Thanksgiving with the Murtha's

Thanksgiving with the Murtha's




Tip of the hat to Fred Bieling.

A THANKSGIVING PRAYER FROM THE IROQUOIS (SENECA) PEOPLE

A Thanksgiving prayer from my neighbors and friends, the Iroquois people of Upstate New York. All photos are mine - and they are taken of land that was once belonged solely to the nations of the Iroquois. When I walk the trails and forest paths, I can feel their spirits all around me. They were caretakers of the land, and we need to honor the ancient spirits by doing the same.



A THANKSGIVING PRAYER FROM THE IROQUOIS (SENECA) PEOPLE



Gwa! Gwa! Gwa!
Now the time has come!
Hear us, Lord of the Sky!
We are here to speak the truth,
for you do not hear lies,
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.

Now begins the Gayant' gogwus
This sacred fire and sacred tobacco
And through this smoke
We offer our prayers
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.



Now in the beginning of all things
You provided that we inherit your creation
You said: I shall make the earth
on which people shall live
And they shall look to the earth as their mother
And they shall say, "It is she who supports us."
You said that we should always be thankful
For our earth and for each other
So it is that we are gathered here
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.



Now again the smoke rises
And again we offer prayers
You said that food should be placed beside us
And it should be ours in exchange for our labor.
You thought that ours should be a world
where green grass of many kinds should grow
You said that some should be medicines
And that one should be Ona'o
the sacred food, our sister corn
You gave to her two clinging sisters
beautiful Oa'geta, our sister beans
and bountiful Nyo'sowane, our sister squash
The three sacred sisters; they who sustain us.



This is what you thought, Lord of the Sky.
Thus did you think to provide for us
And you ordered that when the warm season comes,
That we should see the return of life
And remember you, and be thankful,
and gather here by the sacred fire.
So now again the smoke arises
We the people offer our prayers
We speak to you through the rising smoke
We are thankful, Lord of the Sky.



(Liberally translated)
Chuck Larsen, Seneca

Bubp Backs Away From Schmidt

Bubp Backs Away From Schmidt


see ThinkProgress.com

According to Josh Marshall (via the NYT), the Marine colonel Danny Bubp who was "quoted" by Ohio Representative Jean Schmidt, bedecked in 'patriotic' red and blue with white stars on the floor of the House (while disparaging John Murtha) "feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."

In other words, he's backing away from what he'd said to his old friend "mean-Jean" because she's become a bitter partisan poison that the Republicans can no longer afford.

Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Vice President Dick Cheney claims that some Iraq war critics are 'dishonest,' not anything like good old honest Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff "Scooter" Libby allegedly lied through his teeth to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury to secure a roadblock to a complete investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and the smearing of her husband Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Former CIA official Ray McGovern has had Cheney's number for quite a while now. In the Downing Street Memo hearing on Capitol Hill last summer, Mr. McGovern testified that on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a major speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he told them:

"...we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

Mr. McGovern made a very strong accusation, saying that Dick Cheney lied about Saddam's son-in-law in that VFW speech. McGovern quoted page 13 of his own debriefing report which said that Saddam's son-in-law confirmed that all WMD were destroyed in July of 1991, at his order, to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them after the first Gulf war. A whistleblower had leaked this debriefing to Newsweek magazine as the Bush administration's drumbeat for war got louder. The article about it appeared in Newsweek on February 24, 2003, weeks before the war began. The story never got much play because the timid media supressed the story. McGovern said that a "supine press" eager to accept official explanations contributed to the facilitation of this war.

In the DSM hearing, McGovern talked about VP Cheney's personal visits to CIA. He said not only were they "unusual", they were unprecedented. McGovern said that he believed 'the best of the CIA' is gone from the department now. In the old days, you never would have seen CIA acquiesce to fixing the facts around the Executive's policy whims. Yet, when Cheney went to CIA and told them he wanted certain intelligence to take priority to fit the case for war, too many CIA officials became yes-men. In McGovern's time, he said most of the CIA would have walked out if they'd been presented with such a request.

VP Cheney needs some serious reflecting in his own mirror before he sets out to accuse others of dishonesty.

__________________

Cheney couldn't call Salon.com's Peter Daou dishonest in laying out ten pro-Iraq-war fallacies. See: STRAW MEN OF IRAQ

At TPM Cafe, Ivo Daalder asks a question upon learning that then-Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) had confirmed that there had been "troubling aspects" to the NIE presented to the Senate just before the Senators were expected to cast their 'Yes or No' vote on the Iraq Resolution.

Graham..confirms the point that the unclassified NIE released by the CIA only days before the Iraq vote bore little resemblance to the fully caveated classified version. But we, the public, of course did not know that....So why didn't those could have known call the administration on it? Is it because no more than six senators and a handful of House members bothered reading past the 5-page executive summary of the NIE before casting what may have been the most important vote of their congressional careers?

Todd Gitlin comments further.

Today too, the LA Times reveals in thousands of words that the Bush gang inflated ("bungled" is the authors' word) what they gleaned second-hand from "Curveball," the screwball informant who claimed Saddam had biowar establishments humming. Frankly, I can't keep up.
Ivo asks why senators who knew that the CIA pre-war public release version of the NIE was expurgated beyond recognition haven't said so. Good question. But it's not too late to yell bloody murder.

Related story:
CSM - Germany - CIA knew 'Curveball' was not trustworthy: German intelligence alleges Bush administration repeatedly 'exaggerated' informant's claims in run-up to war.

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

In the Jakarta Post, there is a thoughtful editorial on poverty - and how it breeds terrorism.

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak
"..there is much about Mr. Woodward's conduct that is disturbing,".. but....

WaPo executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. discussed Bob Woodward's recent revelation that he'd had a role in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak over two years ago (a secret for which Woodward has apologized). Mr. Downie carefully criticizes Woodward, articulating Woodward's reason for holding the secret as wanting to "avoid being subpoenaed in the Fitzgerald investigation and being forced to reveal his source." Here are excerpts from Mr. Downie's chat:

I understand that, but he nevertheless should have come to me and we would have decided together how to proceed. It is quite possible that if he had come to me, as he should have, we still would not have been able to publish anything if his source had refused to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement, as indeed the source has so far..
.. reporters should share with their editors significant information of his kind, even in a confidential source relationship, so that the editors can help the reporter decide what to do with it in the best interests of our readers, as well as making certain we do not violate a confidential source agreement.
..Bob should have told me about his conversation, even if we would have been unable to publish anything about it because of his confidentiality agreement with his source..
..Bob Woodward never lied. He failed to come to me sooner and tell me something he should have told me..
..In the future, I expect him to work within our newsroom's standards, as he always has except for these two mistakes.

Mr. Downie claims that Mr. Woodward has asked his source to release him from his confidentiality agreement. Downie says that he believes that Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward have "honestly different recollections of conversations two years ago." Downie asks that readers measure Woodward's exceptional record against his current error in professional judgement.

My favorite question came from Omaha, Nebraska:

Does Woodward always decide for us which information he feels we need to know? Does The Post approve of his filtering of information to your readers?

Leonard Downie Jr: No. His editors ultimately decide. That is why he should have told me sooner about this piece of information, whether or not we would have been able to report it because of the confidential source agreement.

The WaPo's ombudsman is less forgiving, rebuking Woodward for his professional reticence, saying that Mr. Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge. [CNN/Reuters]

John Edwards visits India

John Edwards visits India


photo: OneAmerica.com

The Business Process Outsourcing Services sector is thriving. Senator John Edwards recently traveled to India, and quite honestly, he told an audience of Young Parliamentarians under the auspices of The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India that increased unemployment in the U.S. creates complications and that many U.S. citizens are opposing the free-wheeling, job-crushing methods of business process outsourcing. Outsourcing companies in the U.S. are becoming more competitive and are earning 8 dollars by their outsourcing of work of 1 dollar to other countries - including India. (BPO IT laborers in India are considering unionizing.)

For Americans living abroad, asserting that the Democratic Party would win the next U.S. presidential elections, Senator Edwards opened a Democrats Abroad chapter in India.

He stressed that India and the US must cooperate closely to fight nuclear proliferation.

Senator Edwards intended to use his recent trip to India to underscore the need for correcting the poverty problem that exists, both in this country and globally.

“It was an eye-opening experience for me,” he said of his trip. Senator Edwards said stopping poverty at global and local levels can be accomplished with uniform political movements to capture the attention of politicians.

More can be read about the India trip from Josh at the One America blog.

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

The latest addition to my blogroll is Paul "the soaring" Siegel and his blog, which is called "We Don't Agree, But.."

Mr. Siegel has had a longtime internet presence as founder and administrator of the Learning Fountain. He gives inspirational speeches about vision; has given practical seminars on Internet marketing; and has taught computer subjects at universities, corporations and associations. He is currently speaking on "How to Live in a World of Terrorism." He is also an author and publisher. His latest book is titled "WE DON'T AGREE, BUT-How to Live in an Age of Terrorism" (See review here) Mr. Siegel expresses that, by being more cooperative, you, as an individual, can help reduce terrorism and at the same time achieve self-actualization. Whe are Americans afraid of terrorism? Mr. Speigel gives his thoughts.

Welcome, Paul!

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Senator Barak Obama gave a speech on Education on October 25, 2005 at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. It's been printed in its entirety at Mother Jones.

Video here.

Fact sheet here (pdf).

An excerpt:

Thirty or forty years ago, they [high school dropouts/non-college graduates] may have gone on to find a factory job that could pay the bills and support a family. But we no longer live in that world. Today, the average salary of a high school graduate is only $33,000 a year. For high school dropouts, it’s even closer to the poverty line – just $25,000.

If we do nothing about this, if we accept this kind of economy; this kind of society, we face a future where the ideal of American meritocracy could turn into an American myth. A future that’s not only morally unacceptable for our children; but economically untenable for a nation that finds itself in a globalized world, as countries who are out-educating us today out-compete our workers tomorrow.

Now, the American people understand that government alone can’t meet this challenge. They understand that we need to transform our educational culture, from one of complacency to one that constantly strives for excellence. And they understand that government cannot replace parents as the primary motivator for the hard work and commitment that excellence requires.

But they also know that government, through the public schools, plays a critical role. And what they’ve seen from government for close to two decades is not innovation or bold calls to action. Instead, what they’ve seen is inaction and tinkering around the edges of our education system – a paralysis that is fueled by ideological battles that are as outdated as they are predictable.

Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

John Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

If John Kerry is telling people that the election was stolen [see Democracy Now], why did he give up so easily and concede so quickly last year? Mark Crispin Miller says:

That was a real body blow to the democratic system, and it demoralized a lot of people when Kerry pulled out. It’s hard to forgive him for that. Why did he do it? Well, according to my evidence and I’ve got this in Fooled Again, Kerry was swayed by the brain trust around him. These are people like, you know, Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill – they’re, you know, Democratic Party war horses. I don't think they have a stellar record of winning campaigns, and I don't really understand how it is that they were hired to do this, but they persuaded him up in Martha's Vineyard that he should pull out, otherwise, he told John Edwards in his call, Kerry said, “They say that if I don't pull out, they are going to call us sore losers.”

Times couldn't have been harder for Senator John Edwards in November of 2004. He was faced with a running mate who wanted to concede the presidential election without so much as a question about the legitimacy of what happened in Ohio; he was faced with his wife being seriously ill with breast cancer that required immediate treatment.

Did Senator Edwards want Kerry to concede as quickly as he did?

No.

Mark Crispin Miller on Senator John Edwards:

"I spoke to someone, a relative of his who was with him when the phone call came from Kerry. This is this in the book, "Fooled Again." Kerry called him on the cell phone, and don't forget that Edwards himself, four hours before, had just been on national TV promising righteously to count every vote, got a big hand. Now he felt he was being made to look like a fool, and he argued with Kerry vehemently. He said, “It’s too soon, you know. Wait.” Kerry, you know, said this thing about how they will call us sore losers, as if that’s worse than the country, you know, going fascist, whatever. And Edwards said quite understandably, “So what?” You know, “So what if they call us sore losers?” I mean, they are going to call them names in any case. But it’s true, Mark is right, Kerry's caving in like that gave an enormous gift to the right wing. They could now claim, "Well, even their candidate doesn't think it was stolen."

Some people think that this is big news - and I agree. Why has John Kerry taken so long to say this? Why did he leave it to us bloggers and outsiders to hang with the heavy questions that need to be asked - making us look like conspiracy theorists for so long?

If Kerry thinks that the election was stolen, that is big, big news. And I think that it is very unfortunate that it took him 12 months to come around to that conclusion, because, you know, I want to stress this....John Conyers..was stonewalled by Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio and other officials, including the Triad Computer Company, who basically refused to answer his questions. Had he or another agency with subpoena power should go back and get that.. Look, this is the essence of our democracy. We deserve to have a persuasive answer to what happened in 2004. We probably would have gotten it if Kerry had shown the courage to say, on Election Day – on the day after Election Day a year ago what he apparently told Mark Crispin Miller the other night. If he had said then that “I suspect this election was stolen,” believe me, even the corporate media would have investigated this. It’s too juicy a story, but because Kerry dropped the ball there, you know, it’s now a year later, and it’s only the outsiders who are talking about it."

- Mark Hertsgaard, who has done an article in the current Mother Jones magazine, “Recounting Ohio: Was Ohio Stolen? You Might Not Like the Answer”

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

An immediate withdrawl from Iraq has been soundly rejected by the House in a 403-3 vote, and with good reason. Who in their right mind thinks we can pull out immediately, still being a responsible people who realize that Bush leadership has the Iraq war so FUBAR? I don't think GOP leaders have even tried to responsibly reach a consensus on what we should do to change the course in Iraq.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," [John] Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

From the "no-shit Dick Tracy" department:

"Congress in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run," White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in Asia, said a statement. Earlier Friday, the president called an immediate troop withdrawal "a recipe for disaster"

Duh. Scott McClellan must think Americans are really stupid. We need to have a real vote on a responsible plan with a timetable and an end game. The longer the majority Congress avoids getting down to the real work of accountable people working as true bipartisans, the lower their poll ratings will sink. Soon, they'll get a 100% no-confidence vote from the American public. Will they still be snarling and pointing fingers at Democrats then?

Representative Jean Schmidt from Ohio was protested, booed and belittled for her reprehensible and meaningless political hyperbole on the House floor yesterday. She looked like a total horse's ass to most Americans when she pulled out the tired "only cowards cut and run" line. What made her look even more disgusting was the thought that Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, who lost a special election to her this year, could have been the one up there speaking the informed truth in her place. Why do we keep electing these divisive idiots? What's worse is this - according to reports, GOPers now want — you guessed it — an ethics investigation of John Murtha.

...that, coupled with the GOP's manuever today in trying to pass off its own amendment as Murtha's (then backtracking), the campaign against Murtha, him being called a coward brings to mind the famous quote Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch made to Senator Joseph McCarthy:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

See: Moderate Voice

Let's look at the reality that the GOP leadership refuses to look at:

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple - either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optimistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don't think so.

- Larry Johnson

Being responsible adults (and leaders) means setting a timteable for moving our troops back home with a plan for international cooperation for the security of the Iraqi public, but this "immediate pullout or none at all" is a false choice and I'm sick of these bastards in the GOP hastily arranging false-choice votes that we all can see are politically motivated. It's a worn out tactic and they've beaten it to death. It doesn't work anymore. Partisanship must end here and now. The macho bullcrap about "cutting and running" gets us nowhere. When are we going to see our political leaders acting as if we are one America?

Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position - at their own political peril. They've come out looking worse than ever for f**king around with petty politics while our troops are risking everything in a disastrous war.

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

US Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will convene a new grand jury to hear testimony in the CIA leak case, which has already seen the indictment of L. Scooter Libby. See Jason Leopold's investigative report at Truthout. Sources say the evidence involved additional aides in the Vice President’s office as well as senior officials who were part of a clandestine faction known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up by WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August 2002 to "market" the Iraq war to the public via selective leaks to major newspapers about Iraq’s alleged WMD program. Reporter Bob Woodward said he'd first learned about Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity in mid-June 2003, during a time when Dick Cheney and his senior aides had gone to great lengths to find out her identity in the hopes of silencing her husband Joseph Wilson.

Let's get into Bob Woodward's head. Has he ever revealed his opinion about the cherry-picking of intelligence by Cheney's office? Yes, he has. In his book "Plan Of Attack", Bob Woodward had described a relationship between Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact. Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. That's a strong statement for Bob Woodward to have made.

Arianna Huffington makes an astute observation about Bob Woodward's questionable forthrightness:

In his spin, Woodward is trying to put a positive face on things by making it sound as if he decided to come forward and disclose his Plamegate involvement to Len Downie of his own free will (a claim Downie seemed to back up when he told the Post that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story). But a tell-tale excerpt from Woodward's appearance on Larry King the night before the Libby indictment indicates that he had to be prodded into coming clean.

See Arianna's dynamite collection of Woodward-related blog commentary.

"I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a White House that runs a media apparatus so sophisticated in discrediting its critics it makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight. (my emphasis)

The question now is: how will the Post handle the story?"

Bora on Blog Books

Bora on Blog Books

Bora at Science and Politics has some suggestions about turning your blog archives into a book.

What About Bob?

What About Bob?

At the One America website, Joe Clarke has a round-up of links regarding the Bob Woodward testimony and respectful speculation about who the mysterious leaker might be. See Who Done It?

Michael J.W. Stickings has a round-up of his own. He asks a rather amusing question:

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. As a friend put it today, this Woodward is pretty much the exact opposite of the Woodward of Watergate. Redford played him then -- who would play him now? (I'll take your suggestions.)

I'm thinking Crispin Glover à la the
wimpy 50s Dad in "Back to the Future."

Homelessness in Charlotte

Homelessness in Charlotte

There was a great radio presentation, a look at the challenges of hunger and homelessness on Charlotte Talks at WFAE this morning.



At a time of year when a warm home and a hot meal bring families together, they looked at those who can't take food and shelter for granted. Guest host Chris Clackum and a panel of experts looked at the process of feeding the homeless and homebound in the Charlotte area. They explored how food is gathered, warehoused, and distributed and who receives it. The panel, including a former homeless man named James White (who has written of his transformation from a homeless person into an educator), looked at just how close any of us can be to homelessness.

Related sites:
Uptown Shelter
Urban Ministry Center
A Way Home

Here is the audio archive link at WFAE.org.

There will be a "Help The Homeless Awareness Walk" Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 7:30 AM. The walk will begin on Spratt Street in Charlotte.

It's part of a nationwide effort to increase awareness of the homeless on our American streets and in our shelters. See Help the Homeless

Ending homelessness is possible. One of the keys to ending homelessness is increasing the supply of permanent, affordable homes for people with low- to extremely low-income levels. In addition to stable housing, such prevention and supportive services as employment training, substance abuse recovery programs, and mental health assistance are often needed to help families get back on track.

______ ______ ______


Breaking News:
$275M project planned near Central Ave
Prices could range from about $150,000 to more than $1 million

In related news, a modest apartment complex in a lovely neighborhood in Charlotte for those with lower-incomes will likely soon disappear in favor of a new buyer with bigger plans for more expensive housing units. The Morningside Apartment complex will soon be no more. I wonder just how much assistance the people now living in this lovely neighborhood will receive from those who would buy their homes out from under them and replace those homes with million-dollar condos?

How many more homeless families will this create?

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

A lot of good Americans are extremely angry with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly right now.

Fred Bieling is my writing partner at Syracuse Progressive. He is a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fred has had it with O'Reilly's smears.
Here's what he had to say to Mr. O'Reilly this week:

_______________

Mr. O'Reilly,

I would be honored if you'd add me to your "enemies list." As a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a proud American whose patriotism WILL NOT be besmirched by the likes of you, let me say that you should be ashamed of yourself. If there is anyone in the media today that undermines America more than you, encouraging terrorists, smearing good citizens, ect, ect, I don't know who that would be.

http://www.fredbieling.blogspot.com/

__________________

I'm so proud of Fred. It's time to put an end to this new McCarthyism. Bill O'Reilly can add me to his "enemies list," too - and I would be just as glad to have the exposure so that all Americans could see for themselves that I love this nation and refuse to have some pompous ideologue intimidating me - or you - or any intelligent and concerned patriot of this country.

Reason and Faith: What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Reason and Faith:
What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Fred Hutchison lays out his case for why he believes that Christianity and reason will be essential to winning the "culture war." What "winning" is supposed to mean here is unclear to me - Mr. Hutchinson has the right to his political views and so do you and I. This posting of mine is to point out the fact that we do have politically different perspectives, and the personal values to which our faith brings us as individuals should be discussed openly - and often. The freedom of exercising individual conscience was the focus of the Declaration of Independence, which was the only founding document that mentioned the Creator. I do not appreciate the way Mr. Hutchinson portrays Deism in the article. In my opinion, he waters it down to a belief that is under-developed - - a faith that a high-schooler would possess today. In truth, many of the founding fathers were committed and serious Deists.

The fact that Mr. Hutchinson is calling upon Christianity as a major power in "fighting for reason" will confuse some people, I'm certain. To clarify the path on which Mr. Hutchinson is taking us, he explains that it's his belief that Jonathan Edwards embodied "all the best traits of a great culture" and that we can "learn about the culture by observing" him. Mr. Hutchinson says that some Christians have forsaken the cause of reason, thinking that it is a realm of futility and a distraction from the cause of Christ.

I've formed many scars from the constant knife-in-the-heart betrayal of my religious values by the extremist leaders of the far religious right, who are more interested in taking over the Republican party in God's name than in actually being on God's side. Those scars have sometimes hardened my longing to speak of my personal faith in the public square.

I think it's high time for us to take back our faith in public debate about American and have open discussion about the politics that shape our society; our morals, ethics, and common faith-based values; and how we treat the least among us. To me, that is precisely what "winning the culture war" is about - social justice, peace/war issues, empathy, compassion, honesty, truth, and a full scope of life issues - not just the narrow one that seeks to criminalize an already-agonizing and desperate choice.

[Jonathan] Edwards, a man of extraordinary rational intelligence, found his mind utterly baffled with the idea of an empty void. It is an idea contrary to reason. In contrast, the idea that an eternal being has always existed is a necessity for the highest flights of reason. Like aircraft, which cannot fly in a vacuum, the flight of reason requires the atmosphere of an eternal omnipresent deity.



In contrast, an atheist must believe in a cosmic void prior to the mysterious appearance of the universe and an empty vacuum beyond the galaxies. Furthermore, the human mind must reason in a dark, empty, inner room unsupported and uncomforted by a divine presence. Edwards said that such an idea produces "convulsions and confusion" in the mind and a "contradiction" of the soul. Indeed, when one debates with an atheist, one finds a mind entangled in convulsions of thought, confusion of concepts, and contradictions of what it means to be human. In accordance with Romans 1:28, the atheist has a debased mind. Such ruined minds are quite common among postmodern liberals who are fighting against reason in the culture war.

Mr. Hutchinson says that he believes that atheists have thrown up the most intense defenses against reason and that some of the liberals he has debated are not far behind in their defenses "against reason." (Reason - meaning Mr Hutchinson's philosophical views on Reason, naturally). When he says that the absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches breeds cynicism which drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in our culture, I admit that I pause and recall times when I've seen opportunity for meaningful debate that was dulled by a watered-down (and narrowed) understanding of Christian theology within the modern churches and shut off by a divisive mistrust of anyone in politics who might be wearing their faith on their sleeve.

Reason, of course, cannot rise to its highest potential without faith, and without the metaphysical anchors supplied by the existence of God. Why cannot the Christian philosophers of the modern era rise up to match the rational philosophers of prior centuries? It is possible, but very difficult. The ubiquitous presence of cynicism drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in the culture. The mind is distracted from the mountaintop of reason by constantly having to quibble over first principles with skeptics. The strange absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches leaves the individual believer to a private quest to find God in the fullness of his majesty and glory, as Jonathan Edwards did.

The task of this generation of Christians is to restore transcendent spirituality to the churches, to win the culture war, and reclaim and reestablish reason throughout the land. This will make it possible for philosophers of a future generation to again produce works of world-class rational philosophy, which is part of the heritage of the West.

I hope there will be a lot more public discussion of faith in the public square. This nation has been damaged in ways we don't yet understand. Our sense of invulnerability was shattered on 9/11. Our President and his administration lied to us about the reasons he was sending our troops to war while his administration plotted out some evil political manipulations. If the war had been a success, the public trust may never have been damaged, but Bush's Iraq war was poorly planned, strategically wrong, morally wrong, socially unjust - in short - it is a disaster despite the best efforts of our loyal Military. On the homefront, the rich are getting richer by the day while poverty increases among the poorest. The middle class is shrinking - and most are going the route of the "working poor." This nation is divided; non-trusting; bruised; spiritually impoverished.

Our faith and our common values may be the only rational thing we have to hold on to at a time when all other institutions fail us. I believe that an honest and respectful debate about reason and faith is the only thing that is going to save this nation. While atheists are just as American as any other citizen, there is no moral superiority in their claiming that Religion is "magical thinking" - especially when you consider that the notion that God will cease to exist through an willful act of denial is also 'magical thinking.' Atheists and extremist secularists cannot blink and hope that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans will disappear from the public square. Respect is key to public debate about where we draw the line between our common (often faith-based) values and the rule of law.

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

At LewRockwell.com, Michael S. Rozeff wants to know how Saddam Hussein became such a "grave threat." He believes that our understanding of the history of how this all came to be conventional wisdom so quickly is important. We do not want our nation - our troops- our treasure - to go into avoidable wars. He says, "We have yet to see the full consequences of this war, in terms of shifting resources away from going after terrorists, in fostering new terrorists, in strengthening Iran’s hand in Iraq, in encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, in weakening the U.S., and in other as yet unrevealed ways."

"If Saddam Hussein was not a grave threat, how did so many people come to view him as one? When did common perception transform him into a mortal threat to America? Who stimulated this transformation and why? What accidental factors contributed to this error? .. If we can answer these questions in depth, perhaps we can learn more about the fundamental failings of our system of state and government. Perhaps we can change our system. Perhaps we can avoid similar errors in the future. This article merely begins to raise pertinent questions. It does not answer them. Perhaps it points in fruitful directions; perhaps not. It only begins to sort out the strange case of Saddam Hussein’s transformation from two-bit dictator and strong man into an evil the size of Hitler, capable of producing mushroom clouds over America, possessor of unmanned vehicles filled with biological diseases lying off the Atlantic shores.

We're in this strange place in time - where we must look back in order to avoid disastrous mistakes in the future. We're also in the middle of a war about which we cannot allow to bring our nation to be brought its knees - mired in failure and strung out alone playing unilateral savior to every nation whose geopolitical interests happen to coincide with ours. Bush's use of an alleged divinely-guided "national theology" as a reason for war is a perverted, partisan, and hollow abberation of religion and has not provided a sound moral basis to initiate war with another nation. Accusing Democrats of providing comfort to an enemy is the only defense of Bush's Iraq war policy that he can muster, and it also rings hollow and defies common sense. A patriot cares enough about his country and his people that he will gladly risk imprisonment, as H.D. Thoreau did in the nineteeth Century. (see Civil Disobedience)

Michael Rozeff's article is important. You were sold a war that your nation never needed to enter into. That much is true. It should be alarming that so many believed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

Now that we are there - what will we do, as moral citizens with our careful eyes fixed upon America's best interests? How will we reconcile those interests with the due responsibility for what we have wrought in Iraq?

Why do we fail to trust political leaders who send out ideas to set things right? Is it because we see how one administration failed us so miserably (and betrayed our trust)? Is it because we hate war and know that there are better solutions to dealing with our international tensions?

Talk.

*tip of the hat to Charlene B - the Duchess.

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

"It really bothered me when I would see innocent people being terrorized or harmed by thugs that tried to take advantage of the helpless in the aftermath of this disaster."

- American Soldier

We ask a lot of our soldiers - and we often fail to think about the dire circumstances under which they are discharging their duty. Life isn't pretty and crime happens. In places as diverse as Iraq and New Orleans, they see it all. From the best of what we can be as human beings - to the worst.

"So there I was in the middle of water. Stepping out of a police car, M16 in hand and ready to lay down the law. Some areas were a haven for very bad people. They would slap their own mothers if they were still around. In a land where people are pissed already because all that they had got washed away."

I was particularly moved by the story told about a frail elderly woman that the American Soldier assisted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I am reprinting his post with permission from the American Soldier
(Thanks, AS.):

American Soldier says,

I was asked if I really made a difference in the two weeks that I was in New Orleans. I sat back and I pondered the question for a moment. The faces still fresh in my head of the people I either helped or arrested. I took a deep breath of the country air that I now appreciate so much more. I responded with a solid yes.

I was busy from the moment I left. Not knowing what would come about in this mission. I was prepared for the worst. We arrived at a busy airstrip called Belle Chase. There were thousands of people there. This place normally only held about 500 or so people. Not now. It was the main hub for air support in the greater New Orleans area. Aircraft was coming in or out nearly every 2-3 minutes. One would take off and another would land. A very chaotic but amazing scene.



It wasn’t any more than a day or so and we were moved into the city area. On the way in under the cover of darkness the destruction could be seen. Poles ripped from the ground and thrown across the streets. Tree’s toppled and buildings pushed over like Lego’s.



Missions got under way quick and I found my nitch. I was tasked to work with the local police. Since LA was under martial law, the need for military assistance was obvious. These cops I must say are heroes. Despite losing all that they had, they still worked around the clock in order to preserve the city. My partner was normally a quiet and subdued guy. I think I brought out a side of him that he will appreciate moving forward. I was quickly known for the no bullshit approach that I have for stupid people but yet keeping that professional side of me.



We’d roll up on a call and normally people would just gracefully walk away but when some Army guys gets out of the vehicle with an M16 fully loaded people stop and just don’t know what to do. Some people tried to test the limits of the law but my partner and I were having nothing to do with that. You drop an attitude and you were finding yourself chin to hood and that distinct sound of handcuffs closing around your wrists. I can’t tell you how many times that scenario played out.



Not all calls were in response to bad guys. We did a lot of status checks on people. At first I was like whatever, lets go check this person out. Then the trend hit me. These people were elderly and their young and able family members were calling the police to check on them. Most of these older citizens were left behind. I began to get pissed when we would go to these calls. I wanted to call the son or daughter and ask them why in the hell they left their father or mother behind! There was a call that I will not soon forget. I touched on it slightly in my 9/11 post. There was a lady who was 90 years old. Some workers flagged us down and advised us of an older lady in her apartment. They felt she should be taken to safety.



As we approached the apartment, the side of it was completely blown off. The roof was also in bad shape. We went up the stairs walking around fallen dry wall and glass. We got to the door and knocked. At first there was no answer. We opened it up and there sat a very delicate lady. We walked in and she gave us a smile. I put my weapon behind my back. And I took a look at the condition of her home. Mangled was my first thought. Her apartment was complete exposed to the elements. Mold had already formed all over the ceiling. We asked her if she had enough water and food. She said that she was fine and comfortable. I was confused because all I saw was about 15 bottles of water and some MRE’s unopened. I asked her if we could bring her to a shelter or a place that she could be more comfortable. She looked at me and told me “Child, I’m going to be ok and I’m comfortable now.” As much of a man and tough soldier that I am, for that moment I felt vulnerable. I felt helpless. This woman, who has probably lived a full life, was choosing to stay. I took a look at the walls and I could see years of happiness. Pictures of family were all around her.



As I write this right now, I have tears in my eyes. The reason is because at the time I couldn’t help her and a few days later we responded back to her apartment where she had passed. She knew her fate and for whatever reasons she decided to live her final days in such chaos surrounded by remnants of happiness that once filled her life.

We got so many calls for looting. We’d either find people fresh out of a store with cartons of smokes or alcohol. Mind you, there were no stores open. We’d see these people just casually walking about like we weren’t going to stop them. We had a standing rule while on patrol. Arrest only felony subjects. So if a person had some items, it was at best a misdemeanor charge. So we’d stop them, search them for drugs and question them. Some people cooperated with us. Some decided to act like asshats and try to resist or run. I always enjoyed when they ran. Gave me a chance to flex my running skills and quick hog-tying skills of mine.

I will expand more on the run and snatch calls in another post. I’m still decompressing from this experience.

Note:
"American Soldier" is writing a book titled Soldier Life: A Day in the Life of an American Soldier.
I look forward to reading the book. It's a special kind of person who can write about his or her often-difficult experiences in a way such that we are made to better understand - to be shocked sometimes - to be inspired to make change where it's necessary. Many thanks to AS and all the soldiers who are out there doing their job in the service of their nation.

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?
Most Republicans; A Few Democrats

Senator Lindsey Graham's Constitution-killing amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act was proposed and passed with no real debate about its far-ranging implications - and it was passed without any hearings. Our troops are fighting for Iraq's freedom while Constitutional freedoms become more and more limited - with fear used as a political tool to convince citizens that it's necessary. The lack of discussion calls to mind the Iraq Resolution of 2002 when, absent of meaningful debate, an all too trusting Congress hurriedly provided Bush and Rumsfeld the authorization to "do the right thing." That was a big mistake. Will we keep letting Congress make these big mistakes until our freedom has vanished altogether?

The Democrats who voted for this Amendment should be scrutinized. Who are they?

-Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut
-Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana
-Ben Nelson of Nebraska
-Kent Conrad of North Dakota
-Ron Wyden of Oregon


Republicans who deserve credit for voting against the bill were:

-Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
-John E. Sununu of New Hampshire
-Gordon H. Smith of Oregon
-Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island

In blatant defiance of the Constitution's guarantees of Habeas Corpus and separation of powers, the Senate on Thursday approved the Graham Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 49 to 42. Five Democrats joined all but 4 Republican Senators in giving the President unfettered power to hold prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the rest of their lives, with no criminal charges, and no right to challenge their confinement by Habeas Corpus [...]

Only a handful of prisoners at Guantánamo have been charged with crimes. Their cases will be heard in military commissions that George W. Bush established to impose long sentences and even execute detainees with virtually no judicial oversight. Without habeas access to federal courts, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will ostensibly serve as prosecutor, judge and executioner in the military commissions. This flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. - Marjorie Cohn, Truthout