Tar Heel Tavern #44

Tar Heel Tavern #44

This week's edition of the Tar Heel Tavern can be seen at Pratie Place. Don't miss Jane's offering of free downloadable Holiday music while you're visiting her site.

Bora asks:

How would mandatory blogging (in schools) affect the level of reading and writing among the kids?

Dave hopes that during this season, people will think about what it is to resurrect, and why it is important to allow others to resurrect.

_____________

Other Places

+ Because I enjoyed it so much and because it is tied in with the Christmas theme, I am linking Benny's post as an honorary Tar-Heeler.

+ I laughed at Rising Hegemon's spoof on Fox News' Christmas wars. [Related: "Five to the Egg Noggin" photo] This is waaaaay too close to reality! When I think of the American minds bamboozled by the 'fair and balanced' Fox News, I think: "Oh - the HumeHannity!" (credit for "humehannity" goes to Anonymoses).

+ A big shout-out to the community of Steubenville, Ohio today, for the work they've supported at the Unity Kitchen (Urban Mission) They're not even close to making ends meet, but they're doing what I consider to be God's work. Committed to serving the low income population without regard for age, race, nationality, gender, religious belief or other distinguishing characteristics, volunteers gave 52,868 hours of service to Urban Mission in 2004. The Steubenville-Weirton area of Ohio/West Virginia, posted the second to the largest unemployment increase (+2.5 points) in the nation in 2003. They experienced large declines in manufacturing employment over the year, contributing to increased unemployment. See "The Economy At A Glance" [US Dept of Labor]. In October of 2005 there was a whopping 7.4 rate of unemployment in the area with a
very sad and revealing -12.8% in the 12-month percentage change in Manufacturing. These are the kinds of communities in most need of government attention, and the thought of the recent "belt-tightening" news from Congress has to make this community feel like a noose has been tightened around their necks.

See a related story - The Glory and the Gutting: Steeler Nation and the Humiliation of Pittsburgh by Charles McCollester (director of the Pennsylvania Center for the Study of Labor Relations at Indiana University of Pennsylvania):

The steel rust-belt area from Youngstown, Ohio to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, centered in Pittsburgh and strewn with once mighty but now financially broken towns like Aliquippa, Braddock, Newcastle, Steubenville, Sharon, McKees Rocks, and Duquesne, is sinking into spiritual and financial bankruptcy. Workshops have given way to prisons and malls. Now gambling is hailed as economic salvation by the elites who presided over the region’s economic collapse.

My Uncle Billy Was a Real-Life War Hero

My Uncle Billy Was
a Real-Life War Hero

My Uncle William Johnson Hart fought bravely in WWII. He was a rear-gunner on a Boeing Flying Fortress (B-17). He was trained in gunner school in Nevada at what is known as Nellis AFB today. Former actor (and President) Ronald Reagan played a guy like my Unle Billy in a movie (short) called "The Rear Gunner." Billy's plane was shot down over Germany in 1943, the pilot was killed, and young Billy parachuted to safety.


My hero Billy

He landed in a farmer's field and was taken to a local home for questioning. As a child, I remember him telling me that the farmer was kind to him - treated him like a human being. He was sent to Stalag - Luft 3 in 1943 and was held prisoner there for most of WWII. (Stalag 3 was the setting for the Steve McQueen film "The Great Escape".) My mother was ten years old at the time and she used to tell me about the long, long wait and the anguish of her mother (my grandmother) - for nearly four months - not knowing if Billy was dead or alive. One day a letter came. More would follow, but there was usually a four-month lag time. Here is one of the post cards they received, written in February 1944; received (as my grandmother wrote on the card) in June of that same year:

February 20, 1944,
from Stalag Luft 3 Germany

Dear Mom,

I hope by now that you have received some mail from me. Everything is OK here and I'm feeling fine, hope you are all OK too.
Give my love to everybody and if you have some snapshots of the family I hope you will send them to your loving son.

Billy

Billy made it back home, but he died too early of heart problems just after he'd turned 50. He never let his years of imprisonment get him down. He always looked at the brighter side of things, and he said his German imprisoners treated him with dignity. Unfortunately, Billy realized part of the reason for his kind treatment by the Nazis was because he was white, Christian, and partly of German descent. Soviet prisoners received far more inhumane treatment, as did Jews and others of ethnicities or religion that were not to the Nazis' political "liking." It was beyond moral understanding that one human could treat another so discriminatingly - and so unjustly. Yet, he and his family were grateful that he was not tortured or killed. It was a paradox of injustice that Billy and his family grappled with for the rest of their lives (to this day, it's made all of us extremely wary of any form of discrimination or prejudice) - and it reinforced Billy's belief in the cause in which he was engaged.

I was not a strong swimmer as a kid. I remember how Billy once jokingly told me that if I fell into deep water, to sink to the bottom, then "run like hell." What a visual. I laugh about it to this day.

It was the saddest day of my childhood, saying goodbye to Uncle Billy. His was the first funeral I'd ever attended, and I loved him - the stories he'd tell - the cocky smile on his handsome face. While he was no superhuman martyr - he missed his family as anyone would - he never had regret for a day he spent in that Stalag because he felt that he was doing it for his brothers-in-arms and his fellow countrymen. He left a spirit in my heart for this country - and its people - that will never die. He left a hole where his bright personality used to be. I miss him to this day.

Munich Review

Munich Review

"We cannot avoid using power, cannot escape the compulsion to aflict the world so let us, cautious in diction and mighty in contradiction, love powerfully."

- Martin Buber

I went to see Munich - it's a powerful film. Steven Spielberg spins a cautionary tale about politics, hatred, longing, vengeance, cold-blooded murder, the great power of the bonds between Jews, a love for one's own immediate family, a reverence for the soul of Judaism, and the human side of the Palestinian and Israeli longing for home and place - all without offending. I think that's the part that requires a touch of genius - to not offend or harm Israel. It is a story about Israeli (Mossad) agents who were sent to Europe to assassinate Palestinian activists after the Munich murders of Israeli athletes by Black September terrorists at the 1972 Olympics. Even though there are reminders that it's not factually sound and that the story has been embellished to help make its point, it is the message that counts.

The message is a cry for peace - and art can be a great tool for convincing the public that hatred begets hatred - that every killing is answered with a killing and the cycle never ends. Reconciliation is abandoned and people hate one another more than they love peace. Children are raised to hate "the other" rather than remembering and respecting the virtue of the values, learned through faith and community traditions, that "the other" is really "us."

We are all brothers and sisters under the skin and beyond all ethnic claims - and land claims.

The troubles go back further than Munich - it's a tale as old as time. Jewish theologian and philosopher Martin Buber was aghast upon learning about the attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin early in the morning of April 9 1948, west of Jerusalem. Some 100 Palestinians (mainly old men, women and children) were killed when commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Lehi guerrilla groups, with the help of a small elite unit from the main Jewish defence organisation, the Haganah, led the attack. Buber called it a called it "a black stain on the honour of the Jewish nation" and "a warning to our people that no practical military needs may ever justify such acts of murder".

In 2002, the Guardian's Ann Karpf wrote:

Deir Yassin is important not only because it launched a cycle of violence and counterviolence (two days later an Arab ambush killed 77 Jewish doctors, nurses and medical students) that has been the pattern ever since, so that we can no longer tell what is a reprisal for what. But also because it has come to symbolise the Palestinian dispossession.

National theology and religious theology are never morally compatible. There will not be a logical spiritual reconciliation for many of the political decisions made by a nation's leaders in matters of national security. I think there is a danger when any nation uses religion or tribalism to justify murder. At the end of Munich, you see a haunting image. It is the New York City skyline, and the World Trade Center towers stand straight and tall. You get an immediate sense of understanding the consequences of politics; hatred; longing; vengeance; cold-blooded murder; the great power of the bonds between people of any one religious group, tribe, or nation; a love for one's own immediate family; a reverence for the soul of religion; and the human side of the Palestinian and Israeli longing for home and place.

Steven Spielberg has said this about his film:

"By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic stand-off we find ourselves in today."

French actor of Amelie fame Mathieu Kassovitz was my favorite in this film. He played an Israeli named Robert, who was a Belgian toy maker turned "explosive expert."

Talking God's Politics with Jim Wallis, John and Elizabeth Edwards

Talking God's Politics with Jim Wallis, Senator John and Elizabeth Edwards
Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth Edwards recently sat down and talked with author Jim Wallis about his book, God's Politics.
Go here to listen to their conversation. (It's the first of a two-part conversation).

You can discuss it here at One America.

Ritter Dismantles Hitchens

Ritter Dismantles Hitchens
A must-read.

Bob Geiger (Yellow Dog Democrat) met Scott Ritter and got to spend a few minutes with him after attending a debate on the Iraq war between him and neoconservative apologist Scrooge Christopher Hitchens Tuesday night, where he "dismantled Hitchens in front of a crowd of perhaps 600 people."

*A tip of the hat to Crooks and Liars

_______________

See Scott Ritter's transcribed comments from a November 17, 2005 appearance in Amherst, MA:

"No President is going to allow the national security of the United States of America to be held hostage by the United Nations, and, as distasteful as war is, the President has no choice but to engage in a war with Iran. That’s why we’re going to war, ladies and gentlemen. The President wants it......

This war, ladies and gentlemen, has a good chance of beginning in 2007. What are you going to do, peace movement? What are you going to do? Sit back and go, ‘oh my God, this is too much to think about. I’m going to hit the delete button and pretend that Ritter never spoke.’ Or do what others do? ‘Na, he’s a crazy wild man. Na, I’m not buying into that garbage. We’re just going to move on thinking that Iraq’s bad and they’ll never going on into Iran.’ Study the facts I’ve just put on the table. You will not contradict a single one of them. You cannot contradict a single one of them because they are facts. I’m not making it up. It’s all based on written and spoken statements made by Bush administration officials, past and present.

What are you going to do? Wait for congress to do the right thing? Congress has already sold out. Congress isn’t going to oppose this President. Congress has already bought into the notion of the Iranian threat. What are you going to do? One thing you can do is change congress, and you have a window of opportunity. The 2006 election may well go down in history as one of the most critical elections that this country has ever faced..."

Republicans Turning VA Benefits into Welfare

Republicans Turning VA Benefits into Welfare

Immoral government stretches its ugly fingers into Veteran's Benefits. War Vets should be honored - not just because they're walking around with one arm or half a face or a troubled mind - - but because they proudly and loyally served our nation!

Republicans are trying to turn VA benefits into welfare! With this type of thinking, we will soon be blaming our Vets for their own poverty, along with every other citizen we unjustly blame for being unable to find or afford their boots or their bootstraps, let alone pull themselves up by them!

From an opinion at Military.com:

....the biggest blow to veterans came when Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) was removed as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Smith was universally respected as a friend to veterans and a fighter for increased benefits, but strayed from the official Party line one too many times. Not only did he lose the chairmanship, he was removed from the Committee.

Smith has been replaced by Steve Buyer (R-IN). In his first few days as Committee Chair Buyer has managed to offend every veteran's group in the country. At a time when every veteran knows the VA needs more funding, Buyer said,

"I want to modernize the system. I am not a defender of bloated bureaucracies." Buyer then went on to paint a perfectly clear picture of the VA of the future: "Some of the veterans service organizations, they are having this belief that everyone should have open access to the VA system, when in fact I believe that the VA system should follow its core constituency and the intent of Congress when we laid out our priorities, and that was in fact to take care of our disabled and indigent veterans first."

This was NOT an off-the-cuff remark by Rep. Buyer. He was placed in his position by the Republican Party leadership and speaks for the Party who answers to the White House. Buyer speaks the gospel and gets his sermons right from the Top.

The most important part of Buyer's remarks is his deliberate "welfarizing" of the VA healthcare system. By telling us the priority of the VA is to care for "disabled and indigent" veterans first, he minimizes and denigrates the sacrifices made by ALL veterans. The VA was set up to serve ALL veterans including the "disabled and indigent." This careful positioning of the VA healthcare system creates the impression that the VA is a welfare program and veterans are just looking for a "handout." Also, it's easy to talk about the "intent" of a previous Congress when your goal is to undo what they have done. And the remark about "core constituency" is just plain outlandish. The VA serves ALL veterans.

It's no wonder they are reacting this way! According to Asheville's Scrutiny Hooligans, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month because of a growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War:

"By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” [My emphasis] The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam."

Cheney Puts Final Senate Stamp on Immoral Budget

"House Republicans are home now decrying the “War on Christmas,” their houses festooned with lights and pretty red bows. It’s hard not to wonder if their Christmas spirit is blunted at all by the big lump of coal they recently gave America’s poor and working families. Republicans have wished the nation’s least privileged citizens a "Merry Christmas" by whacking our already anemic social safety net system."

- Karen Dolan, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies [TomPaine.com - Tiny Tim v. Scrooge]

Cheney Puts Final Senate Stamp on Immoral Budget
Cheney Breaks Tie to Pass Spending Cuts


"Bah Humbug!"


_______________________



Jim Wallis in Washington D.C.

"Our basic moral principles tell us that caring for the vulnerable should be our first order of business before we provide more to the wealthiest."

- Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojo.net

________________

Senate Roll Call Vote on Deficit Cut
No Democrats voted "YES".
Kudos to Republicans who voted their moral conscience: Lincoln Chafee, R.I.; Susan Collins, Maine; Mike DeWine, Ohio; Gordon Smith, Ore.; Olympia Snowe, Maine, along with one Independent: Jim Jeffords, Vt.



+ The truth from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites:
Assessing the Effects of the Budget Conference Agreement on Low-Income Families and Individuals

+ Catherine Dodge/Bloomberg News:
U.S. Senate Approves $39.7 Bln in Cuts to Benefit Programs


+ LATimes.com: Spending Cuts Would Barely Trim Deficit

With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) slamming the package as "a bill Scrooge would love," all 44 Democrats and one independent were expected to [and did] oppose it...

...Much of the criticism of the measure came from groups speaking for the poor, the elderly and college students.

"The provisions … would cause considerable hardship among low-income families and people who are elderly or have disabilities," said the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Medicaid recipients, particularly those just above the poverty line, would have to pay more for their healthcare or accept fewer medical services. Some could be forced to pay as much as $100 for services that now cost $3, the center said.

For elderly and disabled Medicare recipients, the premium that covers visits to the doctor would be increased.

Heckuva job, Dick 'n Dubya.

The American public shares the blame for this immoral budget.

Our political leaders talk a good talk about alleviating the conditions that lead to poverty, but after election day, we see little action. Poverty increases in our communities by the year.

Pro-rich policies are passed by the Republican party, who have been elected by a majority of Americans who attend church services on a regular basis. How does that make sense? Was Jesus pro-rich? Is God pro-rich?

We hear a lot of empty talk about values - but what about the values being represented by this clearly immoral budget? Where are Americans of faith in this debate? There is virtually no discussion or debate in the public square about the moral values that would guide our Representatives to reconcile public policy with social justice. What good are values when we toss them aside?

- In the middle class churches today, what is being touted as good, noble, and lofty? Why are the poor so often blamed for their own poverty?

- Is the middle class so removed, both literally and figuratively, from the urban and rural poor that they have forgotten the importance of God's calling to serve the poor?

- We may never realize the full alleviation of poverty, but does that spiritually excuse us from trying to address such problems?

- Why are there literally thousands of references to poverty and/or serving the poor throughout the Bible, yet the Christian Right supports the policies of George W. Bush and his 'rubber-stamp Republicans?'

- What about man's propensity for social injustice, selfishness, greed, and prejudice? Why isn't the Church talking about committing to economic justice and reconciliation in our congregations and communities?

These are questions we need to ask ourselves - especially as the Holiday season is upon us.

"Peace on earth - good will to men?"
Not with this budget.

_____________


Note: The budget reconciliation measure must now return to the House after the Senate failed to overturn a Democratic point of order against the bill that makes a minor change to the legislation. After the House and Senate each pass a version of the reconciliation bill, members from each chamber will meet in a conference committee to produce a final bill. After both chambers approve this final version, it will be sent to the president for his signature.

"Wartime President"

"Wartime President"

Kevin Drum asks:

What is ‘wartime’? Is George Bush really a ‘wartime president,’ as he's so fond of calling himself? Conservatives take it for granted that he is, while liberals tend to avoid the subject entirely for fear of being thought unserious about the War on Terror. But it's something that ought be brought up and discussed openly.”

When we look back at the George W. Bush presidency, the word "wartime" will have had a suspicious tinge to it, just like the legitimacy of his election to the presidency in 2000 will always have an overshadowing of fraudulence. Learning about these domestic wiretaps has only increased the public's already skeptical (and ever-declining) view of the level of ethics and honesty in the government under Bush.

NYT columnist Paul Krugman [nytimes.com] put it this way:

"One way or another, the Bush administration will stagger on for three more years. But its essential fraudulence stands exposed, and it's hard to see how that exposure can be undone.

What do I mean by essential fraudulence? Basically, I mean the way an administration with an almost unbroken record of policy failure has nonetheless achieved political dominance through a carefully cultivated set of myths. The record of policy failure is truly remarkable. It sometimes seems as if President Bush and Mr. Cheney are Midases in reverse: everything they touch - from Iraq reconstruction to hurricane relief, from prescription drug coverage to the pursuit of Osama - turns to crud...

I hear right-leaning ideologues lately telling us to forget how the war was begun - and to look ahead. In other words, "don't look back." And yet, how can we forget that this war was, when all was said and done, completely unnecessary? How can we forget that fact when we hear Bush calling himself a "wartime president" every time he makes excuses for acting as if he's entitled to unchecked power - like a monarch or a dictator?

David Brooks tells us that

"...the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy..."

The "passions" of which he speaks revolve around the proven failures of truth - the bona fide trust-damaging acts of this "war president," in whom a nation NEEDS to trust, because it is paramount in a democracy to trust a commander in chief. It's all about sending our own sons and daughters to war - or deciding to risk our own lives under a "war president" whose integrity is all-important. We trust with the blood of our own families - the flesh of our flesh. I can't imagine anything greater about which to get passionate. How about you?




Tip of the hat to Joe Clarke

Why Did He Come?

A Christmas message from the National Council of Churches

Why Did He Come?
The answer, in His own words:



Rev. Bob Edgar
General Secretary
National Council of Churches USA

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

For the Peace of the World:
A Christian Cirriculum on International Relations

Is America God's Favorite Nation?

Headlines

Headlines

Bush

Anonymoses: Bush: “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” [so says John Dean]


Iraq

New Perspectives Quarterly: An interview with Madeleine Albright



The Year 2005

Swans: 2005 - A Year in Review

Mercury News: Best CDs of 2005

Seattle Times: Best Books of 2005

Christian Science Monitor: Best Fiction 2005

MSNBC/John Hartl: Best Films of 2005

SFGate: Best Music of 2005




Journalism

Brad DeLong: Dan Froomkin Writes to Jay Rosen

Larry Beinhart: Deconstructing David Brooks

Alternet Interview about Larry Beinhart's New Book: "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin."



Religion

Spero News: Christian peacemakers doubt Iraq war being won

Religion News Blog: Long-lost Gospel of Judas to be published


Entertainment

Tristram Shandy - A Cock & Bull Story
[review] - [trailer] - [movie website] - In theatres January 27th.

Peace, Poverty Mocked by Bushworld

Peace, Poverty Mocked by Bushworld
At Christmas, the biblical prophet Micah's words of of Peace, Love, and Mercy are betrayed by an unforgiving national theology

Christmas Spirit Mocked by World of War, Torture
by Caroline Arnold

Excerpt:

Wouldn’t President Santa announce Peace on Earth beginning immediately with an end to bombing Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops? Wouldn’t he stop all torture without exception. Wouldn’t he take responsibility for reducing our WMDs and addressing global warming? And wouldn’t he call for a Christmas amnesty for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in the CIA’s secret prisons?

If Santa’s elves were in Congress wouldn’t they hear the angels’ song of Peace on Earth, and seek mercy for the poor and oppressed instead of tax cuts for the rich and war for the victims of tyranny?

With Santa leading the free world wouldn’t the Great Kings of Oil, Pharmaceuticals and Finance want to bring substantial gifts to the least among us – adequate food, clean water, medicine for AIDS, malaria and preventable diseases, technology/tools/ information, renewable energy supplies, stable livelihoods, sustainable ecologies, and self-determination?

And wouldn’t all of us poor shepherds pitch in to make sure all children on earth had homes, healthy air, water and food, education, and hopes of things Bright and Beautiful?

Do justice, seek mercy, and walk humbly. It’s Christmas.

*Tip o' the hat to Carlos at Jesus Politics, who is bewildered and incredulous this year at the perversion of Christmas by George W. Bush.

Bush Press Conference

Bush Press Conference

Here's the official transcript.

Excerpts:

Most provacative press corps question:

I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

PRESIDENT (Downplaying relevance of WMD):

..I gave a speech prior to the liberation of Iraq, when I talked about a broader strategic objective, which is the establishment of democracy. And I've talked about democracy in Iraq. Certainly it's not the only rationale; I'm not claiming that. But I also want you to review that speech so that you get a sense for not only the desire to remove a threat, but also the desire to help establish democracy.

The President's hopes for 2006 (but don't ask him too much about Iraq, chump!)

Q: Looking ahead to this time next year, what are the top three or top five -- take your pick -- accomplishments that you hope to have achieved? And in particular, what is your best-case scenario for troop levels in Iraq at this time next year?

PRESIDENT: I hope the world is more peaceful. I hope democracy continues to take root around the world. And I hope people are able to find jobs...I want New Orleans and Mississippi to be better places...one of my hopes is, is that people are able to find hope and optimism after the Katrina disaster down there, that people's lives get up and running again, that people see a brighter future. I've got a lot of hopes, and I'm looking forward to working with Congress to get those -- to achieve some big goals.......I hope by now you've discovered something about me, that when I say we're not going to have artificial timetables of withdrawal, and/or try to get me out on a limb on what the troop levels will look like..
..Nice try. End of your try.

On the President Bush Oval Office Speech

"Deer Bush - We're listening,
our ears are poised for your
insightful new revelations,
but you just aren't speaking to us."

On the President Bush
Oval Office Speech

I appreciated the tone of the President's speech tonight, and I am one of those non-defeatist, sincere critics of whom he spoke. I think I'm one of few bloggers who have actually put forward a moral vision to counter my criticisms.

The speech sounded like a constant plea for us to believe we're not losing in Iraq. Which means we are losing in Iraq. What did the president offer to convince us we're winners in Iraq today? An admission that he has made life-taking errors and his word that he has learned from those dreadful mistakes. Soon, the Pentagon will ask for another hundred billion dollars from Congress. Was this speech worth another one hundred billion of our tax dollars? Not if you ask me. The Oval Office has proven itself to be incompetent.

President Bush needs to internationalize this effort - making his plan for the defeat of terror in this world a multilateral goal - a unified front with alternatives to military occupation rather than a unilateral war-only goal. This Middle East intervention was never meant for America to handle alone. We're currently looking at a small, well-paid coalition of limited nations that has grown smaller and will likely disappear in 2006. With that coalition dissipated, we are looking at a future of severely impractical goals for our troops to handle alone. If we love those troops and if we want their morale to soar, let's tell them they're coming home. Let's create a vision to end terrorism that the world will rally around. Let's talk about a success we can all get behind.

Until I hear a hint of that, President Bush's fine talk is vain - "like sounding brass and hopeless gain."

The use of Longfellow's "....the right prevail with peace on earth good will to men.." was insulting to my Christian sensibility. The sadness of this song reflected HW Longfellow's bitter feelings about the Civil war because it divided the nation (I wonder how he'd feel about our divided nation and the lack of peace on earth today because of America's elective war?) I don't think any of us should be using Longfellow's heartfelt words for politics- that's a cheap Christmas stunt. The song calls only for peace. Our nation is not at peace this year - not even close. We're being told to expect more death and violence.

_______________

+ Most blatant false choice:

From the Bush speech:

"My conviction is this: We do not create terrorists by fighting them. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.."

There's more way than one to reduce terrorism.


+ I thought terrorists hated a free society!?

From the Bush speech:

"Behind the images of chaos that the terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains..."

Judging from public poll results revealing a lack confidence in the leadership of the Iraq war, "steady gains" must not be camera-friendly or ratings-worthy. Say! What was all that embedded journalism about - if not a creation for cameras? Whatever happened to the embedded stories?


+ Most false political labeling:

From the Bush speech:

"Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts..."

Most dissent about this war has been intelligent, concerned, and constructive. For example, there is nothing partisan about a Roman Catholic who trusts the Pope's leadership in saying this war was immoral and unjust. There is nothing defeatist about understanding the cause in which the nation is engaged, but expecting a moral and civil approach to that engagement. There is nothing defeatist about searching for alternatives to "the course." On Monday, Dec. 19, the president said to a member of the press corps who asked about the government spying on its citizens (FISA):

"If I were you I'd be asking these questions, too."

If that's true, why does he turn around and call those who ask similar questions "defeatists?" It's nothing but politically disingenuous.

+ President Bush: It's not "what you'll allow"..it's HOW you'll do it!

From the Bush speech:

"To retreat before victory would be an act of recklesseness and dishonor, and I will not allow it...."

I'm certain that Republican Senator John Warner would disagree with this statement. The word "victory" may come back to bite the President in the butt.

From a great PBS discussion on November 30th:

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe then, Senator, if I hear you correctly, that forget this word "victory" and substitute "successful mission"?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, that's just one senator's view. I guess I've been around too long and been in too many experiences over the past half century...The last real victory was World War II. I was a young sailor then in the training phases of that war. And I remember the outpouring after VE Day and VJ Day into the streets of America and the parades. But then I also served in Korea with the Marines. And I remember coming home and people really didn't want to know where we were.

There's an honest debate in this country about how we got into this war and how we have failed to achieve success in many missions. Bush says he's changing his strategy and tactics as he learns from mistakes on the ground. It's not "what he'll allow" that's important, but HOW he'll achieve success in various missions.


+ Victory is a word that no two people can define in the same way when they speak about our engagement in Iraq.

From the Bush speech:

"Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory, and that is the road that will lead them home..."

Senator Jack Reed commented on November 30:

"...this notion of a complete victory is too amorphous. I think it's too amorphous for the military commanders. They want an objective that is clear-cut, that is in some respects measurable. And the president alluded to that in some respects when he talked about a stable country, one that's not going to collapse because of internal division, and one also that's not going to offer a haven to terrorists.

Those are I think more achievable objectives but once again it undercuts the president's more grandiose theme of this democratic transformation of the Middle East. But I think that's a more clear-cut objective. I think you can plan for that. I think also you can dedicate resources. And I also agree with the chairman in that this is not just a military strategy. It has to have an economic component and it has to have a political component. We've made progress, but I don't think we've made the kind of progress in the political field and the economic field that is going to complement our military efforts...

...there's still a huge challenge. And that challenge is not so much technical training. It's building a reliable, professional corps of leaders that will support the government of Iraq and not be swayed by sectarian or community issues because of the nature of Iraq.

Rep John Murtha in an interview with Laura Rozen on "victory":

There are only two positions—the president’s position and my position. Whatever else is in-between. We have 96 congressmen on the resolution [calling for redeployment]. I sent a nine-page letter talking about why I decided to do this, and how strongly I feel about it. They had no hearings. They keep trying to undermine what I’m doing with rhetoric and false resolutions—the resolution on floor today [Friday]—I want them to address this from a standpoint of substance, of experience. I believe that the policy of the president—total victory—is not a policy. I believe that is a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion. And I believe that there’s no end to it, that we will be there 10 to 15 years.

Look at this question from a Bush press conference on December 18th, the day after his Oval Office speech. Look at how the word "victory" is used, and look at Bush's reasoning for staying.:

Q: Mr. President, you said last night that there were only two options in Iraq -- withdraw or victory. And you asked Americans, especially opponents of the war, to reject partisan politics. Do you really expect congressional Democrats to end their partisan warfare and embrace your war strategy? And what can you do about that to make that happen?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I said that victory in Iraq is much larger than a person, a President, or a political party. And I've had some good visits with Senate and House Democrats about the way forward. They share the same concerns I share. You know, they want our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but they don't want to do so without achieving a victory....there are some in this country that believe, strongly believe that we ought to get out now...It's a wrong strategy, and I'd like to tell you again why...democracy is hopeful and optimistic...I can't think of anything more dispiriting to a kid [American troop] risking his or her life than to see decisions made based upon politics...it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. It just says, wait them out; they're soft, they don't have the courage to complete the mission -- all we've got to do is continue to kill and get these images on the TV screens, and the Americans will leave...

Soldiers do not concern themselves with politics. They fight for their friends, they concentrate on their mission. If we told them they were coming home today, they'd rejoice. Democracy is hopeful and optimistic, but Bush's strategy in Iraq has not inspired hope or optimism in America, more importantly, he has failed to engender his citizens' trust, and the last time I checked, he was the leader of a nation called America. The false choice surrounding the macho fear-mongering "we're soft - they'll wait us out.." and "this is bigger than politics.." will be laughable when we start drawing down our troops in another year, anyhow..leaving Iraq in chaos. Even Donald Rumsfeld was man enough to admit that the insurgency will last at least another twelve years.


+ Hope vs. truth in the face of civil war in Iraq

From the Bush speech:

"...this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."

The recent elections represented hope. Hope is a powerful thing. Can hope overcome a bitter reality that looms heavy over a population? Imagine a national referendum on slavery in 1857 America. Imagine the numbers of Americans coming out to vote their passions (one way or the other - for or against slavery). Would this have stopped secession? Would it have 'headed off' the Civil War in America? I doubt it seriously. As sure as you're born, there is a great civil struggle coming in Iraq. This will mean Middle East instability. This will mean an extended U.S. presence - perhaps a permanent presence. We have a new embassy in Iraq, and we have suspicions that Bush and company has no plan to end a military presence in that nation.

General George Casey recently said:

There is much work to be done in 2006 as the new Iraqi political leaders settle in, Casey said. The government has to form, he said, and “take the reins and get on with governing.” The Iraqi government will face difficult political and economic challenges not only in 2006 but also for several years thereafter, he added. [my emphasis]

On the political side, Casey said Iraq’s increasingly confident and competent leaders still must debate whether to amend the country’s new constitution and foster a discussion about the future of federalism. He said he expects such debates “to be heated and probably divisive.” .. The end of the string of elections in 2005 does not mean the insurgency has gone dormant, said the commanding general of Multi-National Force-Iraq. But continued political successes gradually will erode the potency of the insurgency, he said....U.S. and coalition forces will continue to carry out a dialogue with all the political and ethnic groups in Iraq in an effort “to continue to bring people away from the insurgency and into the political process,” Casey said.

We shouldn't doubt the good General's words. If we believe him, and there's no reason not to believe him, we are going to be in Iraq for quite some time - permanently, perhaps.

Why isn't George W. Bush telling us the truth?

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell understands that it is Bush's intention to have a military presence in Iraq for many years to come. According to the WaPo,

"Powell said the United States was widely unpopular around the world, saying "we have created an impression that we are unilateralist, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. I don't think it's a fair impression."

I would sit General Powell down and grill him on this point. Given real facts from current history, how can he possibly believe the world could see the Bush administration's position on Iraq as anything but unilateralist?


+ Another blatant false choice:

From the Bush speech:

"If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."

A false choice: Initiate an unjust war upon a nation having no links to 9/11 - or do nothing. Was this the only choice? If so, we have certainly come to the end of American ingenuity, creativity, and morality. The solution to alleviating terror is and always has been about winning hearts and minds. If Bush can't win ours with honesty and sound moral leadership, how can he ever expect to win theirs?

__________

Out there in the Blogosphere:

+ Blony makes some salient points, such as:

The single most important fact the President fails to comprehend is that there is no possibility of U.S. victory in Iraq because there was never any meaningful threat to the U.S. from Iraq. You cannot fashion 'Victory' out of arrogant, ignorant, unnecessary aggression. What's left is, how do we best clean up after the long series of stupid mistakes and let Iraqis get on their way to being however they are going to be?

They'll start by asking middle class Americans to foot a $100 billion bill while the richest Americans are asked to make no sacrifices - and are actually enriched. The only sacrifices in America today are coming from the blood of military families and the treasure from middle class pockets. This is not my vision of America - this is not the dream of our forefathers nor is it the promise of great men such as FDR.



+ My fellow writer at Syracuse Progressive, Fred Bieling, is a National Guardsman and a veteran of the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He says:

Did any of you caught the special on NBC about the troops from the 2-108th INF from Glen Falls? I'll be thinking of them as I make my rounds through the halls of Headquarters today. And President Bush, you have 6-8 months to get results. It's your last chance to get it right.

6-8 months.

What will we accomplish in that time? I predict that we'll see little reduction in violence in six months and we will leave Iraqis in chaos, regardless of time or what the President says now about leaving politics out of the equation. Who does he think he's fooling? He's the leader -and he's had one eye on the political calendar from the lead-up to the war until now.

By the way, I saw Tom Brokaw's special 'To War And Back' last night - and I think it was one of the best productions I've seen about the "connect" we need to make between the Iraq war and the real lives of the men and women who serve. Nate Brown's story was especially moving - and the thought of any of these men being forgotten for their sacrifices, in any way, would be a national sin.

I saved the best for last.

- "..we found some capacity to restart weapons programs."

- George W. Bush, 12-18-05

_ _ _



- "....I suspect that they have a pretty good idea if they had some weapons or not. This unearthing that this guy had something buried in his back yard for 12 years, I swear, it looked like a carburetor some redneck would have in his garage, and they put this thing up and we’re going to get blown up by this? It was buried for 12 years. I mean, they may have — as Vice President Cheney said right here in this chair, they may have a reconstituted nuclear program, but we sure haven’t found anything close to it yet or a nuclear bomb..."

- James Carville, Meet the Press, June 29, 2003

On A December Day, Union Station D.C.

The Sharing Session
By Marion Brenish
[from Chicken Soup For the Soul/Christmas Treasury]

"My parents, like yours, taught me to share, but it wasn't until that day in Union Station that I truly learned the meaning of that word..."

Read the story here.

From President Nixon to Iddybud

I've cared about environmental issues for quite some time. Going through an old family album, I came across this document from when I was about 15 years old (my son's age now).

Right Bloggers Cry: Freedom!(for G-Men Spying on Quakers)

Right Bloggers Cry: Freedom!
(for G-Men Spying on Quakers)

Atrios has tongue-in-cheek commentary about the right bloggers' odd defense of the startling revelation that the government is spying on good Americans:

Shorter Conservatarian Blogosphere
We are very concerned by the fact that people are exposing illegal acts by the government to the press.

Larry Johnson on Spying on Americans (and John Bolton)

Martin Garbus: Would Bush's signing the order to allow this kind of domestic spying without legal warrant an impeachable offense?

A citizen at DU recommends an investigation into the NYT for their part in covering up an impeachable offense, "willfully suppressing reporting on an outrageous, repetitive violation of the Constitutional rights of our citizens."

Karen Kwiatkowski:

Apparently, the White House over a year ago asked the New York Times not to publish the facts of NSA eavesdropping on American citizens. True to character, the Times complied and cooperated. But now that we know about it, the media, every member of Congress and every concerned American, should be asking "Is this Constitutional?" and "Is this legal?" The executive branch itself should be asking these questions as well. Further, the executive branch would do well to ask, in a business sense, "Is this worthwhile?" and "Is it cost effective?" and "Does it work to improve national security?" I'd like to think that, in addition to these questions, my old boss Michael Hayden is asking the very simple, straightforward, and ultimately the most courageous question. "Is it right?"

Katrina Vanden Heuvel: Spying and lying

Mark Schmitt (the Decembrist) on Alito and the Wiretaps

David Sirota: Bush's "Need for Speed" Lie Runs Into the Truth

A hilarious quote from Mark Adams [Dispassionate Liberalism]

And to the officials who keep rummaging through all the packages arriving at my doorstep, be aware that I haven't ordered any bomb making supplies recently, just a talking Scooby Doo and Barbie's Fairy Tale Palace. So keep your damn mits off my kids' Christmas presents, dammit!

Tar Heel Tavern

Tar Heel Tavern

This week's Tar Heel Tavern is up at Ogre's Politics and Views. I want to thank Ogre for hosting during such a busy time.

I don't know why it slipped through the cracks, but I did not link the Tavern from two weeks ago at Colonel (Kenneth) Corn, and this was his first time hosting.

Jane has graciously offered to host at Pratie Place on Christmas Day and she currently offers free daily holiday music downloads until then.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

"O Come, O Come Emmanuel"

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace

Portsmouth, NH: The Rev. Linn Opderbecke speaks of a spiritual 'disconnect' in his own community, and we see it happening everywhere. It is a call for spiritual renewal in this Holiday season.

"...We live in relative luxury. The sounds of war, if we hear them at all, are a very distant rumble. Hunger, malnutrition, disease, injustice, drought are all very well hidden from our daily routines. We disperse the darkness by turning on a switch.

When we sing "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" we do not sing these words out of desperation and hopelessness. In fact if we are honest with ourselves, we have to probably admit that usually we don’t want Emmanuel to come at all. We are not anxious to have a fulfillment of all the prophesies just yet.

Instead we look forward to the coming of Santa Claus with his presents and gifts. We look forward to year end bonuses and increases in our income. We look forward to parties and festivities, to big meals with family and friends. Most of us live a very privileged life.

Yet in spite of our relative prosperity; in spite of our peaceful, secure lives; in spite of all that we have; we recognize an emptiness deep within. We are fearful of losing what we have, we covet and desire more. Still we are haunted by a sense that more and newer does not necessarily mean better. Intuitively we know that emptiness deep within us can never be filled with whatever is under our Christmas tree.

I lost my beloved mother just before this year's Holiday rush began. If anyone can fully understand the lesson about the emptiness that bares itself when something - somone irreplaceable is lost, I'm afraid that I am this season's poster-child.

Have you ever wished you could give away every material possession just to have one more moment with a loved one that you cherished? Are you fully appreciating the family and friends who have cared for you?

Can you look, with pride, into the eyes of a homeless man on your city's busy street corner who is holding a sign asking for work - knowing you've done everything you could do to guide him from his poverty?

Do you feel comforted, seeing your own children attending a private school, Ivy-league college, or homeschooling session - saying "Thank God they're safe and well taken care of.." - while you guide your government to take more money and more resources away from the public schools, where many children who do not have the same opportunities are left behind?

Do you care about the future society in which your children will live and work when you are gone from this world? Do you believe things will magically take care of themselves - or do you think you should play an active part?

Have you snagged a new XBox 360? Is it sitting under your Christmas tree while you pass by the Salvation Army bell-ringers without so much as a glance? Have you noticed the poorer neighborhoods in your community, or do you take pains to steer clear of that side of town in your travels?

What will your New Years Resolution be? To lose a few pounds? To be nicer to your mother-in-law? What about the lonely elderly widower who sits in the house two doors down from you? Have you reached out to anyone lately?

Possessions have their proper place in our earthly enjoyment, but do not forget what truly matters when all material possessions are swept away. There's an emptiness not only in our own souls, but in our society today. Our political leaders seem to have emptied all of our commonly-held values out of their agenda, leaving the poorest to fend for themselves and setting a poor moral example for the people of this nation. Rhetorical appeals are made to the lowest common-denominators of fear, blame, and stereotyping in order to promote a political agenda that is not of a positive or moral change, but of a self-interested enrichment.

It will have to be up to the spiritual (interfaith) community to work, as one, to turn things around. When we sing "O Come O Come Emmanuel," let's sing it like we mean it. Sing it with the human desperation that we feel, through empathy and compassion for our fellow brothers and sisters. Acting for social justice may be the only way that hope will be returned to the hopeless. I recently wrote that...

It is only by embracing
our own state of brokenness
that we are able reach out with compassion in faith and hope to others..

When we placate and sedate our brokenness with material possessions and riches, it's not much different than being attracted to all those prescription drug ads displaying pretty fields of flowers and smiling, satisfied, successful people - or self-medicating with alcohol or drugs. What we bury and forget is lost. The fruit of the love that God intended for us to keep in our hearts never ripens when we forget the lessons of the prophets.

Don't be afraid, in your inner meditation, to go naked. You will not be able to see your brother or sister's human pain, nor will you be capable of compassion, until you consciously admit your own human pain.

I wish you love, and I wish you joy this Holiday season. Most of all, I wish you peace. May you find the true calling of your hearts. In the words of rock singer Jackson Browne:

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For I`ve no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

What's on Your Fridge?

What's on your fridge?

Some of the things I've got:



- A Christmas shopping list
- A profound quote ;)
- A magnet
- My favorite American patriots


-

People Magazine: Elizabeth Edwards Named Newsmaker 2005

People Magazine: Elizabeth Edwards Named Newsmaker/2005

According to the One America Committee blog, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Senator John Edwards, will be featured in a People Magazine feature titled Newsmakers of the Year. Congratulations, Mrs. Edwards.

Bemoaning a Free Society

Bemoaning a Free Society

"The only thing that the enemy has got going for them is the capacity to take innocent life and to get on our TV screens with this devastation that they cause. These people cannot stand free societies."

- President Bush, answering a member of the Press on December 6, 2005
[WaPo]

I wish the President would be more honest in his statements. Obviously, the insurgents in Iraq "can stand" a free society - at least to the extent that Americans can see the results of the insurgents' devastating attacks on our television screens, in our newspapers, and on our internet screens. They use our freedom to the fullest of their abilities. It's also obvious that the President regrets that we are seeing these awful things. I regret they are happening, but I would have deeper regret if these things were hidden from the public in a world where freedom is paramount and prerequisite to justice.

Who is the one bemoaning a "free society" here, in this context?

Iraq Catch and Release

Iraq Catch and Release
The Quintessential Fish Story -
The One That Got Away

____________ _______________

Found!

A top-secret document has been found stuffed in the front pocket of a pair of soiled pants belonging to an Iraqi security troop named al-AhSheet Iletimgo.

It is the Iraq Security Forces' (Really) Rough Guide to "Catch and Release" techniques for Zarqawi






Satire

Edwards is Right About A Longing in America

John Edwards is Right About
A Longing in America

I read this statement while searching Google News. It's from a website called the Conservative Voice - an opinion piece by a Lisa Fabrizio. Why it rates "Google News" is puzzling, because it's no more substantial than anything you'd read on a blog. Since it's 'out there,' I have some things to say about it. Quote from op-ed:

Former VP candidate, John Edwards told delegates at a weekend convention of the Florida faithful that Americans would come together behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the common good: "There is a hunger in America, a hunger for a sense of national community, a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they all can be involved in." This statement illustrates a classic Democratic disconnect. In case Edwards hasn’t noticed, there’s already “something big and important and inspirational” going on; it’s called the War on Terror and it’s not only protecting Americans at home.

The only disconnect I see is the writer's own. It is Ms. Fabrizio's major 'disconnect' with the reality that exists today at the very center of American hearts and minds. Any recent poll will tell us that Americans are not inspired and are extremely skeptical, at best, about this war in Iraq. I believe that Senator Edwards is correct - Americans come together when they are inspired by an issue that they care about as a common people. Controversial, unjust and morally questionable wars are not something we have been spiritually enthusing over.

Our spirits govern our inner lives - and our values direct us to our respective political positions. My own spiritual leader at the time of the lead-up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul II, spoke firmly against the pre-emptive action. If anyone thinks that my spiritual values did not play a part in my overall opinion and dissent about the war, I'll tell them they're dead wrong.

Ms. Fabrizio insinuates that we "pander to the enemy" if we express dissent about this war. That is pure tripe, and I wonder what she would have said at the time President Clinton was leading the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and he received nothing but opposition from Republicans.

Our soldiers have fought and died from the time of the American Revolution for the right (and civic duty) of each citizen to participate in American democracy; our government is of the people (ask Abe Lincoln if you don't believe me); so I'll take this opportunity to tell Ms. Fabrizio she's full of hot air. *I'd use juicier words, but I'm a nice Christian girl.*

Ms. Fabrizio also insinuates that dissent is more about "disdain" for a President. I believe this overly simplistic type of thinking is either willingly blind or journalistically ignorant - maybe both. Dissent is actually about the very real and admitted failures - and some still unadmitted but obvious mistakes - of the President. Disdain for the results of President Bush's mistakes is a reasonable option, but is not required to prove the real failures of leadership.



If this President was right on Iraq - and if he was an inspiring leader on Iraq, you would never be seeing stories like this.

Senator Edwards is right about a longing in America. Divisive op-eds might make a writer popular with a certain partisan crowd, but its appeal won't reach over party lines and convince any moderate American who can see the forest for the trees on the misleading way the Iraq war was begun - and the failure of strategy that followed - and the very real lives that were taken in between. If anyone thinks that is inspiring, they need to call a therapist - and fast.

Headlines

Headlines

- Quote of the Week from the Crisis Papers, by Steven Laffoley:

"While the Self-Righteous-Right wonders where the King's mojo may have gone, the sane center of America - the vast majority of folks now - all know the truth: the administration's endless, blundering incompetence intertwining seamlessly with the administration's contagious, contemptible corruption has sealed the King's doom."

Gary Hart in a brand new Buzzflash interview:

"I’m not "uncomfortable" with the way Jesus is being tossed around – I’m angry about it. I’d go well beyond discomfort. I think the religious right is making Jesus into some kind of Old Testament wrathful prophet who is judgmental, divisive, and opposed to any notion of liberalism, whereas the teachings of Jesus tell quite a different story. He was tolerant. He was forgiving. He preached love, not hate. In many ways, the literal reading of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, particularly not filtered through the later apostles in the New Testament, but the literal teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, are almost totally at odds with the teachings of the present-day religious right."

ON YESTERDAY'S ELECTIONS IN IRAQ

While I understand and appreciate Andrew Sullivan's optimism, it seems unbridled - a bit too sunny on the side of a hoped-for victory in Iraq for which no two people seem to have the same definition.

Juan Cole comments:

It is not actually a positive sign for the Americans that Sunni Arabs came out to vote in order to get rid of them, to see if they couldn't get rid of the current pro-American government, to underline that the armed struggle will continue, and to prove that Sunni Arabs (20% of so of the population) are a majority of the country! The American faith that if people go to the polls it means they won't also be blowing things up is badly misplaced.

William Rivers Pitt looks at facts existing on the ground:

This election will be no panacea, despite what the hopefuls think. Every electoral model has the Shia and Kurds assuming dominant positions in the Iraqi government. Even if every Sunni in Iraq goes to the polls, they make up only 20% of the overall population. Electoral formulas meant to enhance Sunni power within an Iraqi government will still leave them deeply in the minority. A collection of leading Sunni parties called the Iraqi Consensus Front has been pushing a straightforward slogan: "Our goal is to get the invaders out and rebuild the country." If their minority status prevents the Sunnis from achieving their first goal according to their wishes, they may well return to violence to achieve their second goal. A leaflet was broadly distributed in the Azamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad last Monday. Sunni Arabs may have a chance to advance their cause politically in the upcoming elections, read the leaflet, but "the fighting will continue with the infidels and their followers."

Julian Hall [Independent UK] reviews comedian Jon Stewart at the Prince Edward Theatre in London.

To a remark about Americans being stupid for letting Bush back in, he put Blair in the frame: "It's a pleasure to come to a country where they never made the wrong choice!"

Concern About the Integrity of Our Voting System:

"The evidence of voting fraud and election theft is no secret – it is out in the open for all to see who are willing to see....The response of the mainstream media in the face of all this? Total silence....The response of the Democratic Party? Total silence...The response of the media and the Party to the GAO report report validating the concerns of the critics? More silence.Why!? [Ernest Partridge Essay]

Former President Jimmy Carter has said that he doubts that the U.S. military will ever completely pull out of Iraq.

"There has never been a single declaration among the higher levels of government now that we ever intend to withdraw completely our military forces from Iraq," Carter told reporters, according to The Times Herald-Record. "My belief, and it may be erroneous ... is that the top leadership in this country intends 20 years from now, 50 years from now, we'll still have a major military presence in Iraq." - [AP]

I don't doubt that this is true. What are we supposed to think about that?


The Latest Gallup Poll Results:

- Do you think the United States will -- or will not -- be able to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq? - 55% say No.

- Candidates who would be most likely to be supported by registered Democrats for the Democratic nomination for President in the year 2008:

Clinton: 43%
Edwards: 15%
Kerry: 15%
Biden: 8%

- Same question for registered Republican voters:

Rudy Giuliani: 30%
John McCain: 22%
Rice: 18%
Allen: 7%

Bush and the Irrelevance of WMD

Bush and the Irrelevance of WMD

At Think Progress, Judd points out a Bush flip-flop on the relevance of WMD, which is really not much different than The New Republic's June, 2004 flip-flop on the relevance of WMD.

Bush knows he'll have Democrat Joe Lieberman behind him on this. (Roll your eyes if you must - but you know it's true.)

Don't get me wrong - I know how disgusted you feel when you see this man, Mr. Bush, telling you that he thinks that WMD is irrelevant because his final rationale, the only one left that he could peddle to the public, is a suitable moral replacement.

Americans will either buy his final rationale for war after all the hype and misleadings about WMD - or they won't. I believe that only luck will save Bush on Iraq now, and let's face it - luck hasn't been with him so far. The more casulaties we'll see, the less support and benefit of doubt Bush will be given by the American public for "staying the course."

Progressive Christians in the News

from sojo.net

“The monologue of the religious right is finally over and a new dialogue has begun.”

- the Rev. Jim Wallis, author of 'God's Politics - Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It'

Progressive Christians in the News
Their Voices Grow Stronger by the Day


Jim Wallis, leader of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, has said that "some of the best conversations occur behind bars." He may have had some interesting conversations yesterday. He was arrested in Washington DC, along with 115 religious activists "who were protesting a House Republican budget plan's cuts in social programs when they refused to clear the entrance to a congressional office building Wednesday." [WaPo]

Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a Christian group active in politics, said Monday that protesters will pray for “a change of heart” by Republicans, citing Old Testament prophet Isaiah, “Woe to you legislators of infamous laws … who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.” - SFGate

See video of the event in the following formats [Sojourners]:
+ WindowsMedia
+ RealPlayer
+ QuickTime
+ iTunes download

See photos and reflections of vigil participants


Special feature at Sojo.net:

Why I Got Arrested this Advent Season
by Christa Mazzone

"More than anything, I'm risking arrest this Advent season because I have hope. And hope is what Advent is all about."

In the Chicago Tribune's political-minded report, Frank James says there was a`Christmas scandal' outcry when hundreds of Christian activists gathered in D.C. to protest bills granting tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing programs for low-income people:

Wallis and other progressive religious leaders who believe the poor have received short shrift hope that, by emphasizing the religious obligation to help the poor, they can reframe the debate....At the same time, that might help lift the fortunes of Democrats who voters say are more concerned with poverty than Republicans are, but who have suffered political defeats because their party is perceived as being less hospitable to people of faith. In the last two presidential elections, Democrats lost - by significant margins - voters who considered themselves deeply religious, and this has been an issue many in the party said must be addressed if Democrats are to return to power in Congress or the White House.

More on the Washington protest from Townhall.com:

"...when asked by Cybercast News Service whether he was urging the government to promote Judeo-Christian values, [Rev. Raymond]Rivera said he was not. "What we're saying is that ... whether you have a religious tradition like many people here do, or just come out of a human tradition, we don't think the country should balance its budget on the back of its most vulnerable citizens."

Related Blogpost with many links - Where in the World is . . . James Dobson?

John Longhurst at the Winnepeg Free Press talks about Faith and Personal Cost:

"....getting arrested for an act of civil disobedience in North America isn't remotely similar to what has happened to the four Christian Peacemakers Teams members in Iraq. But it reminds us all that following conscience and acting on conviction sometimes has a cost. For a few, it could mean putting life on the line."

CantonRep.com - Liberals of faith speak up

P.E.A.C.E. - Plant churches, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation – is a global church-to-church plan to mobilize Christians to fight against the five “Global Goliaths.”



Replies From Rightwing Christian Organizations, Who Were Noticeably Absent

The GOP News reports:

Carrie Gordon Earll, spokesperson for Focus on the Family, told Cybercast News Service that her organization did not take part in Wednesday's rally because it holds a different view of the relationship between the government and the poor. [my emphasis]

We can only assume that they think the budget is moral enough to suit their Christian fancy - and they must believe that the government has no responsibility or accountability for lifting the poorest in our society. In any moral sense, that statement is a no-winner. James Dobson and those in his his organization have shrunk back in the face of a value-challenge from Wallis and the other activists who protested in DC yesterday.

From the WaPo:

Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives 'know that the government is not really capable of love. You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy.'" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says putting the biblical mandate to help the poor into the federal budget is a "shifting" of responsibility.

What a cop-out!

A state may not be capable of "love", but as a body, it surely is capable of legislating acts that will reasonably alleviate poverty. Our democracy provides for the debate of all citizens. Every individual citizen is capable of debating their common spiritual values in the public square and each citizen has the right (and civic duty) to call upon the state to govern based upon those values.

This is certainly not "shifting responsibility!" It is enacting responsibility! At the same time, it is acting out our deepest faith to call upon our government for social justice. The Christian Right are speaking as if Christian-citizens are helpless losers who should stay silent on matters of politics - and we knowfor a fact that they do not keep their narrow set of values at the government's arms-length!

A fine example of the Christian Right's hypocrisy is from Wonkette, who quotes a 'Focus on the Family' spokesman in a blogpost deliciously titled 'Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born':

Focus on the Family: It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.

Wonkette: "In other words, poor people, if you're cold and hungry this Christmas, the right would love to help you. You'll just need to find a womb to crawl into first."

Will The Christian Right Splinter?

from New West Network:

[Pastor Ted] Haggard’s relatively open-minded stance [on gay civil unions] could signal a shift away from the radical homophobia of evangelical hate-mongers like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, writes Dicker in a Toilet Paper blog item: “[Haggard] could have even greater influence over Evangelical Christian public opinion than Dobson has ever had, particularly if they start moving toward the middle where many who now despise them as fundamentalists might be willing to take a softer view if they'd adopt a message of compassion toward gays.”

The Rev. W. Robert DeFoor, a Kentucky Baptist leader, is calling for "more moderate, middle-of-the-road leadership" in the Southern Baptist Convention.

"I knew that but I used my candidacy as an opportunity to talk about fundamentalism and issues that were dividing us. Too many Baptists have been too silent and cozy when it comes to the rise of fundamentalism. I decided a while ago I was no longer going to be silent and would never be cozy."

________________

A Worthy Cause

Some of my own family members will soon travel to the heart of the Appalachia to serve their fellow brothers and sisters. The Redbird Mission could use your help.

_____________

All I Want For Christmas

What I want for Christmas *hint hint* - SERMONS FROM DUKE CHAPEL: Voices From "A Great Towering Church. Edited by William H. Willimon. Duke University Press. 384 pages.

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

In today's speech, as always, President Bush will not commit to any benchmark or timetable in Iraq.
Bad news.
Bush has either misled us or he has screwed up royally on Iraq - maybe both - and I don't trust him to carry on without a crystal clear and decisive plan. I know am not alone. (59% agree). I view him as having one eye on the calendar for the American political season - and the other on getting out of the mess he created with some kind of honor.
I want a leader with both eyes on one America. We want someone we know we can trust. Trust is a major problem for Bush.

A lack of a focus on an endgame - the absence of a clear identification of the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them could mean a dangerous and unexpected end to a disastrous Utopian attempt to change the Middle East.

Bush saying he will mimic Truman's "persistence" to see Japan become a democracy gives me the shivers when I think about Japan's "path to freedom."

The Nagasaki-Hiroshima story reminds us that government deceit (even by good men) is hardly a recent invention. None of the officials involved in this tale had evil intentions. What can be said of them is that some became so taken by the power the atomic bomb seemed to give them to do good (as they defined it), that they seem to have become carried away...
The manipulation of the public by elites, the seductive belief that overwhelming force confers unlimited power to determine good and evil, and the fragile nature of the limits we seem willing to accept on our own prerogatives are all ongoing issues--as, finally, is the terrible question of what it means for a democracy to delegate to one person such extraordinary discretionary power in an era when the next Hiroshima could be the globe.

- Excerpted from: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
by Gar Alperovitz