Of Paganism and Pundits

So, I'm checking Memorandum today to see if there is anything there of interest to blog about and I see a WaPo/Newsweek article titled "Paganism May Not Pass Religious Muster" and thinking it might be referring to Pagans in the military I drop by and instead discover it is an amazingly discriminatory blog post by Charles W. "Chuck" Colson minister and radio commentator (politely) attacking a minority group of religions that he admits to not be familiar with (in his third to the last line),"Not being as familiar with paganism in its various forms, I do not wish to condemn it unfairly."

So without further adieu...

"It is debatable whether paganism is a religion, per say. It is generally defined as a pre-Christian state, but it takes a wide variety of forms—all the way from relatively benign New Age-style nature worship, to pantheism, to witchcraft, and even human sacrifice.

Those who publicly identify themselves as pagans are at best a marginal number and are basically no different from dozens of other cults."

Dictionary.com defines a cult as :

6: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Most pagans tend to practice their religion alone, in small groups of family and friends, and larger more organized groups frequently splinter off to form smaller groups usually due to doctrinal or personality conflicts. Modern western paganism is by its nature an unorganized religion partly due to the lack of prohibitions of worshiping alone

Additionally current estimates of the North American population put it at nearly one million members (based on an average of a 1999 Covenant of the Goddess survey and the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey and assuming the standard 3% population increase) which isn't an inconsequential number.

"I see no reason why Wiccans or pagans generally should have the services of taxpayer-paid chaplains. It is perfectly appropriate, if a group meets court tests for religion, that outside priest/ministers be allowed to come into federal facilities and minister. But historically, with standards that have been spelled out carefully by the courts, chaplains are appointed to represent mainline religions."

In 1999 John Machate, executive director of the Military Pagans Network, made the following comment in an interview first published in Connections magazine: "I estimate that there are at least 10 Pagan families or people on each mid-size military base. With the number of military bases in the world, that would put it at about 300,000 military Pagans, that is including dependents."

"The more difficult question is whether I would vote for a pagan for public office. The answer is that on one hand I fully respect the fact that there should be no religious test for public office; on the other hand, I would have great difficulty supporting an explicit Wiccan or pagan for high public office. There are tenets of their belief that, I think, are incompatible with the requirements of American democratic governance.

Lest this sound discriminatory, I think it is very clear from reading the writings of our founding fathers that a sound adherence to the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition—or at the very least, deism—was essential as a basis of the moral law that would sustain a free society.

The writings of all the founders are clear on this. I would refer anyone interested particularly to Michael Novak’s book On Two Wings, in which he describes the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition on one wing and the influence of the Enlightenment on the other. They were finally balanced in our founding. But everyone, devout believer or deist or otherwise, saw the necessity of a strong moral law which would provide self restraint. Without self restraint, free governments cannot succeed."

John Adams famously wrote, “We have no government, armed in power, capable of contending with human passion unbridled by morality and religion . . . our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” And George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

The operative words there are morality and religion. Since the vast majority of Neo-Pagan religions usually work on a," Do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." rule I don't see where morality is lacking. Additionally the government has already recognized the more "orthodox" Wiccan tradition as a valid religion. Hence both criteria are met.

"Not being as familiar with paganism in its various forms, I do not wish to condemn it unfairly. But from what I know of it, I do not think it can provide the “indispensable supports” Washington wrote about."

But that didn't stop you from doing so in an indirect manner now did it?

So I would not appoint pagan chaplains, nor would I, as a personal decision but influenced greatly by the founders, vote for a pagan.

I'm not a pagan but crap like this just gets my goat. Assuming that one's religion of choice is the only possible source of morality and then using that erroneous belief to attempt to deprive others of the benefits/rights afforded to your religion is arrogant and discriminatory at best and if you're a Christian blasphemous at worst. (And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40)

The last time I checked our troops were fighting people that shared the same mindset but were of a different faith. That Pagan soldiers should have to come back from that battlefront only to have to fight similar minded countrymen in the public and political arenas is beyond shameful.

Liberal Hawks and the Iran Debate

Ezra Klein over at The American Prospect recently wrote an article called "Let's Get Serious:
What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?" that has stirred an interesting cross blog debate amongst moderates. Allow me to sort of abridge part of the debate in a Frankenpost before chiming in.

Mr Klein criticizes liberal hawks for being intentionally vague regarding how to deal with Iran "in their desire to avoid responsibility for their pro-war stance on Iraq and their enabling rhetoric towards a potential showdown with Iran." as Tutakai at Militant Moderates put it.

According to fellow Donklephant blogger Kevin Sullivan "Ironically, Klein seems to confront hawkish vagueness with vagueness. He insinuates that there's a cottage industry of "liberal hawk" scholars supporting the invasions of Iraq and Iran, however he only cites one example of such. If the "liberal hawk" has become such a common phenomenon, where are their think-tanks and periodicals? If they are in such lockstep over this issue, why only the one example? The truth is that the "liberal hawk" is more a theory than a person, and more accurately a tactic rather than a wing of the Democratic Party. "

and over at TMV MVDG contends: "As a more conservative blogger (hawk), I have to say that I agree with Kevin’s reasoning. The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool - a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless.

I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. If one rules it out completely, one can forget about getting one’s enemy to do what one wants / to compromise. Iran has to know that, if necessary, force will be used to prevent it from developing WMDs. If not, there will be less pressure on the Mullahs to stop ignoring the wishes of the international community."

I contend that "liberal hawks" are vague about military options in Iran because there is no preferable military solution. Should diplomacy and international pressures fail the military options left to us will only be a choice of evils. We can :

1. Bomb Iran's hardened nuclear sites.
2. Invade Iran
3. Let Israel fight a proxy war with Iran
4. Invade North Korea to show Iran how serious we are
   

Option one may only have limited success and will cause Iran to step up their research efforts resulting in a nuclear bomb in 5 years instead of 9. Additionally Israel will most likely be targeted in retaliation thereby potentially bringing option three into play as a side effect. If not then suddenly Iraq and Afghanistan become indirect wars with Iran potentially leading to a direct war with Iran.

Option two is worse. Provided we are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan (one way or the other) the goal would be achievable but at a hideous toll in Iranian lives. If you'll check out the history of the Iran/Iraq war you'll note that Iran used four million unarmed citizens (volunteers) as cannon fodder. Iraq's soldiers ran out of bullets before they ever engaged an armed soldier.

Additionally since we would have again preemptively invaded a country that didn't (directly) attack us and probably killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed citizens in the process our standing in the world drops to nothing. Additionally because we have invaded three Muslim countries in a row we radicalize even more people either the war on terror gets much harder, we fight a foreign insurgency in Iran, or both.

As for option three Israel fights Hammas, Hezbollah, and Iran at the same time and America enters if it appears Israel can't pull it off or should the war goes regional.

We have time right now and we absolutely must use it to exhaust every single diplomatic and international option before moving on to a military solution.

We can't take the use of force off of the table unless it is conditional based on Iran's actions (allowing UN Inspectors access to all sites etc etc etc). It would be folly to hamstring ourselves in such manner as much as it would be foolhardy to militarily escalate the situation before exhausting all other available options.

May common sense prevail.

Unity08 CEO Robert Bingham on KPBS TV

If you're tired of partisanship, corruption, and the same old same old in politics drop by Unity08's web site and see what is stirring the political waters.

Senate Gets Habeas Corpus Restoration Ball Rolling

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.

Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.

Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month. more

Now if the Dems can get this done they'll have accomplished something important. Should it get bogged down in the Armed Services Committee we may not see any action on it without some serious hardball being played by the Dems . Then all they have to do is avoid a veto. I wish them luck.

Bush Nominates Chiurgeon General

From ABC News:
Bush's Choice for Top Doc Compared Human Genitalia to Pipe Fittings and Said Homosexual Practices Can Cause Injury or Death

President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., wrote a paper in 1991 that purported to make the medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic.

Holsinger, 68, presented "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church's committee to study homosexuality. (Read the paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn't natural or healthy.

Noting that Holsinger also belongs to a church that offers a ministry to "cure" gays of the sexual orientation, gay and lesbian rights advocates immediately protested Holsinger's nomination. "His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans," said the Human Rights Campaign in a statement. "It is essential that America's top doctor value sound science over anti-gay ideology."

(snip)

The cardiologist details many different diseases gay men can catch, and several sexual practices they may engage in, including "anal eroticism," which can lead to injuries and even death. "From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma." full article

On a positive note Dr. Holsinger's paper did note that most STDs can be cured through the proper application of leeches and hinted that high blood pressure can be cured by removing the excess blood from the circulatory system.

W didn't even try on this candidate. He could of at least nominated someone capable of presenting their opinion as fact by backing it up with faulty data and biased research studies.
Not to mention the fact that he had to have known this guy wouldn't get confirmed with the Democrats in the majority.

Rev. Jerry Falwell Laid to Rest

Thousands Turn Out for Falwell Funeral

By SUE LINDSEY
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May 22, 2007; 2:35 PM

LYNCHBURG, Va. -- Thousands of mourners attended the funeral Tuesday of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the folksy evangelist who built the Moral Majority into a conservative Christian empire that influenced national politics.

The funeral returns Falwell to his roots _ the Thomas Road Baptist Church, where he started as a young preacher in 1956 with just 35 parishioners in an old abandoned soda bottling plant.

Today, his son Jonathan Falwell leads Thomas Road Baptist, and the sanctuary seats 6,000.

More than an hour before the service, crowds were being directed to overflow seating in Liberty University's 10,000-seat basketball arena and its football stadium. About 300 police and other personnel were helping manage the crowd, Lynchburg Police Chief Charles W. Bennett Jr. said.

More than 33,000 people had viewed Falwell's body over four days as it lay in repose.

"He was a champion of the fundamental values that we hold dear," said fellow Virginia evangelist Pat Robertson, citing Falwell's stance against abortion and homosexuality. "He stepped on some toes."

Some Republican figures were expected for the funeral, but none of the party's presidential candidates said they could attend. The White House was sending a midlevel aide. Among the Virginia Republican leaders attending was Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Falwell, 73, died a week ago after collapsing in his office at Liberty University. His physician said Falwell had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality. more

Now that Rev. Falwell is properly buried allow me to take a moment to reflect on his "legacy".

Falwell's primary achievment was in motivating a large number of mainly protestant Christians to become engaged in the political process. Thats a good thing in my opinion. Of course I'd also say that if he had organized left handed people. In the process he helped shape the platform of the GOP today which is no mean feat. In doing so he also became a spokesperson for Protestant Christianity in America and its in that role that he probably did more harm than good.

His denouncements of gays and "abortionists" were often hate filled to the point that they were clearly in conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself.", Do unto others as you'd have done to you". (You can read many of his infamous quotes here.)

By doing so he portrayed his faith as being bigoted, intolerant, hypocritical, close minded, and hateful. There isn't any way to count the number of people he turned off of Christianity or the number of gays he inspired to organize. But I wish I had a nickel for each of them.

Newt Gingrich to Run?

From ABC:
Gingrich Says There Is a 'Great Possibility' He Will Run for President

May 14, 2007

Newt Gingrich for president? It could happen.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America," the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a "great possibility" that he would run for president.

He will make that decision sometime in the fall. Sawyer noted that previously Gingrich had only said he was "thinking about" a run for president.

"You said you'll make a decision at the end of the September,{is it} more likely, less likely this morning? Sawyer asked Gingrich.

"I think right now, it is a great possibility," Gingrich said. more

In the interest of full disclosure allow me to say this; I dislike Newt Gingrich more than any former American politician currently alive. I have difficulty referring to him without prefacing his name with "that piece of @#%$" But I'll try to be objective here.

Either he's just trying to stay in the limelight or he's gone bonkers. He has waaaay to much immoral baggage to ever be the president. Case in point from Salon.com:

"The most notorious incident in Gingrich's marriage -- first reported by David Osborne in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 -- was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking.

Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted.

Six months after divorcing Jackie, Gingrich married a younger woman, Marianne, with whom he had been having an affair. They are still married, despite persistent (though unproven) rumors that Gingrich has had other dalliances." full article

(This was also covered in The Atlanta Journal - Constitution but it's in their archives which you have to pay for. )

I don't dislike him for political reasons. I dislike him because he's a hypocritical low life and a sorry excuse for a man.

If he runs it's either because he's nuts or thinks so little of the public's intelligence and values that he believes he actually has a chance. And in the highly unlikely event that he wins I'm going to have to start seriously considering the conspiracy theorists claims that either the government or aliens are putting mind control drugs in the water.

Legislation 101

H/T to Coyote Angry

Clip: 4 Years Later Mission Accomplished?

Meanwhile...




Republicans Buck Bush On Iraq Benchmarks

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 1, 2007; Page A05

Brushing aside White House opposition, Republican leaders in Congress said yesterday that negotiations on a second war spending bill should begin with benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and possible consequences if those benchmarks are not met.

Democratic leaders will send a $124 billion war funding bill to President Bush today that would establish such benchmarks and tie them to troop withdrawals, which would begin as early as July 1 if they are not met. The bill will arrive at the White House on the fourth anniversary of Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, when he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq before a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." more

Bill on Iraq to Be Delivered 4 Years After Bush’s Words

By NY Times Reporters SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JEFF ZELENY

Published: May 1, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 30 — Democratic leaders in Congress are planning a special ceremony on Tuesday afternoon to send President Bush a bill that sets timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The timing is no accident. It comes on the fourth anniversary of the day Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished” and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

The Democrats’ ceremony, featuring the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is part of the elaborate political theater at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue surrounding the Iraq spending bill, which is destined to produce only the second veto of Mr. Bush’s presidency. more

Oddly enough I think a recent interview of Jon Stewart explained what may be the real problem:




"The President says, "We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. "And, so what I'm going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children's children all suffer. So, what I'm gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad."

So, there's a disconnect there between — you're telling me this is fight of our generation, and you're going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that's gonna do it. I'm sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can't, because he doesn't have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country's not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart.





So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we're doing and really examine how it is that they've been waging this."

You mean the war isn't over because it is too risky politically to do what it takes to do the job right? But that would mean that The Decider is nothing more than a politician. Oh well, sometimes you have to go to war with the Commander in Chief you have....

In all seriousness though, how about we the American people take today and spend a little time to honour those that have fallen during the course of the war, decide what we really want our "leaders" to do, and then hold our elected officials feet in the fire until they give it to us?

Lieberman: "Bloggers Have Added Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity" To Politics

Courtesy of Think Progress by way of the GTL
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said recently on C-Span2:

"And I do think there is a larger message here for our politics. I think the public is fed up. They feel that both the political parties, mostly because of the primaries, maybe because of attack ads, the kind of divisiveness of the cable news coverage of politics, talk radio, the bloggers have added another dimension of vituperation toxicity to it. The majority of people are sick of it. They think our political system is sick. I will just end with this warning that if the two major — the fastest growing political party in america is that no party. people are registering as an event is because they are fed up with — they don’t see them in the two major parties and they are sick of the kerri, the partisanship and on civility and i think if the two major parties wouldn’t hear this going into ‘08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy. and watch out if that happens."

And ya know what? He's right. I don't like him as he strikes me as smarmy. But he's 100% right in this case. Many bloggers, most of talk radio, and tons of talking heads have poisoned the process of rational political debate. And the political parties have been more than happy to spew vitriol in order to turn out the base. If that weren't the case there would have been no reason for Unity 08 to come into existence.

I've blogged about this before and not much has changed since then. We now have the ability to pick and choose our radio, TV, and opinion sources so that we can effectively never hear an opposing voice outside of the comments section of our favorite blog. And in order to drive up their readership, listeners, and viewers too many media sources cater to that fact.

So despite my feelings towards Mr. Lieberman today I have to say, "Way to go Joe."

McCain Seems to Have Gotten the Message

I recently posted that the direction McCain had been going had me worried. However from his recent TV appearances he seems to have gotten his ducks in a row and seems to be back to his old no BSing self. Which is the only way he stands a chance of winning in my opinion. Take for example this snippet of his recent interview on Fox:

WALLACE: How would you fight the War on Terror differently than it's being fought now?

J. MCCAIN: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone.

I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some image problems in the world. I think that we've got to understand — diplomatic, intelligence-wise.

Clearly, in the area of, quote, "propaganda," in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning as much as — well, in some ways we are behind.

Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in the view of some — my view — may sometimes do a better job than we are.

At the end of the day, it's how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

WALLACE: Senator, you talked about torture. Former CIA Director Tenet now says that the intelligence that they got from harsh interrogation techniques against some of these big Al Qaida types, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the intelligence they got from them using, reportedly, things like water-boarding, extreme temperatures, was more valuable than all the other CIA and FBI programs.

Were you wrong? I mean, this is the CIA, former CIA director, saying this. Were you wrong to limit what CIA interrogators could do?

J. MCCAIN: A man I admire more than anyone else, General Jack Vessey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, battlefield commission, told me once — he said, "John, any intelligence information we might gain through the use of torture could never, ever counterbalance the image that it does — the damage that it does to our image in the world."

I agree with him. Look at the war in Algeria. Look, the fact is if you torture someone, they're going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

It's interesting to me that every retired military officer, whether it be Colin Powell or whether it be former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — everybody who's been in war doesn't want to torture people and think that it's the wrong thing to do. And history shows that.

We cannot torture people and maintain our moral superiority in the world.

WALLACE: But when...

J. MCCAIN: And that's a fact.

WALLACE: But when George Tenet says...

J. MCCAIN: I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior.

WALLACE: But if I may, sir...

J. MCCAIN: Yes, sir.

WALLACE: ... when George Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

J. MCCAIN: I don't accept it. I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history.

And so again, I know this for a fact, and anyone who's had experience with this, I think, that's — well, the people I respect will tell you that if you inflect enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to know in order to relieve that pain.

That's just a fundamental fact. And we've gotten a huge amount of misinformation as well as other information from these techniques.

In my opinion the only way McCain can win is to be unique not an older wiser version of W and thereby pull in enough swing voters to clinch it. The far right doesn't and isn't going to trust him and his major current hurdle is beating Giuliani in the primaries. Although he has one concrete advantage over Giuliani in that regard. There are no pictures of John McCain in drag.

Rumsfeld Resigns (Finally!)

And there was much rejoicing....

Rumsfeld to Step Down as Defense Secretary
Bush Taps Former CIA Director Robert Gates as Successor Wednesday, November 8, 2006; 5:06 PM

President Bush today announced he is replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, saying a "fresh perspective" is needed at the Pentagon to deal with the war in Iraq.
In a White House news conference a day after midterm elections delivered the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate, to Democratic Party control , Bush said he has chosen former CIA director Robert Gates to succeed Rumsfeld.

"Now, after a series of thoughtful conversations, Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that the timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon," Bush said.

Rumsfeld, a principal architect of the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, had become a major focus of criticism for Americans dissatisfied with the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. Democratic leaders, and even some Republican members of Congress, had called on Bush to replace Rumsfeld, who has been criticized by many military analysts for failing to dispatch enough troops to Iraq in 2003 and 2004 to combat the insurgency. More

Pardon my french but its about damn time. In my opinion Rumsfeld should have been long ago. And while his resignation may mark a new path that leads to victory in Iraq you'll note that I'm not holding my breath.

The DNC's Master Plan

Hmmm...It looks like the Dems may actually have a plan should they win either the house or the senate and its kind of ingenious in its simplicity; Propose poular legislation and then let the Republicans paint themselves as the bad guys by shooting it down and thereby cinching a Dem win in 08.
......................................................................................................................................................................

From the WaPo:

In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

All these measures command massive popular support. The reason they've not been enacted is that House Republicans have passed rules making it impossible for the Democrats to offer amendments to any significant legislation, thereby sparing themselves the indignity of having to choose, say, between the interests of their financial backers in the drug industry and their constituents.

Cognizant that they will owe their victory in part to the public's revulsion at the way Congress does (or avoids) business, the Democrats also plan to revise House rules to enable the opposition party to introduce amendments and to sit on conference committees, from which Republicans have routinely excluded them since Tom DeLay became majority leader. They also will ban members from accepting gifts and paid trips from lobbyists.

By bringing such measures to a vote in the House, and conceivably in the Senate as well, the Democrats will be in the enviable position of doing both good and well: promoting long-overdue policy shifts that the public supports and putting their Republican colleagues in a pickle. Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats. Should the Democrats win the Senate, Republicans will have to calculate the risks of filibustering such mom-and-apple-pie measures. These bills will also pose a conundrum for conservatives such as John McCain, whose presidential aspirations have not been clouded by having to vote on these issues.

Its so crazy it just might work.

New DCC Attack Ad

OK, I'm going to hell for this one:
.............................................................................................................................................................................
According to a political outsider the DCC plans on possibly running a new attack ad in all fifty states within the next two weeks:
.............................................................................................................................................................................
"Vote for a Democrat, we'll only try to raise your taxes, not schtup your kid."

GOP Spiraling Downward?

If you ever made paper boats and floated them down a stream when you were a kid you may recall that sometimes they'd become caught up in the swirls and eddies and begin circling and once that happened one of two things would occur they'd either build up enough speed to break free or they'd be pulled under.

It seems that the GOP's chances of maintaining a majority in the House and Senate this election year are about the same.

From the NY Times:

In Final Weeks, G.O.P. Focuses on Best Bets

Senior national Republican strategists who had been briefed on decisions made during the party’s internal deliberations discussed the overall strategic thrusts but declined to provide specific dollar figures, saying that would give too much information to the Democrats.

The decision involving Mr. DeWine offers the most compelling evidence so far that Republicans are circling their wagons around a smaller group of races, effectively conceding some Senate and House seats with the goal of retaining at least a thin margin of control when the 110th Congress is seated next January. Democrats need to win 6 seats to capture the Senate and 15 seats to win the House on Nov. 7.

Still, in interviews, Republican strategists said that the flow of bad news out of Iraq and the resignation of Representative Mark Foley after admitting he had sent sexually suggestive messages to teenage Congressional pages had soured the environment for incumbents and blunted the impact of a long-planned crush of negative advertisements Republicans had prepared to undercut Democratic challengers this month.

In one sign of the shifting political environment, as of this weekend, national Republicans were running advertisements in 29 districts; of those, 26 are held by Republicans and 3 by Democrats, though Republicans plan to begin running advertisements this week against an Illinois Democrat, Representative Melissa Bean. National Democrats are on the air in 30 districts, and defending Democrats in just 3 races.

“For a midterm election in the sixth year, based on historically the number of seats lost, you’ve got to play defense,” said Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We have the luxury of being in the majority, so all we have to do is hold our own.”

Mr Kim's Got a New Sabre

and he didn't waste any time at all in rattling it:

North Korea threatens war over sanctions

North Korea stoked regional tensions Wednesday, threatening more nuclear tests and saying additional sanctions imposed on it would be considered an act of war, as nervous neighbors raced to bolster defenses and punish Pyongyang.

South Korea said it was making sure its troops were prepared for atomic warfare, and Japan imposed new economic sanctions to hit the economic lifeline of the communist nation's 1 million-member military, the world's fifth-largest.

North Korea, in its first formal statement since Monday's claimed atomic bomb test, hailed the blast as a success and said attempts by the outside world to penalize North Korea with sanctions would be considered an act of war.

Further pressure will be countered with physical retaliation, the North's Foreign Ministry warned in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

"If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures," the statement, said without specifying what those measures could be.

President Bush called for stiff sanctions on North Korea and asserted that the United States has "no intentions of attacking" the reclusive regime.

He said he remains committed to diplomacy, but also "reserves all options to defend our friends in the region."

As Bush spoke, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Washington to hold one-on-one talks with Pyongyang, something the U.S. has refused to do.

"I have always argued that we should talk to parties whose behavior we want to change, whose behavior we want to influence, and from that point of view I believe that ... (the) U.S. and North Korea should talk," Annan said.

Annan also called on the communist nation not to escalate an "extremely difficult" situation.

more

Is he bluffing? Yes and no. Its important to keep in mind that Mr. Kim is a paranoid meglomaniac and as such isn't going to do anything that will jeopardize his way of life, his standing, or his power. However, if he thinks that he can increase any of those through military means he will not hesitate to do so. The question is how can world leaders deter him without fueling his lusts for for personal power, respect/fear, and image/fame/notoriety?

Look at it like this: He's paranoid that the U.S./World is out to get him thus he arms his country to the max and deveops nukes thereby increasing the World's wariness of him which in turn feeds his ego and his paranoia. Its a Freudian feedback loop and it will continue until he either dies, gets some meds, or implodes. He's not going to give up the global stage or stop creating problems any other way.

Anyone have a recipe for Lithium in vapor form?

An Open Letter to Donald Rumsfeld

I wrote this back in April but I never could the oversize gummy bears I was going to use to illustrate it. So if you could just imagine oversized gummi bears with gummi guts and armed with cocktail swords you'll be on par with my (and I use this term very loosely) "vision".

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

I recently read your article in the Washington post and I can say that I for one always had you pegged as a pragmatist rather than an eternal optimist. I am of course discounting the possibilities that you are A: a pragmatist who is completely delusional. B: actually have no clue as to what is happening in Iraq other than what certain aides, advisors, and defense contractors tell you which would make you a total tool. And I’m fairly certain you aren’t a total tool. Recently there have been numerous calls for your resignation due to what many believe to be mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I am, however, not among those.

I too believe that you have grossly mishandled the war in Iraq by:

1: Expecting 122,000 US troops to secure the entire country when your Generals said they need a force three times that size which in turn lead to the looting of Baghdad which has armed and financed Bathists and insurgents alike. This in turn led to an unimaginable increase in the amount of time, money, and lives that have been spent there.

2: Expecting the Kurds to join the US troops in liberating Iraq. After all Saddam Hussein gassed them only after an uprising we instigated but failed to support.

3: Cutting the State Dept totally out of post war reconstruction.

4: Failure to allow Iraqi police to be trained outside of Iraq in safety by non-coalition countries.

5: Your continuing failure to be honest with the American people about the situation in Iraq and the amount of time, lives, and resources that would be needed to secure a free and stable Iraq.

While others might add additional charges to that list, my list can all be directly attributed directly to your decisions alone. You have turned what was a decisive quick victory into a total clusterfuck. And whether by hubris or incompetence you have failed and then mislead, misdirected, and probably outright lied to the American people. In doing so you have dishonored your office, the American people, and the troops at your command.

Many rightfully call for your resignation and others call for you to be fired so that someone better suited to complete the mission can take charge. However, you have served your country both in the military and in public office. You have chosen to be a warrior. And so I call upon you to publicly apologize to America and then regain your honor according to the warrior’s code of Bushido. In other words, I call upon you to commit Seppuku (aka Hari Kiri).

Ordinarily I wouldn’t call for such an extreme measure however your habit of taking liberties with the truth makes it hard for me and many others to believe anything you say. And I feel that if you rammed a sharp piece of steel through your gullet and swished it around some on network TV (or even pay per view as we could use the proceeds to help offset the deficit or aid the families of fallen vertans) it would really work wonders for your credibility and add a lot of sincerity to your apology. (Also please be sure to set this up ahead of time with the networks so that your redemption is listed in TV Guide so I can set my TiVo)

“In the world of the warrior, seppuku was a deed of bravery that was admirable in a warrior who knew he was defeated, disgraced, or mortally wounded. It meant that he could end his days with his transgressions wiped away and with his reputation not merely intact but actually enhanced.” - Wikipedia

Now I realize that you’re not of Japanese descent so ritualized suicide may not exactly run in your blood. And while I am sure you loosely familiar with the concept you may be lacking specific knowledge about the actual process and so I have taken the liberty of making a set of instructions that will assist you in properly redeeming your honor by slitting your gizzard for all to see.

First you’ll need a short sword or very large knife. Traditionally seppuku was committed with a short swordy looking thing called a wazikashi. Since you’ll be wanting to dispatch yourself pretty quickly you’d have to get one from a sword master in Japan in theory. However I think that this would send the wrong message to the public and so a good “Made in America” solution would be a Bowie knife as they are approximately the same length.

Additionally you’ll need a second, meaning a pal, whose duty it will be to lop your head off so that you don’t suffer too much (traditionally called a Nogginator). I’m sure that Colin Powell would be all to happy to assist you in such an important matter. It’s your call. I’m just making suggestions here. Your second will need to be pretty handy with a sword and again because we don’t want to send the wrong message a vintage US cavalry saber would be an excellent weapon choice for your second.

First get on your knees

Then your partner gets behind you

Then you both “unsheathe your blades” (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist the quotes. I know its juvenile.)

Hold the blade of the Bowie knife with both hands and drive it into your stomach.
(Its important not to go crazy here, as you don’t want it poking out your backside)

Make a quick left to right cut followed by a quick upward one
(This will make a amazingly disgusting mess so don’t look.)

Now your compadre will mercifully begin a downward stroke with his sword which would then be followed by a muffled thud as your head hits the floor. (You’ll probably actually get to hear it. Is that like creepy cool or what?)

And presto! You’re instantly a hero to all!

Or you could just stop blowing smoke up America’s ass and do the damn job right. Whichever you prefer. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Dyre42

An Open Letter to America

Dear America,

America is sick. In fact we've been ill for so long we've forgotten what a clean bill of health feels like. Our diseases' symptoms are rampant corruption, influence peddling, and apathy that have rendered Americans almost senseless. What should be an outrage is now the status quo. Those that we have charged to lead this great nation have instead carved up this nation with the intent of selling it off to the highest campaign contributor. And we allowed this to happen. We even make jokes about it. But its not funny and it will destroy this great land if we allow it to continue.

Believe me when I tell you that I am not overstating anything. What your average American has failed to realize is that in addition everything I have stated that the current march of globalization will soon have our leadership beholden to foreign owned corporate and special interests if this is not stopped.

The good news is there is a simple solution. The bad news is that our current leaders, corporate powers, media conglomerates, and special interests will do everything within their power to make sure that this solution is never implemented. And what is that solution? Public campaign financing. Meaning that we, you , me, and everyone else pays to have our leaders elected that we ensure that our leaders are solely dependent on us to get into office, that they are answerable only to us. Right now as I speak campaign finance reform is being discussed on the hill and what you and I both know is they are trying to figure out how much they can get away with and still make it look like they've actually made real meaningful reforms. Right now they are figuring out which loopholes to insert into the law, how to maintain the status quo, how to line their pockets at your expense, and how to reward their paymasters.

Benjamin Disraeli former prime minister of Britain once said, "I must follow the people, am I not their leader?". If we call for total reform loudly enough and long enough they will give it to us. Its already happening on a state level. But it won't be easy. Pundits, talking heads, and media figures will rail against it. Why? Because special interests pay their bills too. They're just called sponsors instead of campaign contributors. And you'll hear the fans of these public figures parrot their words endlessly from coast to coast. You'll hear the words socialist and socialism bandied about endlessly as insults. Ignore them. This isn't socialism, its surgery. Because we have a chance to cure the cancer of corruption, take back this country, and give us a huge advantage over our competitors whose governments' corruption currently exceeds ours.

The new American system won't be a corrupt pay to play system. Business and special interests will have to plead their case and prove the merits of their ideas to get changes made. In the new American system you, your neighbor, your minister, and your high school economics teacher will have as much of a chance of being elected as any millionaire. And isn't that the way it should be? Shouldn't our leaders be elected because they have integrity, quality ideas, and the courage to back up their convictions?

And how much is this going to cost us? According to Public Campaign about 10$ per person per year. Its a bargain at ten times the price. The real question is how much is this current system of corporate fellatio costing us now? The cost cannot easily be measured. And it also cannot be measured in dollars alone.

"Look back at the bulk of legislation passed by Congress in the past decade: an energy bill which gave oil companies huge tax breaks at the same time that Exxon Mobil just posted $36 billion in profits in 2005 and our gasoline and home heating bills are at an all-time high; a bankruptcy “"reform”" bill written by credit card companies to make it harder for poor debtors to escape the burdens of divorce or medical catastrophe; the deregulation of the banking, securities and insurance sectors which led to rampant corporate malfeasance and greed and the destruction of the retirement plans of millions of small investors; the deregulation of the telecommunications sector which led to cable industry price gouging and an undermining of news coverage; protection for rampant overpricing of pharmaceutical drugs; and the blocking of even the mildest attempt to prevent American corporations from dodging an estimated $50 billion in annual taxes by opening a PO Box in an off-shore tax haven like Bermuda or the Cayman islands." - excerpt from Bill Moyers speech Saving Democracy

Is that what we chose? Were those our interests being represented? Is our country better off? America, its finally time to yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Spread the word.