Recently, I was going through some old papers--trying to clean the accumulated junk from my study--and I ran across a photocopied page from a Wendell Berry essay with one paragraph circled. I couldn't remember photocopying the page, or making the circle, but as I read the passage, I understood why I had found it significant. I would like to quote the passage I had marked and just a bit more. The essay is in the collection titled What Are People For? by Wendell Berry, the essay is titled "Writer and Region."
[T]here is the Territory of self-righteousness. It is easy to assume that we do not participate in what we are not in the presence of. But if we are members of a society, we participate, willynilly, in its evils. Not to know this is obviously to be in error, but it is also to neglect come of the most necessary and the most interesting work. How do we reduce our dependency on what is wrong? The answer to that question will necessarily be practical; the wrong will be correctable by practice and by practical standards. Another name for self-righteousness is economic and political unconsciousness.
There is also the Territory of historical self-righteousness: if we had lived South of the Ohio in 1830, we would not have owned slaves; if we had lived on the frontier, we would have killed no Indians, violated no treaties, stolen no land. The probability is overwhelming that if we had belonged to the generations we deplore, we too would have behaved deplorably. The probability is overwhelming that we belong to a generation that will be found by its successors to have behaved deplorably. Not to know that is, again, to be in error and to neglect essential work, and some of this work, as before, is work of the imagination. How can we imagine our situation or our history if we think we are superior to it?
In reading this now, I think of Abu Ghraib, of the War on Iraq, of the smugness of our President when he asserts that it was morally correct for us to preemptively invade a sovereign nation while forgetting that his arguments for going were all fabrications and exaggerations. Will future generations look back on this generation, shake their heads sadly, and say to each other, "THEY were so impatient. THEY were fighting a battle in Iraq that had little to do with Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda."?
Our children's children will not remember that it was GWBush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld who pushed for war, who argued to overthrow Saddam because of the danger he represented to the US. They will remember that it was THIS generation who did these things; it was THIS generation who refused to push for a viable energy policy that was NOT dependent on Middle Eastern oil; it was THIS generation who allowed soldiers to die while occupying foreign land rather than while protecting and preserving our own land; it was THIS generation who allowed the national debt to grow uncontrolled once again, passing that debt on to them.
Our great-grandchildren might look back on the election of 2004 and say to themselves, "If we had lived then, we would not have voted for Bush again. We would not have allowed the nation to continue on its path. We would have changed things." Of course, maybe they would have, or maybe not. The point, however, is moot because our great-grandchildren are not the ones who can make a difference NOW. WE are the ones who can do that!
I cannot argue that Saddam Hussein was a good man, or that the people of Iraq are not thankful that he is gone. I can argue, however, that we were wrong to use force where diplomatic pressure may have accomplished as much. I can argue that we are wrong to try to impose our democracy on a people who have never known any form of free government. I can argue that we failed to protect this nation by beginning a war with Iraq rather than eliminating al Qaeda cells around the world. I can argue that George W. Bush is NOT the right President for this country at this time in history. I would rather trust a man who has been in war to lead the US during a time of war.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
MICHAEL MOORE AND MEL GIBSON
In the July 12 issue (page 70 in print) of Time magazine, Andrew Sullivan writes that he sees similarity in the recent movies of Mel Gibson (The Passion of the Christ) and Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11). He says that the two movies are "just terrible as movies--crude, boring, gratuitous" and that they are "deeply corrosive of the possibility of real debate and reason in our culture." The similarity between the two movies occurs, however, in Sullivan's argument, because "[b]oth movies were appealing to what might be called their cultural bases. They weren't designed to persuade. They were designed to rally the faithful."
In comparing the techniques of the two movies, Sullivan is equally critical of both Moore and Gibson. About Moore's assertions that Bush used the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for oil, Sullivan says, "He cannot prove this, and so he tries to bludgeon the viewer emotionally to that conclusion. He uses innuendo, sly editing, parody, ridicule and somber voice-overs to give his mere assertions a patina of truth." Taking on Gibson's film-making, Sullivan writes, "there is no historical evidence that Jesus endured anything like the sadistic marathon that The Passion lovingly re-creates. But it is portrayed--at fantastical length and in excruciating detail--as historical fact."
In summary, Sullivan argues that whether you are a "red-stater" or a "blue-stater" will determine which one of these men you see as hero or villain. He also argues that it is a shame to see the culture wars going so far to the extremes. "The truth is that both movies are different but equally potent forms of cultural toxin--poisonous to debate, to reason, and to civility. And the antidote is in shorter and shorter supply."
Certainly, Sullivan presents an intriguing look at these two movies/cultural icons. I particularly like Sullivan's argument that these extreme views erode debate, reason, and civility. We are no longer able to have reasoned disagreement in this country without one extreme calling the other some series of names, or creating fabrications and exaggerations to define their point of view rather than relying on fact and civil discourse.
In comparing the techniques of the two movies, Sullivan is equally critical of both Moore and Gibson. About Moore's assertions that Bush used the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for oil, Sullivan says, "He cannot prove this, and so he tries to bludgeon the viewer emotionally to that conclusion. He uses innuendo, sly editing, parody, ridicule and somber voice-overs to give his mere assertions a patina of truth." Taking on Gibson's film-making, Sullivan writes, "there is no historical evidence that Jesus endured anything like the sadistic marathon that The Passion lovingly re-creates. But it is portrayed--at fantastical length and in excruciating detail--as historical fact."
In summary, Sullivan argues that whether you are a "red-stater" or a "blue-stater" will determine which one of these men you see as hero or villain. He also argues that it is a shame to see the culture wars going so far to the extremes. "The truth is that both movies are different but equally potent forms of cultural toxin--poisonous to debate, to reason, and to civility. And the antidote is in shorter and shorter supply."
Certainly, Sullivan presents an intriguing look at these two movies/cultural icons. I particularly like Sullivan's argument that these extreme views erode debate, reason, and civility. We are no longer able to have reasoned disagreement in this country without one extreme calling the other some series of names, or creating fabrications and exaggerations to define their point of view rather than relying on fact and civil discourse.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
CHENEY HAD NO NEW INFORMATION ON IRAQ-AL QAEDA TIES
The 9-11 Commission today released a short statement to say that the Commission has seen the same information that Cheney has regarding Iraq-al Qaeda ties, and they stand by their previous Statement #15 that there were no collaborative ties. Here is the Commission's press release today:
"After examining available transcripts of the vice president's public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks," the commission said.
Cheney, as I pointed out earlier, also seems to just make things up in order to support his position. This guy likes keeping secrets, making significant policy decisions by colluding with corporate executives who might be impacted most by the new policy, and misrepresenting his own statements as it is politically beneficial. For example, from CNN--
Th[e Commission's] statement comes in the wake of an interview Cheney gave last month on CNBC. During that interview, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in the attacks. Asked whether he had information the panel did not, the vice president said, "Probably."
After Cheney's statement on CNBC, the commission asked the vice president to come forward with any additional information he could provide about any ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Contrast that with what Cheney's spokesman said today, from the AP link above:
Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems, denied that the commission asked the vice president for additional information.
Kellums said the vice president was satisfied the panel had all relevant information to make an accurate determination. Cheney's main concern was about some media reports suggesting that al-Qaida and Iraq had no ties whatsoever, he said.
"We are pleased with today's statement from the 9-11 commission, which puts to rest a non-story," Kellems said. "As we have said all along, the administration has provided the commission with unprecedented access to sensitive information so they can perform their mission."
Kellems added that Cheney "did not criticize the commission's work" and said, "We look forward to reading the commission's final report."
Clearly, either the spokesman is not on the same page with Cheney, or (more likely) Cheney is attempting to worm his way out of his ridiculous comment on CNBC.
"After examining available transcripts of the vice president's public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks," the commission said.
Cheney, as I pointed out earlier, also seems to just make things up in order to support his position. This guy likes keeping secrets, making significant policy decisions by colluding with corporate executives who might be impacted most by the new policy, and misrepresenting his own statements as it is politically beneficial. For example, from CNN--
Th[e Commission's] statement comes in the wake of an interview Cheney gave last month on CNBC. During that interview, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in the attacks. Asked whether he had information the panel did not, the vice president said, "Probably."
After Cheney's statement on CNBC, the commission asked the vice president to come forward with any additional information he could provide about any ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Contrast that with what Cheney's spokesman said today, from the AP link above:
Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems, denied that the commission asked the vice president for additional information.
Kellums said the vice president was satisfied the panel had all relevant information to make an accurate determination. Cheney's main concern was about some media reports suggesting that al-Qaida and Iraq had no ties whatsoever, he said.
"We are pleased with today's statement from the 9-11 commission, which puts to rest a non-story," Kellems said. "As we have said all along, the administration has provided the commission with unprecedented access to sensitive information so they can perform their mission."
Kellems added that Cheney "did not criticize the commission's work" and said, "We look forward to reading the commission's final report."
Clearly, either the spokesman is not on the same page with Cheney, or (more likely) Cheney is attempting to worm his way out of his ridiculous comment on CNBC.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
IS "RESOLUTENESS" REALLY A QUALITY THAT WE SHOULD WANT IN A LEADER?
From the CSMonitor, "Bush...beats Kerry handily for an image of 'resoluteness' - a quality that liberals would define as 'stubbornness.' [CSM pollster Raghavan] Mayur reports 83 percent of Americans believe Bush stands firm on his beliefs, while Kerry scores at only 48 percent." Mayur further states that, "Bush seems to have accumulated a cache of what I call leadership points since 9/11."
My difficulty with this goes back to the 'flip-flop' label that the Bush campaign has tried to attach to John Kerry, and the connection to this notion of 'resoluteness.' I would agree that a person should be resolute, or determined, to follow a decision with action in hopes of accomplishing a goal. I think this would be an outstanding quality. What worries me about this type of question in a leadership poll, however, is that many people see the word 'resolute' and connect it to very strong opinions. I would agree that Bush does have very strong opinions, but in my mind this is to his detriment. Bush does not seem to be the type of man who is willing to alter his positions to fit the circumstances. He has very strong opinions, right or wrong, and these will be what allows him to make decisions. If the decision turns out to be bad, he won't admit that he was wrong; he will simply find a way to 'better explain' his decision, or he will blame others (can anyone say George Tenet?).
Kerry, on the other hand, has always been willing to consider decisions on a case-by-case basis during his time in the Senate. Even if you might argue this is for political gain, I see this as a positive trait for a leader. I certainly do not support basing decisions solely on 'polling numbers,' but, rather, basing decisions on thoughtful consideration of the issues. From my reading about John Kerry, I think this is the type of leader that he has been during his time in the Senate--a thoughtful, deliberative legislator who is willing to consider each piece of legislation on its merits AT THE TIME; a person who has not always been set upon one path to the exclusion of alternatives. As Cheney just pointed out again this weekend, Kerry is said to have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If that is true, then surely he hasn't done very much 'flip-flopping' during his years in office; however, on some key votes he does seem to have been willing to say, "I voted the wrong way the first time. This time I will vote differently," and for better or worse, he has changed his vote. Shouldn't a leader be willing to do that from time to time?
My difficulty with this goes back to the 'flip-flop' label that the Bush campaign has tried to attach to John Kerry, and the connection to this notion of 'resoluteness.' I would agree that a person should be resolute, or determined, to follow a decision with action in hopes of accomplishing a goal. I think this would be an outstanding quality. What worries me about this type of question in a leadership poll, however, is that many people see the word 'resolute' and connect it to very strong opinions. I would agree that Bush does have very strong opinions, but in my mind this is to his detriment. Bush does not seem to be the type of man who is willing to alter his positions to fit the circumstances. He has very strong opinions, right or wrong, and these will be what allows him to make decisions. If the decision turns out to be bad, he won't admit that he was wrong; he will simply find a way to 'better explain' his decision, or he will blame others (can anyone say George Tenet?).
Kerry, on the other hand, has always been willing to consider decisions on a case-by-case basis during his time in the Senate. Even if you might argue this is for political gain, I see this as a positive trait for a leader. I certainly do not support basing decisions solely on 'polling numbers,' but, rather, basing decisions on thoughtful consideration of the issues. From my reading about John Kerry, I think this is the type of leader that he has been during his time in the Senate--a thoughtful, deliberative legislator who is willing to consider each piece of legislation on its merits AT THE TIME; a person who has not always been set upon one path to the exclusion of alternatives. As Cheney just pointed out again this weekend, Kerry is said to have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If that is true, then surely he hasn't done very much 'flip-flopping' during his years in office; however, on some key votes he does seem to have been willing to say, "I voted the wrong way the first time. This time I will vote differently," and for better or worse, he has changed his vote. Shouldn't a leader be willing to do that from time to time?
DOES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION "DISDAIN [SCIENTIFIC] RESEARCH THAT INCONVENIENCES IT?"
The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released a report that details many of the abuses of the Bush administration in discounting good science for the sake of its political policies. Some examples from the report:
The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.
Scientific American In-Depth goes on to list several more examples of its own. To name a couple of those--HHS removed information from its website that did not support the Bush administration's position on abstinence-only sex education programs; OMB proposed ending peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations as it now exists, thus essentially allowing industry and corporate scientists to make approval or disapproval of the research conducted by EPA.
The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.
Scientific American In-Depth goes on to list several more examples of its own. To name a couple of those--HHS removed information from its website that did not support the Bush administration's position on abstinence-only sex education programs; OMB proposed ending peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations as it now exists, thus essentially allowing industry and corporate scientists to make approval or disapproval of the research conducted by EPA.
Monday, July 05, 2004
KERRY BELIEVES LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION
The WashPost reports that John Kerry made comments to the Dubuque, Iowa daily newspaper, the Telegraph Herald, that ran in its pages on Sunday, July 4. Kerry says that he is personally opposed to abortion, but believes that it should be "safe, legal and rare." Additionally, he went further by commenting that he personally believes life begins at conception. These comments may be the first of their kind by a national Democratic candidate.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
JOBS NUMBERS NOT SO ROSY FOR BUSH
I keep seeing all these interviews with Bush Administration officials who are talking about how well the economy is doing, how we are in a growth period, how jobs are taking off, and how much better off we all are today than we were four years ago. Well, the Economic Policy Institute's JobWatch released new data on July 2 that doesn't reflect the postulated trends that the Bush groups are talking about. The unemployment rate does appear to be steady (at about 5.6%), but the underemployment rate--"in the form of involuntary part-time work, discouraged workers, and other marginally attached workers (i.e., those who have looked for work in the last year but are not counted as unemployed)"--is higher now than when the recession began (currently 9.6% versus 7.3% in March 2001). I think the economic recovery is not as rosy as Bush would have us believe.
EVEN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION IS UPSET AT BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN
I reported on July 1 that the Bush campaign was attempting to recruit churches to hand over their membership lists for political campaign purposes. It now turns out that even Richard Land (SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) and other Southern Baptists are speaking out against this practice. Bush is insulting his own constituency!
JANIS KARPINSKI...SET UP TO TAKE THE FALL?
Another blog called Sid's Fishbowl has transcription of interviews given by Gen. Janis Karpinski, the general who was in charge of prisons in Iraq prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal. I believe that she is being hung out to dry by the military even though she had no control over interrogations in Iraq--that was a separate command. Read the excerpts from a recent interview here, and a Reuters story here, in which she says that Rumsfeld signed memos allowing certain types of torture in Iraq similar to those he signed pertaining to Getmo.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
DEMS AND THE LANGUAGE OF FAITH
I have read several discussions and op-eds recently about the Democratic Party working to take back the purview of religion from the exclusive right-wing Republican agenda. Christian faith has been the driving force behind many of America's social movements, and many have been led in the 20th Century by the Dems. As political liberals, many times we are painted as weak, indecisive, or "flip-floppers" because we are willing to consider every viewpoint, to listen to every voice, and to make decisions based on the moment. The right-wing likes to have one viewpoint and one answer for every situation, and if you aren't a part of that, then you are wrong, unpatriotic, and often unreligious!
Certainly, many more liberals than conservatives are atheists or agnostics; however, there has always been a strong sense of religious purpose to liberal politics. It is time that we begin talking about faith and moral responsibility rather than just ceding that ground to the far right. Read this Sojourner's commentary by Jim Wallis and look at the links to his recent presentations to the Democratic Party Platform Committee and the Center for American Progress to get a more eloquent discussion of these ideas.
Certainly, many more liberals than conservatives are atheists or agnostics; however, there has always been a strong sense of religious purpose to liberal politics. It is time that we begin talking about faith and moral responsibility rather than just ceding that ground to the far right. Read this Sojourner's commentary by Jim Wallis and look at the links to his recent presentations to the Democratic Party Platform Committee and the Center for American Progress to get a more eloquent discussion of these ideas.
MICHAEL MOORE--THE LIMBAUGH OF THE LEFT?
Ellen Goodman writes an op-ed piece in the WashPost today saying that the left doesn't need an equivalent to Rush Limbaugh. Her proposition is that Liberals will agree with much of what Michael Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11, but there is much more that is over-the-top and too conspiratorial. I have not seen F9/11, but I do know from past Moore films that I generally find his arguments too overwrought, too polarized, and too radical to do a lot of good. Moore often uses images as suggestion and innuendo without expressly stating a particular opinion. Often, to me, it is these images and the way he throws them together that cause his arguments to sound contrived. What I hear about F9/11 is that he has tried to put TOO MANY arguments on the screen; he sees conspiracy at every turn. It is just this type of propaganda that the right-wing has seized upon to paint Kerry and the Dems as "wild-eyed."
I am glad that Michael Moore made this movie, and I am glad that it is being seen by so many people. With that said, it also demonstrates to me that this type of discourse further polarizes America. That is what Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage do to the country from the right. The liberal counter to right-wing tripe should not be tripe of our own, but reasoned arguments with evidence and quotations to back up the arguments. That is why I like the new web organizations like Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress. They present a reasoned reply to the right-wing media machine.
From the Goodman column:
More to the point -- or Moore to the point -- I agreed with the filmmaker that Bush didn't exactly win the 2000 election, that we were misled into Iraq and that the White House has used the terrorism alerts as a political toy.
[...]
But at some point, I also began to feel just a touch out of harmony. Not even this [member of the choir] believes that the Iraq war was brought to us courtesy of the Bush-Saudi oil-money connection. Not even the rosiest pair of my retro-spectacles sees prewar Iraq as a happy valley where little children flew kites.
There were a few too many cheap shots among the direct hits, conspiracy theories among the solid facts, and tidbits of propaganda in the documentary. Going for the jugular, he sometimes went over the top.
[...]
Moore described his movie as an "op-ed piece," not a documentary. Well, I know something about op-ed pieces. Over the long run, you don't get anywhere just whacking your audience upside the head; you try to change the mind within it. You don't just go for the gut. You try, gulp, reason.
I actually agree with P.J. O'Rourke, a conservative who writes in the Atlantic that he tunes out Rush because there's no room for measured debate: "Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives." But now liberals are trudging purposefully down the same low road.
So my final thoughts on F9/11 are to go see the movie, but to do so with an open mind. Don't believe everything you see or hear without first doing some checking. {There is evidence that the Bush family and the Saud family have a close personal and economic relationship; but, does that mean we went to Iraq for oil? Not in and of itself. There is evidence that Hamid Karzai worked (or works) for Unocal; does that mean that we went to Afghanistan because of the pipeline? Certainly not! A reading of Richard Clarke's book will show that Afghanistan was a first priority as far back as 1998 when it came to dealing with bin Laden.} Enjoy the movie for what it is...a humorous look at GWBush, and a serious look at an emotionally scarred mother, but do not buy into all the conspiracy!
I am glad that Michael Moore made this movie, and I am glad that it is being seen by so many people. With that said, it also demonstrates to me that this type of discourse further polarizes America. That is what Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage do to the country from the right. The liberal counter to right-wing tripe should not be tripe of our own, but reasoned arguments with evidence and quotations to back up the arguments. That is why I like the new web organizations like Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress. They present a reasoned reply to the right-wing media machine.
From the Goodman column:
More to the point -- or Moore to the point -- I agreed with the filmmaker that Bush didn't exactly win the 2000 election, that we were misled into Iraq and that the White House has used the terrorism alerts as a political toy.
[...]
But at some point, I also began to feel just a touch out of harmony. Not even this [member of the choir] believes that the Iraq war was brought to us courtesy of the Bush-Saudi oil-money connection. Not even the rosiest pair of my retro-spectacles sees prewar Iraq as a happy valley where little children flew kites.
There were a few too many cheap shots among the direct hits, conspiracy theories among the solid facts, and tidbits of propaganda in the documentary. Going for the jugular, he sometimes went over the top.
[...]
Moore described his movie as an "op-ed piece," not a documentary. Well, I know something about op-ed pieces. Over the long run, you don't get anywhere just whacking your audience upside the head; you try to change the mind within it. You don't just go for the gut. You try, gulp, reason.
I actually agree with P.J. O'Rourke, a conservative who writes in the Atlantic that he tunes out Rush because there's no room for measured debate: "Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives." But now liberals are trudging purposefully down the same low road.
So my final thoughts on F9/11 are to go see the movie, but to do so with an open mind. Don't believe everything you see or hear without first doing some checking. {There is evidence that the Bush family and the Saud family have a close personal and economic relationship; but, does that mean we went to Iraq for oil? Not in and of itself. There is evidence that Hamid Karzai worked (or works) for Unocal; does that mean that we went to Afghanistan because of the pipeline? Certainly not! A reading of Richard Clarke's book will show that Afghanistan was a first priority as far back as 1998 when it came to dealing with bin Laden.} Enjoy the movie for what it is...a humorous look at GWBush, and a serious look at an emotionally scarred mother, but do not buy into all the conspiracy!
SPIRITUAL DIRECTORS
The LATimes reports on a 1900 year old Catholic practice that is finding its way into protestant, Jewish, and Buddhist faiths. "[S]piritual directors [...] offer the one-on-one companionship of an unbiased friend. Some spiritual directors are ordained pastors, priests or nuns. Others are lay people. [...] Spiritual direction is different from pastoral counseling or therapy. Spiritual directors don't give advice, diagnose a condition or try to help fix a problem." Seems like an interesting approach in helping people make up their own minds through faith.
STEM-CELL RESEARCH
The Christian Century has an editorial on its website by Amy Laura Hall, who teaches ethics at Duke Divinity School, that does a good job of covering many of the issues surrounding stem-cell research. Her argument comes down in opposition to my own, but she does a very good job of discussing the issue. Her final argument is that embryonic stem-cell research is immoral. My argument would be considerably more nuanced than that, I think; but most of all, my argument would include the fact that God has given this medicine to us. Why would we not use this gift from God?
Too many people think of science and religion as diametrically opposed. I see them instead as complementary paths to the same objective. I believe that we are always seeking that Divine, or ultimate, truth. Both science and religion provide a part of that search. Religion comes more from the mystical, mythical, magical sides of our existence. It is how we explain miracles; how we find a center of peace within ourselves. Science comes from the factual, intellectual, physical sides of our existence. It is what we use to explain how electricity works, why airplanes can fly, and how we maintain a healthy mental and physical existence. Can we live on one path without the other? I think not; I think we MUST have that balance, that equivalence between the two halves of our existence. We are both spiritual creatures and physical creatures. We should nurture both.
As to stem-cell research. I will agree that ethically we are treading a thin line if we begin to harvest ovum from women for the sole purpose of creating embryos for research; however, with the prominence of in vitro fertilization, there are thousands of frozen embryos that are destroyed each year. Why can these embryos not be used in helping to find a cure for those with genetic illness? President Bush does not currently allow the use of these embryos. I would love to hear each of my readers' thoughts on the matter.
You can also find some useful information on the science of stem-cell research in the June issue of Scientific American, or click here for a link to the online edition. Another issue related to stem-cell research is the notion that female mammals are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and that they can not produce eggs. A recent study disputes that notion. An article in March from Scientific American Online discusses this study.
Too many people think of science and religion as diametrically opposed. I see them instead as complementary paths to the same objective. I believe that we are always seeking that Divine, or ultimate, truth. Both science and religion provide a part of that search. Religion comes more from the mystical, mythical, magical sides of our existence. It is how we explain miracles; how we find a center of peace within ourselves. Science comes from the factual, intellectual, physical sides of our existence. It is what we use to explain how electricity works, why airplanes can fly, and how we maintain a healthy mental and physical existence. Can we live on one path without the other? I think not; I think we MUST have that balance, that equivalence between the two halves of our existence. We are both spiritual creatures and physical creatures. We should nurture both.
As to stem-cell research. I will agree that ethically we are treading a thin line if we begin to harvest ovum from women for the sole purpose of creating embryos for research; however, with the prominence of in vitro fertilization, there are thousands of frozen embryos that are destroyed each year. Why can these embryos not be used in helping to find a cure for those with genetic illness? President Bush does not currently allow the use of these embryos. I would love to hear each of my readers' thoughts on the matter.
You can also find some useful information on the science of stem-cell research in the June issue of Scientific American, or click here for a link to the online edition. Another issue related to stem-cell research is the notion that female mammals are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and that they can not produce eggs. A recent study disputes that notion. An article in March from Scientific American Online discusses this study.
POWELL MEETS WITH N.KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER
Just a few years ago, the new Bush administration was berating the Clinton administration for making deals with North Korea to gain concessions in N. Korea's plans to pursue nuclear weapons. Today, however, things are decidedly different from the perspective of the Bush administration as their go-it-alone foreign policy doesn't seem to be working as well internationally as the neo-cons, the academics, and the idealists thought it would. SecState Powell met today with the N. Korean foreign minister to discuss ending the two nations' long-standing dispute over nukes, and to come to an agreement to agree, it would seem. As the Financial Times reports:
Before Friday’s meeting, bilateral contact between the US and North Korea had been limited to the sidelines of multilateral talks. Pyongyang has long insisted that one-on-one dialogue with Washington is the best way to resolve the dispute.
As a result, the meeting added to the momentum that has recently gathered behind efforts to resolve the dispute following Washington's decision last month to offer incentives for Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear programme.
The US has said it is prepared to offer political incentives to encourage North Korea to disarm and give its blessing to South Korean plans to provide energy aid in return for a freeze of the nuclear programme.
North Korea has offered to freeze the programme as a first step towards dismantlement in return for political and economic rewards.
Maybe Clinton foreign policy wasn't so bad, after all; huh, Mr. Bush?
Before Friday’s meeting, bilateral contact between the US and North Korea had been limited to the sidelines of multilateral talks. Pyongyang has long insisted that one-on-one dialogue with Washington is the best way to resolve the dispute.
As a result, the meeting added to the momentum that has recently gathered behind efforts to resolve the dispute following Washington's decision last month to offer incentives for Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear programme.
The US has said it is prepared to offer political incentives to encourage North Korea to disarm and give its blessing to South Korean plans to provide energy aid in return for a freeze of the nuclear programme.
North Korea has offered to freeze the programme as a first step towards dismantlement in return for political and economic rewards.
Maybe Clinton foreign policy wasn't so bad, after all; huh, Mr. Bush?
POWELL MEETS WITH N.KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER
Just a few years ago, the new Bush administration was berating the Clinton administration for making deals with North Korea to gain concessions in N. Korea's plans to pursue nuclear weapons. Today, however, things are decidedly different from the perspective of the Bush administration as their go-it-alone foreign policy doesn't seem to be working as well internationally as the neo-cons, the academics, and the idealists thought it would. SecState Powell met today with the N. Korean foreign minister to discuss ending the two nations' long-standing dispute over nukes, and to come to an agreement to agree, it would seem. As the Financial Times reports:
Before Friday’s meeting, bilateral contact between the US and North Korea had been limited to the sidelines of multilateral talks. Pyongyang has long insisted that one-on-one dialogue with Washington is the best way to resolve the dispute.
As a result, the meeting added to the momentum that has recently gathered behind efforts to resolve the dispute following Washington's decision last month to offer incentives for Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear programme.
The US has said it is prepared to offer political incentives to encourage North Korea to disarm and give its blessing to South Korean plans to provide energy aid in return for a freeze of the nuclear programme.
North Korea has offered to freeze the programme as a first step towards dismantlement in return for political and economic rewards.
Maybe Clinton foreign policy wasn't so bad, after all; huh, Mr. Bush?
Before Friday’s meeting, bilateral contact between the US and North Korea had been limited to the sidelines of multilateral talks. Pyongyang has long insisted that one-on-one dialogue with Washington is the best way to resolve the dispute.
As a result, the meeting added to the momentum that has recently gathered behind efforts to resolve the dispute following Washington's decision last month to offer incentives for Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear programme.
The US has said it is prepared to offer political incentives to encourage North Korea to disarm and give its blessing to South Korean plans to provide energy aid in return for a freeze of the nuclear programme.
North Korea has offered to freeze the programme as a first step towards dismantlement in return for political and economic rewards.
Maybe Clinton foreign policy wasn't so bad, after all; huh, Mr. Bush?
Friday, July 02, 2004
DICK IS AT IT AGAIN
I came across an article in the WashPost that included comments by VP Cheney in New Orleans yesterday. It seems he is still promoting the notion that Iraq and Al Qaeda DID have collaborative ties, even though the 9-11 Commission found none. The Post article says:
Countering the staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, which found no "collaborative relationship" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, Cheney renewed his accusation that they had "long-established ties." He listed several examples and stated: "In the early 1990s, Saddam had sent a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan to train al Qaeda in bombmaking and document forgery."
Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that they had no knowledge of this.
Senior intelligence officials had no knowledge of this accusation. Does that mean that Cheney is making this stuff up? or does he have his own intelligence service, maybe through Halliburton? Personally, my guess is that he is making it up.
I have been reading Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack. I used to think that the War on Iraq was largely due to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the DoD. I now lay MOST of the blame for the push to war on Cheney. He was the biggest hawk, pushing his own agenda against Iraq. It seems that Bush was very easily manipulated by Cheney's agenda. Powell (the only cabinet member who has ever seen combat, btw) on the opposite side was arguing for diplomacy and a slow pace to the war threat. Cheney was saying NOW NOW.
It seems that Cheney is now doing everything he can think of to justify his pre-war position. Really kinda sad.
Countering the staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, which found no "collaborative relationship" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, Cheney renewed his accusation that they had "long-established ties." He listed several examples and stated: "In the early 1990s, Saddam had sent a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan to train al Qaeda in bombmaking and document forgery."
Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that they had no knowledge of this.
Senior intelligence officials had no knowledge of this accusation. Does that mean that Cheney is making this stuff up? or does he have his own intelligence service, maybe through Halliburton? Personally, my guess is that he is making it up.
I have been reading Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack. I used to think that the War on Iraq was largely due to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the DoD. I now lay MOST of the blame for the push to war on Cheney. He was the biggest hawk, pushing his own agenda against Iraq. It seems that Bush was very easily manipulated by Cheney's agenda. Powell (the only cabinet member who has ever seen combat, btw) on the opposite side was arguing for diplomacy and a slow pace to the war threat. Cheney was saying NOW NOW.
It seems that Cheney is now doing everything he can think of to justify his pre-war position. Really kinda sad.
COSBY SPEAKS OUT ABOUT AFRICAN-AMERICAN YOUTH CULTURE
"Let me tell you something," Cosby, one of America's most admired men, told the group. "Your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other [the N-word] as they're walking up and down the street. They think they're hip. They can't read. They can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
[...]
Cosby, 66, seemed to disagree [with comments that whites and slavery are partly to blame for the modern culture] in his remarks on Thursday, saying that blacks cannot simply blame whites for problems such as high rates of teen pregnancy and school dropout. "For me there is a time . . . when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it's almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat. It keeps you frozen in your hole you're sitting in."
In an interview yesterday, Cosby said he is speaking out because dropout, illiteracy and teen pregnancy rates are at "epidemic" levels among less-affluent African Americans. "You can't get me to soften my message," he said. "If I had said [it] nicely, then people wouldn't have listened."
[...]
Cosby may be oversimplifying a problem that defies easy solution, said Mario Beatty, a history professor at Bowie State University. "We have to confront these social problems, but the solution is not as simple as having someone change their behavior," he said. ". . . One has to clearly understand the causes of the problem."
See more of this article at the WashPost.
[...]
Cosby, 66, seemed to disagree [with comments that whites and slavery are partly to blame for the modern culture] in his remarks on Thursday, saying that blacks cannot simply blame whites for problems such as high rates of teen pregnancy and school dropout. "For me there is a time . . . when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it's almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat. It keeps you frozen in your hole you're sitting in."
In an interview yesterday, Cosby said he is speaking out because dropout, illiteracy and teen pregnancy rates are at "epidemic" levels among less-affluent African Americans. "You can't get me to soften my message," he said. "If I had said [it] nicely, then people wouldn't have listened."
[...]
Cosby may be oversimplifying a problem that defies easy solution, said Mario Beatty, a history professor at Bowie State University. "We have to confront these social problems, but the solution is not as simple as having someone change their behavior," he said. ". . . One has to clearly understand the causes of the problem."
See more of this article at the WashPost.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
BUSH CAMPAIGN TRYING TO GET CHURCH MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORIES
The WashPost reports that:
The Bush-Cheney reelection campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives.
[...]
"We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.
But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individual congregants and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status.
"I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.
[...]
A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, Frank Keith, [...] pointed out, however, that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to both the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
That warning came one week after The Post and other news media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."
The IRS letter noted that religious organizations are allowed to sponsor debates, distribute voter guides and conduct voter registration drives. But if those efforts show "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party . . . it becomes a prohibited activity," the letter said.
Milton Cerny, a tax specialist in the Washington office of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale who formerly administered tax-exempt groups for the IRS, said there is nothing in the campaign instructions "that on its face clearly would violate" the law.
"But these activities, if conducted in concert with the church or church leadership, certainly could be construed by the IRS as the church engaging in partisan electioneering," he said. "The devil is in the details."
Rosemary E. Fei, a tax specialist at the San Francisco law firm of Silk, Adler & Colvin, said the campaign checklist "feels dangerous to me" not just because of what is in it, but because of what is not. "There's no mention whatsoever that churches should be careful to remain nonpartisan," she said.
The gall of the Republican party goes beyond anything I have ever seen. Firstly, it is illegal for a church entity (any tax-exempt charitable organization) to promote one candidate or one political party over another. Secondly, if a Dem candidate tried to do this in a church or diocese, the GOPers would be up in arms crying foul, foul! (I remember a Presidential race not that long ago when certain African-American church leaders were promoting one candidate (Clinton) to their congregations and the GOPers did just that.)
Is this a case of good for the goose? I don't know, but I believe it is wrong for a pastor to speak for or against a particular political candidate (of either party). I believe it is wrong for a church to hand out "position papers" or "issue guides" to the congregation because more often than not there is a bias toward one position. It is up to each individual to unite his/her faith with his/her political beliefs. It should not be a coercive activity.
The Bush-Cheney reelection campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives.
[...]
"We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.
But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individual congregants and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status.
"I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.
[...]
A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, Frank Keith, [...] pointed out, however, that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to both the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
That warning came one week after The Post and other news media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."
The IRS letter noted that religious organizations are allowed to sponsor debates, distribute voter guides and conduct voter registration drives. But if those efforts show "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party . . . it becomes a prohibited activity," the letter said.
Milton Cerny, a tax specialist in the Washington office of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale who formerly administered tax-exempt groups for the IRS, said there is nothing in the campaign instructions "that on its face clearly would violate" the law.
"But these activities, if conducted in concert with the church or church leadership, certainly could be construed by the IRS as the church engaging in partisan electioneering," he said. "The devil is in the details."
Rosemary E. Fei, a tax specialist at the San Francisco law firm of Silk, Adler & Colvin, said the campaign checklist "feels dangerous to me" not just because of what is in it, but because of what is not. "There's no mention whatsoever that churches should be careful to remain nonpartisan," she said.
The gall of the Republican party goes beyond anything I have ever seen. Firstly, it is illegal for a church entity (any tax-exempt charitable organization) to promote one candidate or one political party over another. Secondly, if a Dem candidate tried to do this in a church or diocese, the GOPers would be up in arms crying foul, foul! (I remember a Presidential race not that long ago when certain African-American church leaders were promoting one candidate (Clinton) to their congregations and the GOPers did just that.)
Is this a case of good for the goose? I don't know, but I believe it is wrong for a pastor to speak for or against a particular political candidate (of either party). I believe it is wrong for a church to hand out "position papers" or "issue guides" to the congregation because more often than not there is a bias toward one position. It is up to each individual to unite his/her faith with his/her political beliefs. It should not be a coercive activity.
NOW HERE IS A MAN THAT I FIND DESPICABLE
Robert Novak gets on my nerves more and more lately. Maybe it is because he takes such a hard line against the Clintons, both of whom I regard highly as public figures. I admit, President Clinton's personal troubles irritated me at the time, but when nearly fifty percent of the married men in America cheat on their wives, I find it hard to condemn the President for it. Sure you would like for the President to be above human fault, but I'm sorry to say that isn't going to happen as long as the President is a human.
ASIDE: Besides all that, I think Clinton was the first President in my lifetime to consider the ways public policy will affect future generations. Arguably Reagan viewed the Soviet threat that way, but certainly not fiscal policy. GWBush doesn't seem to view anything in its long-term. I thought he might consider the War on Terrorism that way, but then he instituted his policy of pre-emption, and we attacked Iraq--both short-term outlooks, in my mind because he was willing to say, "We will do this alone. We don't need anybody else." Then he proposes not one, but two, tax cuts (for the wealthy) IN A TIME OF WAR! That was a first, and again short-sighted. But, I digress.
NOVAK: The biggest thing about Novak that bothers me is that HE is the one responsible for identifying Valerie Plame (Joe Wilson's wife) as a CIA operative. The leak of that information is currently being investigated by a grand jury, and in fact President Bush was questioned by Justice Department investigators just last week about it. I do not doubt that Karl Rove had something to do with the leak, and I hope someone in the White House takes responsibility for it. After all, identifying an active CIA operative as such in public is AGAINST THE LAW! Which brings me back to Novak--everyone knows that he wrote the column in which he named unidentified sources saying that Ms. Plame was indeed an agent of the CIA.
My question is: why isn't Novak facing criminal charges? HE was the one who made her status public. Certainly he is protected in his first amendment rights as a journalist to publish whatever he chooses and to protect his sources of information; however, HE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW which is designed to protect foreign agents and their families so that they can freely perform their duties. In my mind, that protection should take precedence over Novak's first amendment right to freely express himself.
Wouldn't this fit into the category of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' majority opinion in the decision during WW1 wherein the Supreme Court found a pamphlet urging citizens to defy the draft was not protected by the freedom of speech? Holmes wrote that "while the ideas expressed in the pamphlet would normally deserve 'freedom of speech' protection under the Bill of Rights, the clear and present danger caused by the circumstances (World War I) allowed the government to intervene: 'The most stringent protection of free speech...would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'" Does the criteria of being a secret agent of the CIA (an expert in weapons of mass destruction, BTW) during a time of war not also fall into the category of Holmes' extenuating circumstances that would not deserve freedom of speech protection? Some things to think about, if you can decipher them!
ASIDE: Besides all that, I think Clinton was the first President in my lifetime to consider the ways public policy will affect future generations. Arguably Reagan viewed the Soviet threat that way, but certainly not fiscal policy. GWBush doesn't seem to view anything in its long-term. I thought he might consider the War on Terrorism that way, but then he instituted his policy of pre-emption, and we attacked Iraq--both short-term outlooks, in my mind because he was willing to say, "We will do this alone. We don't need anybody else." Then he proposes not one, but two, tax cuts (for the wealthy) IN A TIME OF WAR! That was a first, and again short-sighted. But, I digress.
NOVAK: The biggest thing about Novak that bothers me is that HE is the one responsible for identifying Valerie Plame (Joe Wilson's wife) as a CIA operative. The leak of that information is currently being investigated by a grand jury, and in fact President Bush was questioned by Justice Department investigators just last week about it. I do not doubt that Karl Rove had something to do with the leak, and I hope someone in the White House takes responsibility for it. After all, identifying an active CIA operative as such in public is AGAINST THE LAW! Which brings me back to Novak--everyone knows that he wrote the column in which he named unidentified sources saying that Ms. Plame was indeed an agent of the CIA.
My question is: why isn't Novak facing criminal charges? HE was the one who made her status public. Certainly he is protected in his first amendment rights as a journalist to publish whatever he chooses and to protect his sources of information; however, HE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW which is designed to protect foreign agents and their families so that they can freely perform their duties. In my mind, that protection should take precedence over Novak's first amendment right to freely express himself.
Wouldn't this fit into the category of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' majority opinion in the decision during WW1 wherein the Supreme Court found a pamphlet urging citizens to defy the draft was not protected by the freedom of speech? Holmes wrote that "while the ideas expressed in the pamphlet would normally deserve 'freedom of speech' protection under the Bill of Rights, the clear and present danger caused by the circumstances (World War I) allowed the government to intervene: 'The most stringent protection of free speech...would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'" Does the criteria of being a secret agent of the CIA (an expert in weapons of mass destruction, BTW) during a time of war not also fall into the category of Holmes' extenuating circumstances that would not deserve freedom of speech protection? Some things to think about, if you can decipher them!
AL ZARQAWI
In March, MSNBC reported that the US had several opportunities prior to our invasion of Iraq to kill al-Zarqawi but chose not to follow through even though there were military solutions for bombing his location, or using cruise missiles. The suggestion may be that if the Bush administration struck this particular "cell" then their justifications for war with Iraq would be less viable. The only known connection between al Qaeda and the country of Iraq (not necessarily the government of Iraq) would have been taken out without the invasion--we certainly wouldn't be seeing the same amount of destruction in Iraq today, would we? Of course, the opposite could be true...who is to say. The thing that irritates me is that the Bush Administration wants to blame Clinton for not taking care of bin Laden when he had the chance. Can we say, "Hello pot. You look awfully like the kettle today."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
