Your Vote Can Make a Difference

How is this for proof positive that every vote counts?

Questions Worth Asking

I learned something disturbing the other day. It doesn't sit well with me, and I want to pass it on to you.

My nephew is on active duty in the Reserves, and when I explained how pleased I was with the Operation Truth website, he frowned and said that from boot camp on he has been explicitly taught that you are not to speak *at all* about military life in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not just logistical locations or technical details, but about *anything*. The military reasoning is that you never know what the enemy will glean from what you say.

I disagree. While sensitivity to location and logistics can be essential, without the photos of Abu Ghraib, the American public would not have begun probing into how badly this Administration advocates violating the Geneva Conventions. Certainly enough evidence is coming to light that the Administration was well aware of what was happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and actively encouraged it.

While secrecy can be essential for an effective military campaign, it was not a campaign that Rumsfeld was defending when he banned digital cameras, camcorders, and cameras with cell phones. He was protecting himself and the Administration.

As the public is learning, the Administration was well aware that what they were doing was wrong, which is why they consulted with White House counsel Alberto Gonzales over two years ago about it.

It is never appropriate to torture another human being, however much one may feel the prisoner deserves it. To do so lowers them to their opponents level. We as a civilized nation have held ourselves to a higher code of ethics, and rightfully so. When we violate our own standards, all bets become off as to how our own American POWs are treated. What right have we to demand American POWs be treated better than their Iraqi counterparts? While the Bush Administration pushes for 'Do as I say, not as I do', the rest of the world (and the American public) isn't buying it.

The public still does not see its returning soldiers' flag covered caskets, not out of respect as the Department of Defense would lead you to believe, but because the Bush Administration knows that in order to hold public opinion, they need to keep the cost of war away from public scrutiny. I say that the Bush Administration cannot pass "The Dover Test", which is why they elect to bypass it altogether.

I too believe we need to look at the war in Iraq with clear eyes and understand the cost our soldiers pay for this Administration's decisions. Our government knows that photos can sway public opinion, for good or ill, which is why they don't want you to see what is really happening overseas. While I applaud my nephew's patriotic defense of the military's policies, I can't help but fear it is a harbinger of far more sinister things to come. After all, who is minding the minders?

Cat Blogging and a Thought for the Day

Happy Friday!

For those of you who, like me, are disheartened by what is going on in government today, read this and take heart. It has happened before. It will happen again. These may feel like dark times, but this too shall pass. Thankfully it is the nature of Democracy, for good or ill, to bend with the winds of change. Our time will come again. Until then, chin up, Democrats!

Gotta love Josh Marshall

Holy wow. That man is relentless when his curiousity is piqued. As the sordid details of Bernard Kerik's life continue to become public, more and more questions pop up. As Josh continues to investigate, I can't help but wonder, was no vetting done at all? I would like to think the White House investigates people's background a little before putting them in positions of incredible power, especially as Secretary of Homeland Security.

It's something to keep in mind, especially when considering Bush is having his "Conference for the Economy" today. Just who are his guests, and is single mother Sandy Jacques from Iowa really just your average American looking for some better answers? To find out about Bush's panel of guests, read this.

But on a separate note, Josh has set his eye on looking into just what privatization of Social Security means, and better how to prepare for the upcoming fight ahead. It's worth the read.

Paying the Piper

I have wondered for a long time what Bush’s obsession with privatizing Social Security is all about? Is it really ideology? Is it that he’s obsessed with an ownership society? Or is this more of the same? That is to say: is this one more way to cut taxes?

Read this enlightening bit from Kevin Drum’s Political Animal, and you be the judge.

Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. In 1983, Alan Greenspan headed up a commission that recommended saving Social Security from imminent doom by raising those payroll taxes to cover expected increases in Social Security payouts. But there was a twist: Greenspan recommended raising payroll taxes above what was required to actually pay current benefits to retirees, with the resulting surplus used to buy treasury bonds that would be piled up each year in Social Security's trust fund. And since these bonds were sold to the trust fund by the federal government, this means that the federal government got a big chunk of extra money every year for use in the general fund.

Under this scheme, payroll taxes were sufficient to cover payouts plus bond purchases until about 2018. Then, from 2018 to 2042, when payroll taxes would no longer be enough to cover payouts, the difference would be made up by cashing in the bonds in the trust fund. In other words, the feds would tap into the general fund to give back all the money that Social Security had handed over between 1983 and 2018. This money would come from the same place all general fund money comes from: income taxes.

Still with me? Here's what this means:

• Between 1983-2018, this plan calls for payroll taxes to be higher than they need to be to cover payouts to retirees. However, because the surplus payroll taxes are handed over to the feds, it means income taxes are lower than they would otherwise be.
• Then, between 2018-2042, payroll taxes will be less than they need to be to pay benefits to retirees. However, the difference will be made up by higher income taxes, which will be used to pay off the trust fund bonds.

Payroll taxes are paid mostly by the middle class and the poor. Income taxes are paid mostly by the well off.

So: for 35 years the middle class and the poor pay excess payroll taxes and the well off get a break on their income taxes. However, for the following 24 years the middle class and the poor get a break on their payroll taxes and the well off finance it by paying higher income taxes.

Now, this may sound like a dumb idea to you, but that was the deal. The bottom 80% take it on the chin for a few decades, followed by a couple of decades in which the well off get socked.

But suppose — as conservatives are laying the groundwork for — that Bush decides the trust fund is a mirage, just a giant IOU from one part of the government to the other. And as part of his "reform" plan he proposes a complex scheme that, when stripped to its essentials, entails doing away with the flim flam of that illusionary trust fund and the higher income taxes it will require when 2018 finally rolls around. What would that mean?

It would mean that the middle class and the poor got suckered into overpaying their taxes for three decades, and then when the bill came due the well off ducked out of their end of the bargain.

Of course, that would be a brazen rip off of the middle class in order to give a break to the well off and the rich. George Bush would never do something like that, would he?

The “Illusionary” Trust Fund

(Emphasis mine)

Considering Bush’s obsession with tax cuts for the rich and his disregard for worrying about trivial things like the deficit, this fits, doesn’t it?

So how does he try to do this? By attempting to sell the public a bill of goods. Guess what? Social Security is not in crisis.

Some Find Strong Pulse in Social Security

How? By playing with the numbers to make them look dire when they’re really not, as the series of articles, again by Kevin Drum, explains.

Smoke and Mirrors

Smoke and Mirrors, Part 2

Social Security Doom Mongering

I'll continue to post little bits on Social Security as I go along. This is something that is important to understand. This is our future the Bush Administration is playing numbers games with.

Personally, I think this is one more way for the Administration to distract us from what they don't want us to see; primarily that the war in Iraq continues to spiral out of control and that our President and Congress has yet to do a thing to fulfill their campaign promises and get the deficit under control. The biggest irony is that this great distraction also furthers their agenda of irresponsible tax cuts at an incredible accrual of unnecessary debt.

Look overe there, indeed!

On a Positive Note

I think that it’s time for some good news. How about this? I know a lot of people feel that all these recounts are really futile, so consider this a little positive feedback.

The Washington state recount has discovered 561 wrongly rejected absentee ballots in the highly Democratic King county, and it looks likely that the Canvass Board could amend the results of the November 2 election per King County Elections Director Dean Logan’s request.

Ballots Wrongly Denied in Washington Governor’s Race

Unfortunately, not all the news is good. Get ready to make your voices heard. It sounds like the Senate GOP has given their approval to plan on implementing the ‘nuclear option’ to prevent Democrats from using filibusters to block judicial nominees. See my previous post for more information on what the 'nuclear option' is and why 10 nominees blocked out of 229 just makes Republicans sound like whiners.

Senate Democrats want to retain the right to block judicial nominees

Bookmark this link, and be sure to write often!

Congress.org

Here's a delightful thought for the day made by NewDonkey.com:

Clouseau for Homeland Security

As the unanswered questions about now-abandoned Homeland Security Secretary nominee Bernard Kerik continue to mount, I've stopped thinking about Kerik and started thinking about the rich irony of an administration that can't seem to conduct a competent background check trying to appoint this guy as head of the department whose ability to conduct competent background checks is kind of important to the task of keeping the rest of us alive.

I mean, I don't know the ultimate truth about Kerik, and I gather he was a pretty good Top Cop, but Lord-a-mighty: forget the nanny stuff, which by now should be a basic part of the vetting process. You've got allegations of mob links, financial improprities, violations of ethics rules, threats against a former romantic interest, cronyism, and who knows what's next? And nobody was able to ferret out any of this damaging material, unless Kerik brought it forth himself?

Makes you wonder if the sleuthing model of this admninistration is Inspector Clouseau.

NewDonkey

Hitler was Christian, too

On April 20, 1939, Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars." - (Source: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93

Religious Fundamentalists bristle at being compared to Hitler, and rightfully so. His reign of inhumanity is one of the darkest periods in recent history, and oftentimes I myself have wondered: How could this have happened? How could an entire nation consent to genocide?

“God is With Us”: Hitler’s Rhetoric and the Lure of “Moral Values”

As it turns out, it is a slippery slope, and just as the woman who is abused by her husband says that it did not start that way, that it was a series of little things that simply escalated, so too do Germans who lived during those times make an effort to describe how it began, and how it could have evolved into what it ultimately became – a descent into barbarity and inhumanity. Below is a frighteningly real account into how such a thing could have happened. Is it happening again today?

They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer

Below is a link to quotes of things Hitler has said. Compare what you read to things you’ve heard, not just from Bush, although he is certainly at the top of the list, but from ardent and vocal supporters of Bush. Hitler’s words sound eerily familiar.

The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

“Remain strong in your faith, as you were in former years. In this faith, in its close-knit unity our people to-day goes straight forward on its way and no power on earth will avail to stop it.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Coburg on 15 Oct. 1937

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

“I will never allow anyone to divide this people once more into religious camps, each fighting the other.... You, my Brown Guard, will regard it as a matter of course that this German people should go only by the way which Providence ordained for it when it gave to Germans the common language. So we go forward with the profoundest faith in God into the future. Would that which we have achieved have been possible if Providence had not helped us?” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Regensburg on 6 June 1937

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular

“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty.... If Providence had not guided us I could often never have found these dizzy paths.... Thus it is that we National Socialists, too, have in the depths of our hearts our faith. We cannot do otherwise: no man can fashion world-history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Wurzburg on 27 June 1937

Want a more in-depth look at the similarities between Bush and Hitler?

Gott mit uns: On Bush and Hitler’s rhetoric

Hitler was not an Atheist

It truly is a slippery slope. We're not there yet, but all of this hatred against homosexuals, intellectuals, and anyone non-religious is certainly the beginning. For a party devoted to 'moral values', its' rhetoric is far more hate filled than makes this progressive comfortable.

I guess the Idaho Aryan Nation moved a little further south

This is just too much not to bring to your attention.

One of Cary Christian School's booklets that students are reading repaints Southern slavery in a more positive light. The principal says he's only exposing students to different ideas: the 'Southern perspective' versus the 'Nothern perspective'.

Let me present you with some excerpts from Southern Slavery: As It Was:

* "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence." (page 24)

* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)

* "But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27)

* "Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)

School defends slavery booklet

The authors of Southern Slavery: As It Was? None other than Idaho's own Douglas Wilson, a 'pastor' in Moscow, Idaho. Want to hear some other choice opinions of his?

The world as Wilson sees it is divided not by race but by religion — biblical Christians versus all others. As he says in one of his books, "[I]f neither parent believes in Jesus Christ, then the children are foul — unclean."

"Government schools" are godless propaganda factories teaching secularism, rationalism, and worse. Wilson's congregants are instructed to send their children to private Christian schools (like the one he started) or to home-school them.

Woman "was created to be dependent and responsive to a man," Wilson writes. Feminists seek "to rob women of their beauty in submission." Women should only be allowed to date or "court" with their father's permission — and then, if they are Christian, only with other Christians.

If a woman is raped, the rapist should pay the father a bride price and then, if the father approves, marry his victim.

Homosexuals, Wilson says, are "sodomites," "people with foul sexual habits." But the biblical punishment for homosexuality is not necessarily death, Wilson says in trying to distance himself from Reconstruction. Exile is another possibility.

Cursing one's parents is "deserving of punishment by death," Wilson adds. "Parental failure is not a defense." And Christian parents, by the way, "need not be afraid to lay it on" when spanking, he says.

Indeed, "godly discipline" would include spanking 2-year-old children for such "sins" as whining. (On a similar note, Dabney called opposition to whipping wrongdoing slaves "Godless humanitarianism.")

Taliban on the Palouse?

Of course, even in South Carolina, look who's been elected to the state board of education panel:

Neo-Confederate name to state education board

After reading all that, how about a nice look at a couple of sites devoted to fighting against hate and intolerance? Arm yourselves now with knowledge and the courage to stand by your convictions. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Tolerance.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center

Social Security Privatization - The Red Herring of the Republican Party

This is possibly the best, most concise reason for why privatizing our Social Security is such a bad idea.

Just remember, we don't want what happened to Argentina to happen to us. Bush has already put us in enough of a financial crisis.

Borrow, Speculate and Hope

Then, there's what other countries have tried.

Social Security Around the World

And finally, let's take a look at what Republicans are going to have to do to sell this sucker, as written by Peter Savodnik of The Hill:

Republicans are pushing to rewrite budget rules in an attempt to remove financial obstacles that threaten the GOP’s effort to reform Social Security.

Social Security Numbers Game

Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, said rewriting budget rules to expedite adoption of a reform bill would imperil the country’s finances for decades to come.

“I’ve never even contemplated that anyone would come up with an idea like this,” Matsui said. “The whole idea and purpose of a budget and expenditures and revenues is to have an accurate accounting of where the federal government is in terms of fiscal policy and in terms of the overall economy. To take off $2 trillion and to say it doesn’t really exist because it’s a future debt, it really distorts the whole budget process.”

I know Fridays are supposed to be fluff and light, but this is one message I feel desperately needs to get out.

The Bush Administration is trying to sell the American public a bill of goods. Don't buy it.

Happy Friday!

'Rice' Christians

"The government [British Raj in India] allowed the Christian Missionaries in 1813 to spread their religion in India, and they did so with much zeal. Even the government supported their cause. Missionary schools were opened with this very object. During a severe famine in 1837 in Upper India, the relief work was left with the charitable institutions, and it gave an opportunity to the missionaries to undertake their prostelysing task, those who converted to Christianity were fed properly. [a practice that happened all over India and led to the term "rice Christians"] The Disabilities Act of 1856 guaranteed the rights over inheritance, even after conversion, but only to Christians."
(from a message on another list) - Author Unknown (to me)

Make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration is funding faith-based charities at the expense of other non-religious non-profits. Head Start? Forgetaboutit. He's cut it to the bone, and the administration sends out threatening letters every time the program speaks out in protest.

Parent Centers funded under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) narrowly dodged legislation that would have stated that non-profits that did any type of "federal relations" would be made ineligible from receiving parent center grants - something some parent centers see as a core part of their mission in educating the public and assisting those with disabilities. Here's more from OMB Watch on why the Castle bill was so troubling:

"Two factors added to the troubling nature of this provision. First, "federal relations" was not defined. The proposal specifically prohibited lobbying at the federal level on disability education issues, but added that "federal relations" would also have disqualified the organization from receiving grants. The inescapable conclusion is that "federal relations" must go beyond federal lobbying, and include activities like commenting on regulations or giving a Member of Congress a tour of a parent center. We cannot imagine what type of federal government interactions would not be considered "federal relations."

Second, when the bill was under consideration there were reports that a House staff member indicated that this model might be applied to grantees under other sections of IDEA. This would have affected an even broader set of nonprofits. It was clear that this was a slippery slope. If good for these grantees, why not for others?"

Freedom of speech by nonprofits is certainly under attack, and not just by conventional means. The threat of an audit by the IRS for speaking out is also a very real one . Just look at what the NAACP is facing for speaking out against Bush prior to the last election.

Call to stop IRS probe of NAACP

Certainly tax-exempt Roman Catholic groups that campainged heavily for propositions banning gay marriage have not come under IRS scrutiny. In fact, recall that the White House has already been caught asking churches to turn over membership directies for Bush to target for political campaigning. The zealot Christian Coalition even brags that it delivered 30 million "voter guides" to 80,000 churches for the 2004 election, yet there is no IRS probe there.

Unfortunately, I believe we will continue to see reproductive rights and AIDS/HIV non-profits fall under the heaviest attack. More from OMB Watch:

"Perhaps the harshest opinions are being voiced by those dealing with issues concerning reproductive rights and HIV/AIDS. Many have described their differences with the Bush administration as falling on one side or the other of the "safe sex" versus "abstinence" debate. Some claim that targeted audits are occurring to those to disagree with the administration's emphasis on "abstinence." Others, who fall on the "safe sex" side of the debate claim that they are being told not to apply for new grants since resources will be going to faith-based organizations more consistent with administration policies. Some claim that there is a blacklist being developed by agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to insure that certain organizations do not get grants.

Some of these sentiments are based on oral communication with those in USAID and other government agencies, but have not been documented in writing. Some derive from written communications, such as a December 2, 2002 "action cable" to USAID mission directors regarding "implementation of USAID policies and programs on HIV/AIDS and trafficking." The final page of the action cable states. "all operating units should ensure that USAID-funded programs and publications reflect appropriately the policies of the Bush administration." It should be ensured that "USAID is not perceived as using U.S. taxpayer funds to support activities that contradict our laws or policies, including 'abortion.'"

The same action cable notes that "any websites fully or partially funded by USAID" must have materials reviewed before posting to the web. Many groups working on HIV/AIDS believe that USAID and others, such as NGO Watch (see below), are combing through websites to find code words and phrases that might lead to blacklisting. They say keywords, such as "condoms," are triggers. If this process is occurring, it raises questions about whether federal agencies are properly applying cost allocation rules that grantees are required to follow. Cost allocation rules, which were at the heart of the 1983 OMB Circular A-122 fight, state that activities deemed unallowable for federal reimbursement should be paid for with non-federal funds, but that grantees can properly allocate a portion of the allowable cost to the federal government.⁶ In this way, nonprofits do not need two copies, two offices, two executive directors, etc. However, the USAID action cable seems to suggest that if any federal funds are used for the website, then the entire website must follow federal standards. Thus, if a grantee, were to mention something about abortion or sexual activity it would "taint" the entire website, meaning no federal reimbursement would be allowed."

Bush is cynically using faith-based charity funding to further propogate his beliefs and promote his agenda rather than seeking to help his constiuents. He openly attacks those who oppose him and looks the other way for anyone that supports his administration.

An Attack on Non-Profit Speech: Death by a Thousand Cuts

Take a long hard look at using tax dollars to fund faith-based charities, especially at the expense of other nondemoninational ones. The next time you are laid off work or get sick, the only people who may be able to help you out could also require you to attend their services, read their faith based literature and possibly even someday convert. How's that for freedom of religion?

Images your government doesn't want you to see. These are our soldiers. This is their homecoming.

News from abroad about America's hidden casualty toll

And since it isn't likely you'll hear this on our local news, here's an appalling bit of information. The 1,000+ soldiers killed in action in Iraq as of today?

That number is likely much higher. Especially considering the body armor that this newspaper assumes our soldiers have that many still don't.

America's hidden battlefield toll

More about America's Heroes of Freedom

Conditions for Reservists in Iraq

Sentiments of reservists currently in Iraq.

There are those out there who do not believe that families have been forced to send body armor to their sons and daughters in Iraq. This has been happening since before Bush’s re-election.

Why isn’t there an uproar about this? Wouldn’t you be furious to find out your child has been sent to Iraq to ‘defend democracy’ (remember – there were no WMDs) and found they did not even have adequate protection?

This is unconscionable, and this is not an urban legend. Case and point is the news story on CNN today. Our own soldiers *in* Iraq are asking Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld faces tough questions from troops

and

U.S. Troops fire complaints at Rumsfeld

This certainly echoes the sentiment expressed by 19 Army reservists who balked at what they called a ‘suicide mission’ in Iraq when asked to drive tankers that were in disrepair and prone to breakdown 200 miles without armored guard or even bullet-resistant armor at a maximum speed of 40 miles an hour to deliver contaminated fuel that wasn’t even usable. Sound ridiculous? How about the fact that they’re being punished for refusing to do it?

Revolt in the ranks in Iraq

More on these soldiers here.

This has been going on for a long time. Here’s an article dated October 2, 2003 that discusses the lack of supplies as well.

Flak jackets are slim comfort for troops in Iraq

An article in the Houston Chronicle dated January 10, 2004 says the same thing.

Are reserve units getting a raw deal?

Operation Truth, a website that prints first hand accounts from the soldiers themselves both in Iraq and Afghanistan, offers some stark insight into the issues facing Reservists and National Guardsmen today.

Treatment and Funding of Reservists and National Guardsmen

Taking Care of Our Own (Andrew Borene)

Of course, on that note, today’s News Release from the Department of Defense says that there will be an increase in the number of reservists on active duty while the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard had a decrease.

Full Release here

Total number currently on active duty in support of the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is 159,476; Naval Reserve, 3,065; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, 10,970; Marine Corps Reserve, 10,488; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 1,020. This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel, who have been mobilized, to 185,019 including both units and individual augmentees.

I saw a bumper sticker once that said, “If you aren’t appalled, then you haven’t been paying attention.” I must certainly second that sentiment. The average American citizen appears to have blinders on, and what they’re hearing on the news is just background noise.

Our soldiers are not getting the support they need and are dying because of it. Due to the extended length of deployment, our reservists face financial crisis because they don’t earn enough to provide for their families at home.

This is our generation’s Vietnam, and our leaders are perfectly happy with the status quo. If you want this, keep doing what your doing. People aren’t complaining enough, and our leaders sure aren’t listening to those who do. Only when the political pressure is hot enough do they respond, so it is up to us to provide it.

Hawks vs. Doves

I hear conservatives argue repeatedly that progressives are soft because they don’t want war. While this is an ironic misstatement, since most progressives I know to this day still believe the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, there is merit to the argument that for progressives, war isn’t our first course of action. We believe, and rightly so, that it is a last resort.

For those who say that not wanting war is considered being ‘weak’, I argue that just because conservatives want war doesn’t make them good at it.

Case and point, of course, is Iraq. Read an excerpt from a “strategic communications” report written this autumn by the Defense Science Board, “a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronizing … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

Excerpt pulled from this link

dailyKOS has a more in-depth look at this report (and a link directly to it)

Certainly the belief by Muslims that US actions are based upon ulterior motives and controlled to best serve American national interests at other’s expense is a legitimate argument.

To read more about the blatant fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq, follow this link

Josh Marshall has more follow-up here

Let us hearken back to the days of Vietnam. Professor Loren Baritz, who, in his cultural history of the Vietnam era, Backfire : A History of How American Culture Led Us into Vietnam and Made Us Fight the Way We Did (New York: W. Morrow, 1985), made the point that “an overwhelming sense of hubris led Americans, including members of the military, to the notion that as a nation we were both righteous and invincible.”

Pause for a moment here and reflect on this, please. Sound familiar? Okay. Let’s move on.

Col Harry G. Summers, Jr. (On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1982)’s central thesis was that a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of military theory and strategy, and a major disjunction in the relationship between military strategy and national policy fostered a flawed approach that ultimately led to America's defeat in Vietnam.

Adm. Ulysses S. Grant Sharp who, in 1978, published Strategy for Defeat, blamed policies devised by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara for America's defeat in Vietnam.

Current Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, the subject of a recent report on Frontline which probes in-depth into Rumsfeld’s efforts to assert civilian control of the military can be found here:

Frontline

An archive of articles from The Washington Post that began January 12, 2001 and ends with a report dated October 18, 2004, chronicles his ongoing battle to ‘rebuild’ the military, can be found here:

Rumsfeld Washinton Post Archive

Progressives care more for their soldiers' welfare than monetary rewards and are more likely to insure competent, ethical warfare practice than our hawkish conservatives brethren, and would certainly take tremendous steps toward repairing our damaged image. Progressives without military experience wouldn’t presume to be experts on warfare and tap instead the vast knowledge and expertise available to them to allow for better planning and perhaps even *shock* an exit strategy or two.

We are what Communist U.S.S.R. used to be – aggressors struggling to promote our own beliefs at the expense of others. We’re losing the hearts and minds of not just the Iraqis, but the world.

The next time some conservative calls you a ‘dove’, argue that ‘hawks’ have done a marvelous job in Iraq. Oh, and by the way, progressives *can* be against the war in Iraq and still know there’s a lot we have to do to clean it up.

The Pottery Barn principle, as Kerry once said, applies here: You Break It, You Buy It. However, only progressives are willing to shell out the time, energy, manpower and effort to do it properly, while conservatives are busy trying to hide the proken pieces under the nearest rug.

Slow news day...

Okay, I’ve perused through the news this weekend, looking for the traditional Bush bombs (for those not familiar with this, the Bush Administration frequently airs their bad news on Fridays, typically a slow news day and not as likely to be picked up), and found the following.

The US Consulate in the Saudi port city of Jeddah was stormed. Are you blasé about this? Why?

Because if it’s about the Middle East, it’s *all* bad news *all* the time these days. The fact that we *aren’t* batting an eye at this news story shows we’ve got a much bigger problem.

News on Jeddah

With our national debt still out of control and the value of the American dollar continuing to plummet, we are now affecting the economy in other countries. To this I say, “We had a surplus before Bush came into office. It’s not that America doesn’t have the money to pay for its’ debts, it’s that the Bush Administration and Republican majority choose not to. It’s time to go back to school, boys and girls. *We* the American people know how to balance a checkbook. Would you like some lessons?”

The Dollar's Double Whammy

Everyone’s getting ready to battle over the next round of Supreme Court Justice nominees. With the hubbub over Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa) comments and subsequent belly groveling, Bush’s promise to his fundamentalist core to nominate someone anti-choice, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn) comments last month before the Federalist Society that “one way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end", we’re all getting a pretty clear picture that it’s going to be profoundly ugly. But before we proceed down a discussion of why filibusters are a good thing, let’s keep in mind one thing:

There were 10 – count ‘em – 10 blocked nominations out of more than 200 confirmed appointments. Ten blocked nominations, and the Republicans get their panties in a total twist. Doesn’t this sound oddly like a child throwing a tantrum about not getting their own way? It does to me.

Reality check: The Republicans didn’t win by 99%. They won by a little over half – barely. Filibusters are designed to protect the House Minority from having no voice at all. Deal with it.

“The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority.” – George Will Newsweek

Shock and Awe in the Senate

More on both side’s strategies to promote/fight against potential nominees:

Getting Ready for Court Fight

I’ll put this out for you to decide. I haven’t researched this yet, but am wondering how much truth there is to it. According to several sources I read, the 9/11 intelligence reform bill throws in a great deal more than the 9/11 Commission report ever recommended. Follow this link to read more about what they’re saying:

Opposing the 9/11 Intelligence Reform Bill

To those of you interested in who may become the Democratic National Committee’s next Chairman, here is a list of candidates and a little bit about them:

Democrat's Pick for DNC Chairman Will Draw New Map for Party

Also, here’s a little bit more on Rosenberg, which I found interesting. It’s always nice to know more than just the name, isn’t it?

Simon Rosenberg

Of course, who can forget the Conservative’s attack against Howard Dean? After all, he’s a “tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show…” Wow. No venom there.

One final note – here’s something worth mentioning because I’ve discovered this is not an uncommon strategy for fundamentalists to apply.

They put a false spin on an issue and stir the public against, in this case a school, without providing all the facts. Actually, they use moderates to promote their extremist cause, which I find offensive.

Take a look at this article to get an idea for how they’re spinning this story, and keep it in mind the next time you read an article that claims someone is going too far against teaching religion in school, etc. It’s better to know all the facts before sending outraged email to someone who very well could be trying to uphold the very principles you hold dear. I’ve never liked being played.

Intimidation Campaign Against Stevens Creek Elementary School

My second Cat Blogging Day!

For those of you who are curious what this whole Cat Blogging Day thing is all about, read the following article:

Cat Blogging Day!

Some links

I just found a site where soldiers stationed both in Iraq and Afghanistan post.

Operation Truth

Take a look. Listen to what your soldiers are saying.

Pro Patria Morie (Kendall Connell)

We all see the "We support our troops" bumper stickers. How about doing something more, and making sure they get out of there?

************************************************************************

On a completely unrelated note, here's a link to an independant filmmaker looking to gather information about whether or not America is *really* polarized.

Red, White and Blue Survey

I took the survey. I'll be curious to see where this goes.

Pete and Repeat

And now, ABC joins the ranks of those afraid to air UCC's ad.

The church quoted CBS as saying that the ad was rejected "because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples ... and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

However, CBS has accepted a second UCC commercial for airing. One can only wonder at what they required to be excluded before being willing to play it. No effeminate looking men? Only burly lumberjacks in flannel shirts? As for the women - absolutely no women 'in comfortable shoes', as Robin Williams once said in Good Morning Vietnam.

Kudos do go, by the way, to ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT for all airing the ad. On a related note: Where's Bravo? I'm surprised not to see them here.

Where is all this going, you wonder? Look at the bigger picture. A GOP Legislature proposes to ban gay literature in public libraries. Not just gay romances, but anything with a gay protagonist in it, or that suggests homosexuality might be okay. The Color Purple, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and Brideshead Revisted would have to go. Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, when asked, said Tennessee William's play 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof' couldn't be played in university theatre groups.

"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them." - Rep. Gerald Allen replied when asked what to do with the banned books.

Chilling words, but even more chilling when looked at amidst the bigger landscape of proposed Constitutional Amendments specifically excluding homosexuals, and large television networks refusing to air television ads that preach for acceptance.

This shift towards hate is unacceptable, and we've seen where this road goes. Discrimination, I was taught as a child, was a thing of the past; a legacy that great leaders had the courage to stand up against. America is a better place now, and celebrates its' melting pot hodgepodge heritage. It's what makes America stronger, more innovative and dynamic. It is what gives America its edge.

We're losing our edge now. America is on the decline. This great society we live in is beginning to mirror the very Muslim fundamentalists our soldiers are right now fighting against.

There are those who would say America's decline is because of our loose morals and/or our corrupt citizens. To this I say, "You argue of morals, yet I see no evidence of scruples. You preach Christianity, yet vilify those who do not share your views. Your actions speak louder than words."

Remember that history will see the witch hunts of today as it has all others in times past, and those with the courage to stand up for what is right will be remembered. It may not be easy, but then, being right never is.

Oh, and one final cheery note. Go take a gander at what those wild and crazy abstinence-only programs have been teaching our children for three years now:

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

Wake up America. We're better than this. We have to be.

Let's bury books instead of burning them...

Check out this link and then tell me that hate mongering isn't rampant within our government:

Republican Alabama lawmaker proposes banning gay books from public libraries

Wake up, America! This is not our legacy! This is Nazi Germany's!

Straight (or not so straight *g*) Talk

Both NBC and CBS refuse to air the United Church of Christ's commercial. You want to know what the controversy is?

In the commercial it shows two burly bodyguards picking and choosing who can attend church. Then, on screen, it reads: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." The voice-over then says, "The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here."

See the full commercial here:

UCC site

CBS says it "touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," and it is "unacceptable" because "the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman." NBC just says it's too controversial.

Here’s a newsflash: There is no *liberal* media, and this above all else proves it decisively. A narrow-minded, bigoted, hate-mongering, vicious, and ridiculously well funded minority has subverted our First Amendment rights.

Or, in reference to *why* the First Amendment was created, read Stephen Mount, of USConstitution.net:

“Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion. And above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So they decided it best to keep the government out of religion. Now, this is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious one. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what they were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.”

This quote is from the following site:

usconstitution.net

As is Jefferson’s original reference to the ‘separation of church and state’:

Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter

My thought for the day? Read up on your history and about what America’s forefathers were trying to achieve, and *why* they were trying to achieve it.

"History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are." David C. McCullough (American author b.1933)