fitzmas

2005-10-25T15:58:00.000-05:00

The Cheney Factor [WPOST]

Fitzgerald is expected to wrap up this week, possibly tomorrow. Libby and Bush senior adviser Karl Rove are widely seen as most likely to be indicted.

This may all be a bit of inside the beltway baseball. I've been around the blog world long enough to know that many people who are staunchly Republican have no idea who Karl Rove is. And as a VA resident, currently embroiled in a tight gubernatorial race, I know of red patriots who are hot on the death penalty issue and Tim Kaine's catholicity, but probably have not connected any faith based analysis to Mr. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

So it seems entirely appropriate that while the clock ticks away on Plamegate an entirely new season of politicking called Fitzmas should ensue.

The ground has already been softened and expectations lowered so that the American public can grasp that our public servants, leaders, and administration aren't necessarily criminal in their actions. But they certainly are incompetent (think FEMA's Micheal Brown), dishonest and callously misleading (think WMDs), and ethically questionable (think Tom DeLay, Bill Frist).

So if Mr. Bush or his crony matrix end up on the news with eerily familiar sound bites of "I am not a crook" and you're thinking this is deja vu all over again...believe it.

VA Election: Divide and Conquer

2005-10-13T12:11:00.000-05:00

Kilgore's Ads Make No One Look Good (Washington Post)

"Few Virginians put the death penalty, abortion, guns or gay adoption even close to the top of their concerns, yet those issues are at the heart of Kilgore's campaign."

Heading into the homestretch of a close but somewhat sleeper gubernatorial race (the only other off-peak election is in NJ), Jerry Kilgore has been blessed with an enormous Republican war chest, raised by little volunteer RNC helpers like Karl Rove and Mr. Bush. Add to that, Jerry's resounding refusal to not go negative in the last weeks of the campaign, and you have the makings of state politics writ-large.

Jerry was on the wrong side of local decisions to open a day-laborer site in Herndon. But the national uproar helped fuel his stand. And while Marc Fisher of the WPOST observes that the top concerns of Virginians, especially Northern VA residents are issues of fiscal discipline and transportation, you'd be surprised how Jerry's "tough on crime" demeanor plays to supporters.

And that's what's truly horrifying to me as a resident and voter. Jerry's simplistic Attorney General style believes criminals ought to be punished and those who take innocent life and leave behind scarred victims have no share in his "culture of life" view. But I have a hard time squaring this bravado with his waffling position on abortion. So much so, that in the final Gubernatorial Debate this past week, Jerry seemed to think that people who seek abortion are taking a life, so presumably they also are deserving of this vengeful ire. Imagine, from the doctor's office to death row?

Fisher's article gives credence to the Republican game plan of divide and conquer. Paint Tim Kaine as different than Mark Warner over the death penalty and disrupt his claims to be Warner's logical successor. I don't doubt the difficulties in pulling that off, but I am not as certain as Fisher that this issue isn't a red-herring, but really is red meat for at least the voters in my district.

We shall find out on election day if VA's flag waves blue or red. For now, I stand appalled at the strength and conviction it takes to say: I want to punish and kill more people than my opponent. That just makes me see red.

BushSpeak: Evil Disconnect

2005-10-06T12:54:00.000-05:00

President Bush's Speech [New York Times]

"Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals.
I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, and Al Qaida attacked us anyway.
The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."

In an argument beyond circular logic, Mr. Bush made his "important" speech on terrorism at 10:00am, when most of us in Washington were simply at work. But I agree that Iraq certainly became an excuse.

Mr. Bush went on to use the argument that Russia was still attacked by terrorists even though they did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, which further begs the question of how one can possibly measure related effectiveness between our presence in Iraq and the broader war on terror.

And while Mr. Bush's description of the enemy is accurate in its murderous detail, it does not then follow that a military response is the solution for twisted humanity gone awry.

Mr. Bush did offer some impressive statistics:

"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious Al Qaida terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three Al Qaida plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more Al Qaida efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country."

Later that day, NY would be put on terrorist alert due to new intelligence that was of contested value.

Politically, the speech was meant to bolster flagging support for the War in Iraq, a cloud of possible indictments approaching Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame CIA leak and double indictments of Tom DeLay for conspiracy to launder and actual laundering of campaign monies. It also follows in the wake of Katrina and the government's lackluster response.

But on the social import of the President's speech, there is a gathering consensus that we are basically against terrorists who are clearly evil. It is important to note though, that this isn't just because WE say so. We are also starting to hear Muslim condemnation of such acts too. And we must continue to steadfastly remain against evil to ensure "freedom's victory."

I'd be a fool to argue with that kind of logic as well as one to not point out the huge disconnect between agreeing that evil is bad and the host of social policies (if war can even be politely called that) that get subsumed under that agreement. But it's nice to have the company.

Public Trust Busted

2005-10-01T07:45:00.000-05:00

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal (NYT):

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated 'covert propaganda' in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Mr. Williams had been paid by PR company Ketchum Inc. on request from the Education Dept. for favorable columns and TV spots regarding the No Child Left Behind Act. Further investigations revealed government commissioning of articles praising the administration for its work on increasing science literacy and praise for Medicare. The reports did not disclose that they were paid for by the government.
Although these findings come with no penalty:

the accountability office said on Friday: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."

This news may not be as shocking as the indictment of Tom Delay, this week or the SEC investigation of Bill Frist, though Congress had worked to further clarify the propaganda ban and Mr. Bush had signed it into law in May. But, as Daniel Shore of NPR said on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, "This hasn't been a happy week for Republicans."

Flawed Methodology at the Genesis

2005-09-26T15:48:00.000-05:00

Parents Seek to Block Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' (WPOST)

"An expected month-long trial opened Monday in federal court in Harrisburg, as 11 parents from Dover township seek to block their school board's demand that biology teachers read a four-paragraph statement to students casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution."

I must confess that the original name for this blog was in response to this creeping intellectual malaise around creationism-intelligent design vs. evolution(ism) and darwin(ism). There were several aspects that bothered me and began to irritate me further by the continued handling and shaping of this issue in the media reporting process.

Generally, the writing usually devolves into a simplistic dualism between religion and science. Scientists working in a secular context seeking objectivity are portrayed as godless. People of faith wanting their religious fervor and relationship to God to be respected appear anti-science, anti-modern, or mystically on the fringe of society.

This Washington Post piece goes well with this NYT piece, which appeared on the same day. NYT took the approach of beginning and ending their piece through the POV of Dover, PA resident, Sheree Hied, described as "a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures [who] was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about 'alternatives' to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design." A photo of Ms. Hied and her family praying at the table also accompanies the article.

Both NYT and WPOST present the opposing sides. Those against intelligent design want to debunk it as a viable scientific alternative, but more importantly want to prevent religion from entiring the public school curriculum. The foil to being potrayed as godless. Those in favor of intelligent design want to argue that this is simply an exercise of protected free speech.

There are two things that are irksome. First, as previously mentioned, the dichotomy of science and religion is obviously simplistic and false. Many religious people do pursue lives of scientific research and practice. There is no necessary contradiction between faith and reason. In fact, making a reasonable account of the hope within us, is part of what people of faith ought to do. Second, I worry that what is missing in this process is the cultural understanding that members of our modern society, religious and not, have come to acknowledge.

The argument for free speech on behalf of intelligent design supporters here is only half-baked. It implies that godless scientists are also against consitutional rights. But what has failed to be addressed here is that the manner in which scientific theories gain acceptance is through proper peer research and review, not by a school board voting for a PSA/infomercial to promote a book.
The point of the scientific process isn't to prove the role for God in the world any more than Darwin's theory has replaced our ongoing religious lives. My humble suggestion for those who truly see and experience how meaningful values exist in their lives, as they seem to do around this particular issue, is not to simply take sides, but to earnestly understand the discipline and limits of science, and, to use my own Catholic language, to understand our relationship with God and God at work in the world sacramentally.

Bring it On!

2005-09-15T13:33:00.000-05:00

End of the Bush Era- [Washington Post]

"The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country."

E.J. Dionne, Jr. draws the strikingly obvious contrast of the would-be presidential leader in Post 9-11 NYC, who rose atop the rubbish heap with a bullhorn proclaiming he could hear the shouts around him and that he would ably respond to them, and the could-it-really-be Mr. Bush, who seemed out of touch when his summer vacation was cut suddenly short by hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Bush will speak to the nation later today from the devastated Gulf region, which he has visited a number of times since the hurricane overwhelmed state and local efforts and federal agencies drew "blistering" criticism for their slow response.

Mr. Bush even took the uncharacteristic, though guarded stance of accepting responsibility for this lack of response earlier this week. But, it remains to be seen what new vision or bold leadership might emerge from a president beset with these obstacles.

The earlier president rallied world response to a war on terror that boldly brought the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan only to get distracted and discredited with the invasion of Iraq on faulty intelligence. Most expect this president to announce a reconstruction aid package post-Katrina that will be the largest ever implemented on American soil. Note that this amount parallels the overwhelming amount already reached in wartime expenses in Iraq.

While there are those who are familiar with the "starve the beast" approach to goverment, there are also those who think about fiscal responsibility. While we must wait to hear what Mr. Bush has to say, the question remains, will we really believe what we hear?

We begin bombing in five minutes...

2005-09-11T20:56:00.000-05:00

Independent Online Edition:

"The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the United States to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an attack using weapons of mass destruction against the country."

Is anybody from SNAFU Control wondering why this strategy wasn't available prior to invading Iraq? We could have had the clear and decisive victory we needed. Right?

Clearly, it appears that the ideologues who back such "robust" nuclear options as these have an overdeveloped sense of who lives and who dies--and who gets to make that choice.

Critics, take the stance that further nuclear weapons development would be hypocrital of the U.S. in regards to non-proliferation. But a much simpler argument would be asking what is the critical difference between WMDs and nuclear fall-out meant to eradicate that threat?

This reminds me of the laundry detergent commercial for NEW ERA whose slogan was "Protein gets out protein." And my sister laughably replied, "Then why can't mustard get out ketchup?"

America's Perfect Storm

2005-09-03T23:09:00.000-05:00

I look at this Labor Day Weekend to be an all together different kind of holiday. It isn't the last BBQ before calling it quits on summer. It isn't time to hit the road, pay the price at the pump, and sit in traffic congestion on that last trip to the beach or the mountains. It isn't time to shop and save, go to that weekend sale to stock up for the upcoming season of holidays or school. Instead, for me, it is time to take stock of assets and liabilities, setting goals and accountabilities on progress. And because of Katrina, I can't help but look back at the week that was. For those catching up on their last minute summer reading, the links and quotes below might just be your quick-study:

When Government Is 'Good' (Washington Post)

"I'm sorry to raise this, but can it make any sense that one of the early issues the U.S. Senate is scheduled to confront this month is the repeal of the estate tax on large fortunes when we haven't even calculated the costs of Katrina? And why do we keep evading a national debate over who is bearing the burdens of a war that has dragged on far longer than its architects promised?"
[E.J. Dionne, Jr.]

Two from theage.com:

America stripped bare

The hurricane had no target, but in the aftermath it was clear that the victims — who are suffering a horrifying lack of rescue and care — were mostly black and mostly poor, unable to flee the city before the storm because they had no means.

Katrina sweeps away an American dream

It is said there was one America before September 11, 2001, and a different one after it. Perhaps now there will be talk of America before and after Katrina. When President Bush told "Good Morning America" on Thursday morning that nobody could have "anticipated" the breach of the New Orleans levees, it pointed to not only a remote leader in denial, but a whole political class.

And one from the BBC:

New Orleans crisis shames Americans

The uneasy paradox which so many live with in this country - of being first-and-foremost rugged individuals, out to plunder what they can and paying as little tax as they can get away with, while at the same time believing that America is a robust, model society - has reached a crisis point this week.

The Empire's New Clothes

2005-09-02T20:27:00.000-05:00

Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?

He did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.
--http://www.FactCheck.Org

I am inclined to believe the non-partisan FactCheck.org article which acknowledges that Mr. Bush did cut funding for levee projects in New Orleans. It also claims that had the project been fully funded, it would not have been completed until 2015 and it would only have been designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. This bolsters the Army Corp of Engineers claim that Katrina, a category 4 hurricane, was simply more powerful than anticipated.

However, it is also true that from the point of view of emergency preparedness, we should have seen this coming. Paul Krugman notes in NYT (also cited by FactCheck.Org) that the 9/11 FEMA listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters in the U.S. to be “a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans.”

Hindsight is 20/20. But simply saying that this is an unprecedented catastrophe in order to lower the expectations of our response is “unacceptable.” But this probably isn't what Mr. Bush meant when he spoke to reporters before boarding a helicopter to travel to the affected areas in the Gulf. It doesn't explain why the disaster response, 5 days afterwards, is still dealing with lawlessness, rape, and gang violence, a lack of coordinated command and control on the ground, and a desparate exodus from a city originally 80% submerged in 20 feet of water. But it does explain Mr. Bush's apparent reversal from an eagerness to arrive on the scene in Mobile AL, to "not looking forward to the trip" to New Orleans.

Krugman claims that this is an administration that has done things on the cheap like waging war but not properly arming its troops, or erecting new governmental agencies and processes, but not following through on funding its projects. Meanwhile, in an unprecedented move, the U.S. has accepted offers of international aid and support. The world stands aghast at the ill preparedness of this first world nation which has come apart at the seams. In Krugman’s words, “So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.”

New Orleans and the Tsunami that Stayed

2005-09-01T10:43:00.000-05:00

The Storm After the Storm [New York Times]

Amid all the stories that recur with every disaster - tales of sudden death and miraculous survival, the displacement and the disease - there is also the testing.

Civic arrangements work or they fail. Leaders are found worthy or wanting. What's happening in New Orleans and Mississippi today is a human tragedy. But take a close look at the people you see wandering, devastated, around New Orleans: they're predominantly black and poor. The political disturbances are still to come.

David Brooks’s Op-Ed takes a look back at storms-of-the-century gone by, noting that the devastation wrought also served to expose underlying structural inequalities in race and class. The shock at the devastation gives way to outrage and recrimination.

A separate NYT Editorial "Waiting for a Leader," attempts to place the president’s response in context, noting that for the most part, Mr. Bush had weathered the dog-days of August attempting to capitalize on WWII Anniversaries to rally patriotic support for his flagging military operations in Iraq. True, Mr. Bush has more than once shown firm resolve amidst a maelstrom, but in a strange way, this time may be a different case of one's chickens coming home to roost. After all, “since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.”

Some are wondering too where the global support is for the U.S. But should we be so surprised that our “Go it Alone” persona makes it hard to offer us support and our indisputable economic domination makes it hard to offer us aid? Keep in mind that U.S. trade sanctions levied on those same countries affected by the Dec. '04 tsunami more than tripled the aid we gave to the victims. Our attempts to invoke homeland security measures may complicate the fly-zone and stifle inbound traffic of foreign aid (as Canadian efforts to help us early on learned). And though Pat Robertson's zealous gaffe for the Christian Right may want to see the demise of Chavez, the government of Venezuela, the 5th top exporter of oil, offered monetary and fuel support to the U.S., its #1 customer.

Bush Simplifies as Iraqi Goals Diminish

2005-08-29T09:23:00.000-05:00

News Analysis: For Bush, Smaller Goals in Iraq-New York Times:

"I want our folks to remember our own constitution was not unanimously received" [Mr. Bush] said, comparing the fractious debates in Iraq to those among America's founders.

Using familiar phrasing from his last two public speeches to bolster slipping support for the Iraq War and anxieties over the constitutional process, Mr. Bush continued to apply simplistic rhetoric. Commenting on Dexter Filkins's coverage last week of the progress and Mr. Bush's speeches, I wrote NYT the following letter:

"We had a little trouble with our own conventions writing a constitution," Dexter Filkins (NYT 8/24/05) quotes President Bush as commenting on the Iraqi constitutional drafting process. But surely the President must realize how inadequate his analogy is. We did not write our constitution after a foreign army invasion overthrew an incumbent tyrant and became occupiers. Additional comparisons of Iraqi progress to American democracy and freedom must similarly be diminished by such a simplistic view.

Steven R. Wiseman's current news analysis quoted above, notes the administration's lack of commentary regarding the potential diminshing of Iraqi women's rights along with issues of federalism and concludes with a similar sentiment: "What [Mr. Bush] left out of his analogy is that while the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia was convening, there was not an insurgency in the countryside that seemed to be growing because of disaffection with the political process."
More:

Iraqis forward, Bush steps back

2005-08-22T15:45:00.000-05:00

Iraqi Parliament Awaits Constitution-[Guardian]:

"The Kurds demand federalism to protect their self-rule in three northern provinces. Sunni Arabs oppose that, fearing Kurds want to declare independence. Shiites are divided, with factions supporting federalism wanting to build a Shiite region in the south."

Faltering on the first deadline for adopting a consitution, the Iraqi government worked feverishly against a Monday midnight deadline to produce a consensus draft. But the document being submitted lacks the backing of the Suuni minority, begging the case of its legitimacy, threatening its ability to be ratified in October, and perhaps fueling further the disaffection of the insurgency.

Meanwhile, President Bush rehearsed and rehashed old remarks in his first major address following his summer-long vacation escape in Crawford, Texas. Nearby, anti-war protester had set up a pilgrimage camp and site for much of this same period in support of Cindy Sheehan, a bereaved mother who lost her son in the early days of the Iraq War.

As time has passed, the rationale for invading Iraq has been debunked and dismissed, leaving President Bush with nothing but repeating hackneyed maxims to vetted and supporter-friendly audiences, while the nation smolders in the last days of summer before returning to Washington business.

More:

Herndon Day Labor Site: Response

2005-08-21T09:34:00.000-05:00

Herndon Gets It Right - [Washington Post]:

"The proposed day-laborer center is not the problem; it is a response to a condition created by an unrealistic federal policy that offers visas to no more than 10,000 unskilled workers a year when the jobs available number many times that. Stepped-up enforcement isn't necessarily the answer: Immigration should not be under the purview of local police, and federal authorities have come to the reasonable conclusion that raiding parking lots where immigrants gather to seek gainful employment need not be a priority."

I received an unsigned, irate, handwritten, and somewhat verbally profane letter in response to my LTE. To be generous, the most interesting point the writer made was that day laborers work at menial jobs that Americans don't want to do precisely because there are day laborers cheaply available. But this system is inherently elitist and enslaving.
Unfortunately this apparent moral concern was sandwiched between profanity and anger at increases in property taxes "going to school illegals and build schools for them"[sic] and having "to pay for their health costs and keeping them in prisons." The writer concluded with the forecast that "one day soon we will be in the minority and fall like Rome did."
To be fair, the writer missed the actual point of my LTE and was speaking to the larger issue of immigration and his thoughts on the matter. And it seemed he simply wanted to make the point that I was either a "dumb ass" or "f-king ignorant."
There is much I could say, but the writer did not offer me the opportunity to respond in similar fashion. So I'll simply make two points. First, when I have something of value to say to someone, I provide my name. Second, my letter was worth publishing in the Washington Post and is amplified by the Washington Post Editorial cited above.

More on this Topic:

Lisa Reins Online Transcript following the Wednesday Vote.

Border War Even In Upscale Smalltown

2005-08-18T07:27:00.000-05:00

Herndon Approves Day Labor Center: [Washington Post]

"We want a secure site, because our lives are in danger when the contractors leave us on the road,' Eric Arauz said through an interpreter. 'We are honest workers, not criminals, like they say."

The contentious vote in Herndon over whether to build a site for day-laborers passed 5-2 in what was considered to be the closest and toughest to decide issue for this town of 22,000, where foreign born residents now make up 38%. A similiar issue faced other Fairfax county locales in the past which also decided to build day-laborer sites.

Sterling, of Loudoun County, which borders the proposed site, also weighed in recently on the debate. Opponents argued that using tax dollars for construction amounted to supporting illegal immigration because many of the undocumented workers are in the country illegally. With an upcoming gubernatorial race, Republicans were also trying to paint supporters as "soft on crime", in an ill-conceived move they tried to distance themselves from later. Supporters chose to view local issues of public safety and human rights as their primary task and not the problem of immigration, which is a federal issue.

Read my Wrong Label for Laborers, Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post about this topic.
More from KaineforGovernor's Diary on DailyKos

Cardinal Schönborn not Representative of Catholic Depth of Tradition

2005-08-16T22:20:00.000-05:00

'Intelligent' Design?: [Commonweal]

"As I told my atheist friend, it is a mistake to equate randomness with meaninglessness. Darwin himself was troubled by the apparent cruelty and heartlessness of the process, and this led him, as it has led others, to reject the idea of a beneficent God. "

Writing in this month's Commoweal, John Garvey notes where there is "voodoo economics", intelligent design is dubbed as "karaoke science." It isn't even biblical, but harps back to a deist view of God, a God of the gaps that's convenient for simple faith and of no consequence to science, but hardly the biblically close and confounding God of Hebrew scripture or the New Testament transcendent mystery encoutered in the word made flesh.

John Haught's Darwin & the Cardinal, also in this month's Commonweal, points out the all too familiar refrain that intelligent design is both bad science and bad theology. It "sets back the dialogue of religion and science" by conflating the two disciplines and does a disservice in the process to the Catholic view of reason and faith.

Has the Church changed it's position on evolution, writes Haught, "In a word, no."

Confusionism: Creation Science and Religious Redux

2005-08-05T07:22:00.000-05:00

Design for Confusion [New York Times]

"Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, 'Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth.' The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close."

Paul Krugman's joke in his Op-Ed aside, he traces a parallel scenario where think tanks rose to dominance to challenge traditional peer reviewed scientific research with ideologically driven policy advocacy. In this process, simply creating enough public doubt enables a certain kind of validity to the opposing view. For example, global warming, which has mainstream scientific consensus, has been pushed off the public table of acceptance by "conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't."
Creation science, Krugman claims, "was too crude" to work in its dissent of evolutionary theory. But the latest version of "intelligent design" may be enough to bring the assent of the religious right along with the financing of ideologically driven groups who want to challenge Darwin's science. But nobody seems terribly concerned that you can't MAKE your own science any more than you can make yourself be right.

Religious believers and scientist know that very well. You'd have to think like a tank (or be a think tank) to think you know better.

Mixed Visions of the Divine and Inhuman

2005-08-04T10:30:00.000-05:00

Sprinkling Holy Water on 'The Da Vinci Code' [New York Times]

'The phrase I heard used several times was 'Passion dollars'; they want to try to get 'The Passion' dollars if they can,' said Ms. Nicolosi, referring to her conversations about the film. 'They're wrong,' she added. 'It's sacrilegious, irreligious. They're thinking they can ride the 'Passion' wave with this. And I said, 'Are you kidding me?'

Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of Act One, comments on the ongoing process to bring The Da Vinci Code to the movie screen. Act One, a non-profit that helps train people of faith for professional careers in film and tv, was one such group approached by the movie's producers to help soften the edges on potential controversies arising from the novel.
Hackles have been raised, for example, from the book's central premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child, who was to be Jesus' legitimate heir, but this act was kept secret by the ensuing Catholic church which instituted a male-dominated hierarchy in its place. Opus Dei, a conservative Roman Catholic group, raised concerns about its largely negative depiction in the novel. And finally, there were the general concerns that people might strongly form their opinions about religion around a work of fiction.
While I cannot discern all of Ms. Nicolosi's setiments from the closing article quote above, like her, I think we are kidding ourselves. But just so we're clear: misrepresenting history in the name of personal religious passion and improperly depicting Jews in the process was basically OK for devout christian groups in a wide spectrum of fervor. It was perhaps the unfortunate history we were used to committing on each other. But now, there are worries about "What will they think of us?"

The Labor of Birth

2005-08-03T11:18:00.000-05:00

Woman kept alive in hopes of saving baby: [USA TODAY]

ARLINGTON, Va. - A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive.

In what has been characterized by some as a reverse Terri Schiavo case, Jason Torres, a devout Catholic from Arlington, VA has kept Susan, his brain dead wife, on life-support. She was 17 weeks pregnant at the time and collapsed suddenly due to cancer. Twenty-four weeks is the earliest point that doctors give a baby a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. But every passing day in this case also risked cancer spreading to the baby.

Unlike the Schiavo case, relations between Mr. Torres and Susan's parents are amicable. They've sat bedside with Mr. Torres, including his most recent Father's Day with his first son, Pete.

The Susan M. Torres Fund was created to accept donations to help Mr. Torres cover the increased medical expenses from this ordeal. A flash interview with Mr. Torres is also available.

I have followed this story for my own reasons of interest and am happy to report from AP News, that in additon to knowing that the National Zoo has a new Panda Boy, Susan Ann Catherine Torres entered the world at 8:18 am this past Tuesday morning. Her mother gave birth to a girl measuring 13 1/2 inches and weighing one pound 13 ounces. This places the birth at roughly 27 weeks.

Roberts's Faith: Time to Speak Up

2005-08-02T14:35:00.000-05:00

Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's Faith: [Washington Post]

"Conservatives typically praise religious activism on abortion and homosexuality but dismiss liberal clerics who offer theological insights on economics or social spending. Liberals love preachers to speak out for civil rights and economic justice. But they see 'a church-state problem' the instant anyone in the clergy speaks out for vouchers or against abortion and stem cell research."

E.J. Dionne, Jr. writing an editorial for the Post notes that there is a contradictory squeamishness about raising one's religious beliefs in the public sphere. Typically, the duplicitousness is OK, if it helps you or if it can be used against your opponents, but not if the tables get turned.

Frankly, it makes perfect sense to me that one ought to be able to "make an account of the hope within you" without the necessary expectation that this will make you "win." Religious views ought not to be the sword we use to slay the infidel, nor the albatross that drags down, or the club that is used to beat an opponent. A truly appreciative listening and deliberation of one's beliefs ought to be tolerated and respected for the insight it offers into a human being and his or her perspective on their own human condition.

Clearly, a secular Left, a materialist capitalist nation, or triumphalistic Right is incapable of understanding that measure of insight and civil decency. And thus, under cover of religious belief or as far as we can distance ourselves from it, we make more and more obvious how inept and hypocritical we are. Issues of conscience are not simply to be protected by the silence of privacy. They are also supposed to be celebrated publicly by the measure of respect and serious consideration we give them.

Roberts Nomination: What's around the bend?

2005-08-01T15:41:00.000-05:00

The Fight Behind the Fight: [Washington Post]

Kim Gandy, president of NOW noted that of the some 200 court appointments by Pres. Bush, none are pro-choice. She argues further that "not just abortion but a whole range of issues -- from Title IX, to affirmative action, to property rights, to birth control, to the Americans with Disabilities Act -- is at stake based on whether Bush's nominee considers himself a strict constructionist by Bush's standard. And because many key issues were decided on a 5 to 4 basis, with the departing Sandra Day O'Connor often the swing vote, much is at stake if Roberts's confirmation
changes the ideological bent of the court.
Most people, however, agree abortion won't be one of the key issues. The court is solidly 6 to 3 in favor of Roe v. Wade; at most, Roberts's confirmation could make it 5 to 4. Even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it doesn't make abortion illegal; it would merely allow each state to make its own laws regarding abortion"

With a recess appointment of John Bolton to the United Nations, Iraqis on track for drafting their constitution, Karl Rove out of the headlines, and some last minute accomplishments before the August Recess, the news from home is that nothing tremendously earth shaking has rumbled out of the Bush Agenda. But if history is any indicator, it's probably because this is just a terribly long SNAFU run.

TIKKUN'S Michael Lerner issues call for National Conference for Progressives of Faith

2005-07-29T13:28:00.000-05:00

When the Right Breaks the Barrier,
How Should a Spiritual Left Respond?

"The Tikkun Community contends that it is equally valid to demand a 'New Bottom line' in which institutions get assessed as rational, efficient, and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power but also to the extent that they maximize love, caring, ethical and spiritual sensitivity, and enhance our capacity to respond to other human beings and to nature with awe, wonder, and radical amazement."

In July’s TIKKUN, editor Michael Lerner calls progressives of faith to a national conference held in California this month and in Washington DC in February. Citing the effective collusion of conservative politics and Right Wing ideology, Lerner joins up with "God's Politics" author and Soujourner editor Jim Wallis to challenge the relationship of Church & State, re-examine the perceived antagonism between the Left and spirituality, and to move toward better leveraging progressive faith values.
Speaking as a Catholic and a progressive, I sometimes feel out of touch with this type of movement. My faith has never been out of step with, apart from, or silenced by my politics. At the same time, I never embraced the selectivity of right wing politics fueled by what I considered to be an exclusivist or narrowly triumphalist expression of Christian faith.
I support the notion that progressives of faith ought to be able to articulate their ideas of the common good, ought to advocate for the poor and least amongst us, and ought to be able to express those convictions and vote their conscience without feeling hamstrung by secularism or a materialistic market-values society.

However, I thought this had always been the case. In another TIKKUN article, we are reminded that decades earlier TIKKUN called for a “meaning value” approach to counteract the flatness of a materialistic economic value, for example. This approach isn't to "Just say NO" to the Religious Right, or to "out-spiritualize the Religious Right" (as Karen Hanretty scoffed for We Care America).

From a political perspective, it is helpful to observe the deep tension in the Left between political position and religious persuasion. But from my perspective, this is shameful because it leaves the incorrect impression that liberals or progressives are synonymous with “godlessness.” This is not true. I saw "People of Faith for Kerry", I know Catholics to be both Democrats and Republicans. I know other people of faith who are equally devout and hold opposing political beliefs. In short, the history of memory that reminds us of “meaning values” ought to also be deep enough to avoid this simplistic divide as well. Van Jones writing for AlterNet, chimes in with a similar line of thought, reminding us that the civil rights movement came most forcefully not from secular pundits, but from the people in the pews and the churches that emptied onto the street.

God is in our midst, once again. And while I am confident of the value religion has for politics of either side, I am even more certain that chaining it to politics runs the real risk of making religion itself "godless" in its orientation.

Sen. Frist To Modify Bush Position Over Stem Cells

2005-07-29T09:08:00.000-05:00

Comment by Jay Cuasay

Senate's Leader Veers From Bush Over Stem Cells
From New York Times:

'I am pro-life,' Mr. Frist says in the speech, arguing that he can reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. 'I believe human life begins at conception.'
But at the same time, he says, 'I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported.'

Sen. Frist's proposal seeks to modify Pres. Bush's original compromise that limited stem cell research to the already existing lines "where the life or death decision has already been made." There were less stem cell lines than originally thought and the viability of these lines for future research was thought to be weakened by the low number.

Extending that same permissibility of logic, Sen. Frist wants future research to encompass additional cell lines, typically from fertility clinic frozen embryos, where adult donors and the clinics had already similarly "made the life or death decision" to have such embryos destroyed. Sen. Frist also supports the less controversial adult stem cell research and other unproven methods of research that do not destroy human embryos.

While I follow Sen. Frist's logic in asking for a modification in the original bill and see where it might cause political friction, I hardly see here a nuanced battle or compromise between faith and reason. I see instead an acceptance and transfer of "life and death" powers to those entrusted with embryo fertilization. This does not coincide with Sen. Frist's simple invocation of "Life begins at conception" and instead speaks about the tremendous power we hold to place human life under our purview to extract what research and medical advances we can.

It is Frankenstein in reverse. And it is not an easy issue. See my Embryonic Stem Cell Research post on C I A for additional commentary. But in brief, such issues place American values of self determination on equal footing as issues of the origins (or as I've observed) at least the end contribution and meaning to life.

Pope Benedict suffers issue of divorced Catholics

2005-07-28T14:50:00.000-05:00

Comment By Jay Cuasay
CNS STORY: Divorced Catholics must be welcomed in parishes, pope tells priests:

July 25: while vacationing, Pope Benedict spoke to a group of 140 priests, religious and deacons regarding divorced Catholics and Eucharistic celebration saying, "Given that it is the sacrament of the passion of Christ, the suffering Christ embraces these persons in a special way and communicates with them in a different way. They can feel embraced by the crucified Lord who falls to the earth and dies and suffers for them and with them."

"Priests and parishioners must share the suffering of those excluded from the Eucharist", he said, "but they cannot act in a way that casts doubt on the unbreakable bond of sacramental marriage.

It sounds to me like this description pits the efficacy of two sacraments against each other. By doing so, the transcendent is rendered rather earth-bound. This is no longer the very brokeness of humanity lifted up to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, but rather an infinite suffering of finite means. At the same time, I acknowledge the singular union in which one's "Amen" can be true.

NYT's Kristof Sounds Off on Darfur

2005-07-26T11:25:00.000-05:00

Comment by Jay Cuasay
All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt - New York Times:
"The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads."
There is something to be said about today's media making the world that much smaller, manageable, or communicable--and community oriented. It's ironic too that MJ, who helped push the anthem "We are the World" would end up distracting us from paying attention to genocide in Darfur or that "compassionate conservatism" and African aid, might not also be up to par with the kind of "shock and awe" we'd like to accomplish in our foreign policies.

I think because we can change channels, and because there are so many channels, and ways to get access to channels, the focus has moved to self-selection and media on demand. Less focus has been on content. What do we see or as Kristof argues, what (more) should we see?

We should be activist Couch Potatoes. Radical Channel flippers, rising up...The "whole world is watching" and that is not enough.

Fides et Ratio

2005-07-26T10:27:00.000-05:00

I needed a more conventional place to post writings and musings that could cover a wider range of topics. Although I still tend to keep an eye on culture and politics, this blog has the possibility of being less confining and more informal than my other blog postings.
Please feel free to visit C I A, (Communications Interfaith Activism), for more articles and postings devoted to that aspect.