Now that the issue of legality/illegality of the National Security Agency (NSA) Domestic Surveillance program authorized by President Bush has been bandied about for a few weeks, it’s time to apply some common sense and deductive reasoning to the whole affair so that we can get beyond the minutiae.
There are some undisputed facts in this case that are pertinent to the discussion:
· President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (a.k.a, FISA Court). The scope of this surveillance is unknown.
· In the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration sought a last minute change to the wording so that “in the United States” would specifically be referenced in the law. This last minute change was rejected. See Tom Daschle’s Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post for a full description of what transpired.
· The FISA Court has an approval rate of approximately 99.97% for requests brought before it.
Let’s look at these facts and draw some conclusions. First, the approval rate of the FISA Court suggests that this court is virtually a rubber stamp for warrant requests. At the very least, due to the number of requests submitted in the past (approximately 19,000), the standard required for evidence and probable cause by the Court was well known. If it was not well known, you would probably see a lower approval rate. The idea that the standard was well known is something to keep in mind as you read this.
Secondly, the broad language in the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda has been pointed to by many conservatives to be all that was required to justify the NSA’s domestic surveillance. However, on September 14, 2001, the Bush Administration itself was uncertain whether that language was sufficient enough to authorize activities on the domestic front. The attempt to insert more specific language into the law to include authorization for activities within the United States shows that the White House wanted explicit authority to conduct such activities and didn’t necessarily want to rely on the broad language of the negotiated resolution as cover. It is reasonable to assume that these domestic activities would have included surveillance. If this language had been inserted, the need for going to the FISA Court for domestic surveillance approval would have been nullified in the eyes of White House lawyers.
At this point, it’s time for a little common sense. It’s clear that the Bush Administration sought legal cover in the Resolution of force versus Al Qaeda, yet when that insertion was rejected, it did not seek authorization from the appropriate court with jurisdiction in this area that had a well known standard for evidence and probable cause. The conclusion that I am left with is that portions of the surveillance program could not meet the court’s standard for approval, so the President chose to bypass it altogether and secretly authorized the spying.
I’m not making a judgment as to whether this surveillance campaign is legal or illegal. That is for a court and/or Congress to decide, however it is clear to me that the Bush Administration knew in 2001 that this activity was on the edge of the law. It is highly suspicious that the Administration explicitly chose not to seek approval from a court with such a high approval rate of warrant requests. What were they afraid of?
For a conservative spin on the Domestic Spying Scandal, read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (registration required) by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, former Justice Department attorneys in the Reagan and GWH Bush administrations.
For an authoritative debunking of myths surrounding the scandal, read this excellent post from Media Matters for America. Almost all of the arguments put forth by Rivkin and Casey are summarily dismissed here.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Bin Laden's Greatest Ally
Does anyone remember Osama Bin Laden? He’s that guy hanging out somewhere in the Afghanistan – Pakistan border area who doesn’t particularly like the United States and its policies. With the daily doses of what is going right/wrong in Iraq, what is legal/illegal surveillance and who is wrecking Christmas, I’m wondering if anyone is mindful of the big picture in the War on Terror.
In order to examine the big picture, we need to understand the goals of each side in this war and then evaluate performance versus those goals. In my estimation, here are the goals of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror and an evaluation of progress on each:
Goal: Destroy terrorist training camps and reduce territorial strongholds of Al Qaeda.
Progress: US military action in Afghanistan was successful in deposing the Taliban and forcing Al Qaeda to move operations, but the job has yet to be completed. Bin Laden is still at large and the War in Iraq has provided additional strongholds for terrorism.
Goal: Bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East in an effort to create regimes friendly to America
Progress: This goal is the dubious link between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. At best, it is unclear as to how the democratic process is taking hold in Iraq. If a theocratic government aligned with Iran comes to power, then the Iraqi democracy experiment will have to be considered a failure, especially considering that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran.
Goal: Deal with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.
Progress: This was another alleged link of Iraq to the War on Terror, but this has been summarily debunked. Other states that fell into this category were Iran and North Korea, both potentially more dangerous than Iraq, but not much has been achieved on this goal.
I did my best to put forth these goals based on Bush Administration statements and other newspaper accounts about the War on Terror. In looking at this, albeit brief, list, I find it disappointing that none of these goals attempt to address the root causes of Al Qaeda’s terrorism versus the West. While it is true that Bin Laden doesn’t approve of Western Society in general (Freedom, Democracy, Separation of Church and State, etc.), he isn’t, as he said in his letter to America in October 2004, advocating attacks on Sweden. There is more to his motivation to attack the United States than simply hating Freedom and Democracy, which is the simplistic right-wing explanation for terrorism.
If you read the texts of Bin Laden’s statements over the last 10 years, you will see some common threads:
1. America’s role in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
2. America’s support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
3. The plundering of the Middle East’s resources (oil) by the West.
I haven’t listed these items to show support for Bin Laden or to suggest that the US simply accede to his demands, but to provide a means of understanding the motivation of the enemy. It will be difficult for the United States to make progress in the War on Terror if it operates blindly with respect to the above grievances.
Let’s turn to Al Qaeda’s goals in its war with the West. In Bin Laden’s Letter to America from October 2004, he stated that America will have security when it stops playing with the security of the Middle East, which really means stop interfering in the politics of the region. In lieu of that, Al Qaeda’s goal is to continue the policy of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” In this effort, Bin Laden feels that the Bush Administration has been extremely accommodating.
Has Al Qaeda made progress in its policy to drive America to bankruptcy? Yes, I think it has and the Bush Administration has been its unwitting ally. By engaging in the folly in Iraq, the Administration has committed billions to the effort, and few in Washington seem to be paying any attention to the cost of the war and the surging Federal Deficit. Iraq and the War on Terror are also bleeding this country in other ways such as the loss of fine young soldiers, the loss of civil liberties and the decline of the rule of law.
I bring this up because I find it disturbing that the goals of the enemy are being achieved through the actions of the Bush Administration. It’s like a football team that scores touchdowns for its opponent and then its head coach says he wants to stick with the game plan. Isn’t it time to re-evaluate the goals of the War on Terror so that we can stop achieving the ends of the enemy? Unfortunately, everyone in the country seems to be engaged in partisan discussions rather than finding a global solution to the problem of terrorism. Perhaps I expect too much of our elected leaders, but if terrorism policy continues on its present course, we could be looking at the beginning of the demise of the American Empire.
In order to examine the big picture, we need to understand the goals of each side in this war and then evaluate performance versus those goals. In my estimation, here are the goals of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror and an evaluation of progress on each:
Goal: Destroy terrorist training camps and reduce territorial strongholds of Al Qaeda.
Progress: US military action in Afghanistan was successful in deposing the Taliban and forcing Al Qaeda to move operations, but the job has yet to be completed. Bin Laden is still at large and the War in Iraq has provided additional strongholds for terrorism.
Goal: Bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East in an effort to create regimes friendly to America
Progress: This goal is the dubious link between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. At best, it is unclear as to how the democratic process is taking hold in Iraq. If a theocratic government aligned with Iran comes to power, then the Iraqi democracy experiment will have to be considered a failure, especially considering that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran.
Goal: Deal with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.
Progress: This was another alleged link of Iraq to the War on Terror, but this has been summarily debunked. Other states that fell into this category were Iran and North Korea, both potentially more dangerous than Iraq, but not much has been achieved on this goal.
I did my best to put forth these goals based on Bush Administration statements and other newspaper accounts about the War on Terror. In looking at this, albeit brief, list, I find it disappointing that none of these goals attempt to address the root causes of Al Qaeda’s terrorism versus the West. While it is true that Bin Laden doesn’t approve of Western Society in general (Freedom, Democracy, Separation of Church and State, etc.), he isn’t, as he said in his letter to America in October 2004, advocating attacks on Sweden. There is more to his motivation to attack the United States than simply hating Freedom and Democracy, which is the simplistic right-wing explanation for terrorism.
If you read the texts of Bin Laden’s statements over the last 10 years, you will see some common threads:
1. America’s role in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
2. America’s support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
3. The plundering of the Middle East’s resources (oil) by the West.
I haven’t listed these items to show support for Bin Laden or to suggest that the US simply accede to his demands, but to provide a means of understanding the motivation of the enemy. It will be difficult for the United States to make progress in the War on Terror if it operates blindly with respect to the above grievances.
Let’s turn to Al Qaeda’s goals in its war with the West. In Bin Laden’s Letter to America from October 2004, he stated that America will have security when it stops playing with the security of the Middle East, which really means stop interfering in the politics of the region. In lieu of that, Al Qaeda’s goal is to continue the policy of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” In this effort, Bin Laden feels that the Bush Administration has been extremely accommodating.
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this
administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest
point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to
make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and
political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some
benefits for their private companies.
Has Al Qaeda made progress in its policy to drive America to bankruptcy? Yes, I think it has and the Bush Administration has been its unwitting ally. By engaging in the folly in Iraq, the Administration has committed billions to the effort, and few in Washington seem to be paying any attention to the cost of the war and the surging Federal Deficit. Iraq and the War on Terror are also bleeding this country in other ways such as the loss of fine young soldiers, the loss of civil liberties and the decline of the rule of law.
I bring this up because I find it disturbing that the goals of the enemy are being achieved through the actions of the Bush Administration. It’s like a football team that scores touchdowns for its opponent and then its head coach says he wants to stick with the game plan. Isn’t it time to re-evaluate the goals of the War on Terror so that we can stop achieving the ends of the enemy? Unfortunately, everyone in the country seems to be engaged in partisan discussions rather than finding a global solution to the problem of terrorism. Perhaps I expect too much of our elected leaders, but if terrorism policy continues on its present course, we could be looking at the beginning of the demise of the American Empire.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Patriot Act and Christmas
Patriot Act Renewal
The renewal of the Patriot Act has been in the news recently, and at the moment, it’s stalled in Congress. That’s good news for Americans that care about civil liberties and that understand the principles on which this country was founded.
Let’s dispel a myth promulgated by neo-conservatives regarding the Patriot Act: “The Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.” President Bush reiterated this sentiment in his radio address to the nation yesterday. Excrement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact, the provisions within the Patriot Act were part of a neo-con, law enforcement wish list that existed prior to 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11th provided an opportunistic moment for passing such sweeping legislation and thus endangering the civil liberties of all Americans.
I find it difficult to understand why the Bush Administration pushes so forcefully on Patriot Act renewal yet does virtually nothing when it comes to enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Remember them? A bi-partisan commission that investigated the root causes and failures that led to 9/11? Well, the Commission had a series of recommendations that were designed to fix the failures in intelligence and communication that allowed the terrorists to operate in this country, and thus by implementing the fixes would presumably make America safer. To my knowledge, the powers granted via the Patriot Act were not deemed to be impediments in catching terrorists pre-9/11. If those powers had been in place before September 11, the attacks would not have been foiled. Yet President Bush contends that the Patriot Act makes us safer. The question is “how?”, but there is no answer because the contention is purely rhetoric, and it is rhetoric that fewer and fewer people are swallowing every day. That’s why the Patriot Act is stalled in Congress.
Is Christmas here yet?
Honestly, I can’t wait until Christmas is over this year. After that, we won’t have to hear about the faux “War on Christmas” being fought by the brave soldiers at Fox News, at least not until next year. However, a lot of people have bought into this trumped up controversy designed to boost ratings and sell books (see Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson). Now you can count Congress among the fools. This past week, House Resolution (579) calling for the support of “the symbols and traditions of Christmas” was passed by a vote of 401 to 22. What a joke! I cannot believe we are paying these people to spend time on such a meaningless issue. Considering the issues before this country, it’s embarrassing that our elected representatives chose to devote time and energy to this. Bill O’Reilly has truly won the war! Fortunately, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), brought a measure of sanity to the discussion by composing a poem about the alleged controversy of Christmas and reading it on the House floor. The text of the poem appears below:
'Twas a week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a make-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.
The renewal of the Patriot Act has been in the news recently, and at the moment, it’s stalled in Congress. That’s good news for Americans that care about civil liberties and that understand the principles on which this country was founded.
Let’s dispel a myth promulgated by neo-conservatives regarding the Patriot Act: “The Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.” President Bush reiterated this sentiment in his radio address to the nation yesterday. Excrement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact, the provisions within the Patriot Act were part of a neo-con, law enforcement wish list that existed prior to 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11th provided an opportunistic moment for passing such sweeping legislation and thus endangering the civil liberties of all Americans.
I find it difficult to understand why the Bush Administration pushes so forcefully on Patriot Act renewal yet does virtually nothing when it comes to enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Remember them? A bi-partisan commission that investigated the root causes and failures that led to 9/11? Well, the Commission had a series of recommendations that were designed to fix the failures in intelligence and communication that allowed the terrorists to operate in this country, and thus by implementing the fixes would presumably make America safer. To my knowledge, the powers granted via the Patriot Act were not deemed to be impediments in catching terrorists pre-9/11. If those powers had been in place before September 11, the attacks would not have been foiled. Yet President Bush contends that the Patriot Act makes us safer. The question is “how?”, but there is no answer because the contention is purely rhetoric, and it is rhetoric that fewer and fewer people are swallowing every day. That’s why the Patriot Act is stalled in Congress.
Is Christmas here yet?
Honestly, I can’t wait until Christmas is over this year. After that, we won’t have to hear about the faux “War on Christmas” being fought by the brave soldiers at Fox News, at least not until next year. However, a lot of people have bought into this trumped up controversy designed to boost ratings and sell books (see Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson). Now you can count Congress among the fools. This past week, House Resolution (579) calling for the support of “the symbols and traditions of Christmas” was passed by a vote of 401 to 22. What a joke! I cannot believe we are paying these people to spend time on such a meaningless issue. Considering the issues before this country, it’s embarrassing that our elected representatives chose to devote time and energy to this. Bill O’Reilly has truly won the war! Fortunately, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), brought a measure of sanity to the discussion by composing a poem about the alleged controversy of Christmas and reading it on the House floor. The text of the poem appears below:
'Twas a week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a make-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Setting the Record Straight
Last Friday evening, I watched National Geographic’s Inside 9/11 program, and for me, it provoked a lot of thoughts on the current state of affairs. Mostly, I was disgusted with where the Bush Administration has taken this country since 9/11/01, but that’s probably not a surprise to anyone who has read this space before.
If you haven’t seen Inside 9/11, I recommend watching it. It’s a two part program and it’s a fact based look at what happened prior to that fateful day, the events of September 11th and the response of the US in the wake of the attacks. At the end of the second part, the program reviews the US response in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Directly after that, the invasion of Iraq is mentioned. While watching that, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a giant non sequitur to the military action in Afghanistan. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general? Why is Iraq a new front in the war on terrorism?
The reason it didn’t make sense to me is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. I can’t explain why the US is in Iraq (you’ll have to ask Cheney), but I can state one thing unequivocally. It has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. Well, that is unless the plan was to create more terrorists. That’s working brilliantly.
Let’s look at this war on terror connection to Iraq a little more closely. How could it possibly be related?
· There were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, and that’s understandable since Saddam Hussein’s government was secular in nature and not Islamic.
· Both Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States, but that doesn’t make them unique or link them in any way.
· Would Iraq become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? That’s a logical thought, but is also the reason that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job to make sure that wouldn’t happen, prior to the US invasion.
· Spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East in an effort to provide security to America – this seems to be a “popular” connection, but it’s the most ill conceived of them all. In other words, the strategy is “convert them to our way of thinking so that they won’t hurt us again.”
If you buy into the spread freedom and democracy angle, then Iraq was probably the right choice. It was a secular government in a region that is increasingly trending toward more Islamic regimes and it was a government without any friends. Who would miss Saddam? Probably no one would care, right?
Here’s where this strategy breaks down. The Middle East is a region that has deep mistrust of the West, and that goes back to the Crusades. Arabs have always had a very long term view of the world and they remember the past. Put that into contrast with our society where everything is about the short term, from the stock market to what is on TV tonight, and you have a culture mismatch. If you look at the situation with absolutely no historical perspective, the idea of invading Iraq and having a happy ending seems almost plausible. However, if you examine the history of the region with the West, the very thought of invading a sovereign country in the Middle East with an eye toward converting it to a Western style democracy is foolhardy. There is way too much distrust between the societies, and much of it is deserved. The idea that freedom and democracy will flourish in the Middle East by force feeding it to an occupied country seems naïve, especially when the occupier’s President unintentionally uses the word ‘crusade’ to describe the effort. If you’re an Arab, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that this war is an extension of Christianity versus Islam when the aggressor uses the language of the Crusades? That’s not a public relations idea that’s going to take hold in the Middle East.
Also, since when does America start wars preemptively? A look at our history shows that we’ve never done that before. Supporters of the war will respond to that thoughtlessly with “this is a different kind of war” or “the rules are different in the war on terror.” Baloney! If you want to provide security for Americans, don’t go and stir up a hornets nest. If we really want to spread freedom and democracy to the region, we should have the courage NOT to invade. Change is often a long term process, and that’s probably even truer when talking about culture change. That’s not the kind of change that can be forced overnight; it has to be an evolutionary process and a partnership with the West is the way to do it.
The US likes to think of itself as the standard bearer for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the War in Iraq has revealed that today’s United States no longer deserves that lofty title. The latest blow to this is the continuing saga of torture. Torture has been proven to be ultimately self-defeating, yet we have an Administration that has used and wants to continue to use torture as an interrogation technique. What happened to the sentiment of overthrowing Saddam because he tortures his own people? It’s OK for us to torture them, but not him? Isn’t this a classic double standard? And I haven’t even brought up the fact that the new regime seems to have set up its own torture structure. Are we replacing one set of torturers with another? Surely, that wasn’t the point of the invasion. What a truly shining example we are setting for the rest of the world by defending our use of torture.
As I said earlier, I can’t tell you the real reasons the United States invaded Iraq, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the security of this country. If we don’t know why we are there, how can we possibly figure out how to extricate ourselves from this mess? So far, no one in Washington has an answer to that question.
If you haven’t seen Inside 9/11, I recommend watching it. It’s a two part program and it’s a fact based look at what happened prior to that fateful day, the events of September 11th and the response of the US in the wake of the attacks. At the end of the second part, the program reviews the US response in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Directly after that, the invasion of Iraq is mentioned. While watching that, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a giant non sequitur to the military action in Afghanistan. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general? Why is Iraq a new front in the war on terrorism?
The reason it didn’t make sense to me is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. I can’t explain why the US is in Iraq (you’ll have to ask Cheney), but I can state one thing unequivocally. It has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. Well, that is unless the plan was to create more terrorists. That’s working brilliantly.
Let’s look at this war on terror connection to Iraq a little more closely. How could it possibly be related?
· There were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, and that’s understandable since Saddam Hussein’s government was secular in nature and not Islamic.
· Both Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States, but that doesn’t make them unique or link them in any way.
· Would Iraq become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? That’s a logical thought, but is also the reason that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job to make sure that wouldn’t happen, prior to the US invasion.
· Spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East in an effort to provide security to America – this seems to be a “popular” connection, but it’s the most ill conceived of them all. In other words, the strategy is “convert them to our way of thinking so that they won’t hurt us again.”
If you buy into the spread freedom and democracy angle, then Iraq was probably the right choice. It was a secular government in a region that is increasingly trending toward more Islamic regimes and it was a government without any friends. Who would miss Saddam? Probably no one would care, right?
Here’s where this strategy breaks down. The Middle East is a region that has deep mistrust of the West, and that goes back to the Crusades. Arabs have always had a very long term view of the world and they remember the past. Put that into contrast with our society where everything is about the short term, from the stock market to what is on TV tonight, and you have a culture mismatch. If you look at the situation with absolutely no historical perspective, the idea of invading Iraq and having a happy ending seems almost plausible. However, if you examine the history of the region with the West, the very thought of invading a sovereign country in the Middle East with an eye toward converting it to a Western style democracy is foolhardy. There is way too much distrust between the societies, and much of it is deserved. The idea that freedom and democracy will flourish in the Middle East by force feeding it to an occupied country seems naïve, especially when the occupier’s President unintentionally uses the word ‘crusade’ to describe the effort. If you’re an Arab, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that this war is an extension of Christianity versus Islam when the aggressor uses the language of the Crusades? That’s not a public relations idea that’s going to take hold in the Middle East.
Also, since when does America start wars preemptively? A look at our history shows that we’ve never done that before. Supporters of the war will respond to that thoughtlessly with “this is a different kind of war” or “the rules are different in the war on terror.” Baloney! If you want to provide security for Americans, don’t go and stir up a hornets nest. If we really want to spread freedom and democracy to the region, we should have the courage NOT to invade. Change is often a long term process, and that’s probably even truer when talking about culture change. That’s not the kind of change that can be forced overnight; it has to be an evolutionary process and a partnership with the West is the way to do it.
The US likes to think of itself as the standard bearer for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the War in Iraq has revealed that today’s United States no longer deserves that lofty title. The latest blow to this is the continuing saga of torture. Torture has been proven to be ultimately self-defeating, yet we have an Administration that has used and wants to continue to use torture as an interrogation technique. What happened to the sentiment of overthrowing Saddam because he tortures his own people? It’s OK for us to torture them, but not him? Isn’t this a classic double standard? And I haven’t even brought up the fact that the new regime seems to have set up its own torture structure. Are we replacing one set of torturers with another? Surely, that wasn’t the point of the invasion. What a truly shining example we are setting for the rest of the world by defending our use of torture.
As I said earlier, I can’t tell you the real reasons the United States invaded Iraq, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the security of this country. If we don’t know why we are there, how can we possibly figure out how to extricate ourselves from this mess? So far, no one in Washington has an answer to that question.
Monday, November 28, 2005
A Question of Faith
Recently, I read an essay by Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) entitled “There Is No God”, and while I’m in agreement with the spirit of the title, I was disturbed by some of the author’s claims about belief and Atheism. Mr. Jillette contends that declaring oneself an Atheist is easy because not believing in something is simple. He turns that around by saying that he believes there is no God. Essentially, he is saying “I don’t believe in God/Higher Power/etc.” is substantively different than “I believe there is no God”, and by declaring a belief, rather than a non-belief, he has more clearly defined himself.
I don’t believe that the two statements above vary at all in meaning, and I strongly disagree with Mr. Jillette’s assertion that Atheism is about non-belief. The statement “I believe there is no God” is absolutely a tenet of Atheism and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to mislead the reader about what Atheism actually means. Why would Mr. Jillette do this? I suspect that he is uncomfortable with the label of Atheist and that he is trying to define himself in a more positive and palatable way that distances himself from the general public’s understanding of Atheism. Let’s face it, the word atheist has a very negative connotation in our society today and contrary to Mr. Jillette’s words, publicly declaring yourself an atheist isn’t easy. In fact, it’s courageous. Most people have been brainwashed to think that Atheists believe in nothing, are morally bankrupt and are generally dangerous to society. Admitting to all of that isn’t easy.
However, it isn’t unreasonable not to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I can say with equal conviction that there is no God as I can say there is no Easter Bunny. When discussing the evidence of God with a religious person, the person will invariably put forth the illogical and circular arguments that he has been armed with through the brainwashing he has received since childhood. In the end though, after you’ve exhausted all of the arguments, the person will say something to the effect of “you just have to have faith.” And you know what? I couldn’t agree more.
The pertinent question is: “what should I have faith in?” This is where Mr. Jillette missed the point of his “I believe” essay, which was surprising given his celebrity status. First, I have faith in myself and my ability to control my own destiny. My life is what I make of it; there is nothing supernatural involved in it. Secondly, I have faith in humanity. I believe that humans can create just societies and governments, can explore truth and the nature of the universe through science, and can lead ethical lives that aspire to a common good. Some may recognize these as characteristics of Humanism, and perhaps Humanism is the next evolutionary step for Atheism. It shows a distinct belief and faith in something (as opposed to nothing) and is where I think Mr. Jillette was heading. He just hasn’t arrived there yet.
For more information on Humanism, visit the American Humanist Association.
I don’t believe that the two statements above vary at all in meaning, and I strongly disagree with Mr. Jillette’s assertion that Atheism is about non-belief. The statement “I believe there is no God” is absolutely a tenet of Atheism and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to mislead the reader about what Atheism actually means. Why would Mr. Jillette do this? I suspect that he is uncomfortable with the label of Atheist and that he is trying to define himself in a more positive and palatable way that distances himself from the general public’s understanding of Atheism. Let’s face it, the word atheist has a very negative connotation in our society today and contrary to Mr. Jillette’s words, publicly declaring yourself an atheist isn’t easy. In fact, it’s courageous. Most people have been brainwashed to think that Atheists believe in nothing, are morally bankrupt and are generally dangerous to society. Admitting to all of that isn’t easy.
However, it isn’t unreasonable not to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I can say with equal conviction that there is no God as I can say there is no Easter Bunny. When discussing the evidence of God with a religious person, the person will invariably put forth the illogical and circular arguments that he has been armed with through the brainwashing he has received since childhood. In the end though, after you’ve exhausted all of the arguments, the person will say something to the effect of “you just have to have faith.” And you know what? I couldn’t agree more.
The pertinent question is: “what should I have faith in?” This is where Mr. Jillette missed the point of his “I believe” essay, which was surprising given his celebrity status. First, I have faith in myself and my ability to control my own destiny. My life is what I make of it; there is nothing supernatural involved in it. Secondly, I have faith in humanity. I believe that humans can create just societies and governments, can explore truth and the nature of the universe through science, and can lead ethical lives that aspire to a common good. Some may recognize these as characteristics of Humanism, and perhaps Humanism is the next evolutionary step for Atheism. It shows a distinct belief and faith in something (as opposed to nothing) and is where I think Mr. Jillette was heading. He just hasn’t arrived there yet.
For more information on Humanism, visit the American Humanist Association.
Monday, November 21, 2005
O'Reilly and the War on Christmas
November 21, 2005 - CPLA Exclusive
BOSTON - Today, in one of the most brazen attacks in the War on Christmas, Secularist para-troopers stormed the Prudential Mall in downtown Boston in an all-out attack on retailers promoting the Christian holiday. The pagan troops went store to store and dismantled any display that referred to Christmas while holding store employees at bay with automatic weapons.
The assault lasted about 45 minutes and when it was over, the Secularist troops forced retail employees to carry their destroyed Christmas displays outside to Boylston Street where they were piled together and set alight to form a bonfire that could be seen for miles. The atheistic horde even had the audacity to throw Bibles into the flames. The leader of the Secularist mission, General Robert Ingersoll, stated “attacks like this are needed to make a strong statement about the dangers of Christmas in American society today. Don’t be surprised if you see more of these attacks in the coming days elsewhere in America.”
The question now becomes, how should America react to the upsurge in violence in the War on Christmas?
***
Obviously, the above “story” is a bit far-fetched ... or is it? For the second year in a row, Bill O’Reilly has been talking up the “War on Christmas” on his nightly television show, The O’Reilly Factor. This year, O’Reilly is focusing on retailers and their use of the dreaded “Christmas” word in their marketing and advertising. According to O'Reilly, retailers who don’t use Christmas in store displays, etc. are deemed to be exclusionary and hostile toward Christians, and can expect to lose millions of shoppers this holiday season.
Isn’t O’Reilly being a little paranoid here? A sales and marketing executive who was a guest on “The Factor” told the pundit that the point of the "Happy Holidays" marketing theme wasn’t to exclude Christians, but to include everyone, regardless of faith. That didn’t fly with O’Reilly and he told his guest that he thought he was crazy.
On his November 18th show, O’Reilly brought up the subject again with a far friendlier guest, fellow Fox News host John Gibson. Gibson actually has a book on this very topic and based on the transcript of the interview, is even more on the fringe of this subject than O’Reilly is. What this really boils down to is two old guys who aren’t comfortable with how America has changed and is continuing to change. They want everything in America to be just as it was when they were kids. Don’t we all feel that way sometimes? I know that I’m nostalgic about sports from my childhood. However, their paranoia drives them to the belief that their “way of life” is being marginalized. Claims of hostility towards Christianity sounds a lot like the people who organized Justice Sunday and said that “people of faith” were being discriminated against. Clearly, the accusation of discrimination is a powerful tool in mobilizing one’s base and O’Reilly isn’t bashful about calling out to his listeners to enlist them in his battles.
I suppose that this resistance to change is simply an indication as to why Bill O’Reilly is a conservative television host for Fox News. However, his resistance to change has manifested itself into a vision of sub-plots against his core beliefs that actually doesn't exist. I almost feel sorry for the man.
BOSTON - Today, in one of the most brazen attacks in the War on Christmas, Secularist para-troopers stormed the Prudential Mall in downtown Boston in an all-out attack on retailers promoting the Christian holiday. The pagan troops went store to store and dismantled any display that referred to Christmas while holding store employees at bay with automatic weapons.
The assault lasted about 45 minutes and when it was over, the Secularist troops forced retail employees to carry their destroyed Christmas displays outside to Boylston Street where they were piled together and set alight to form a bonfire that could be seen for miles. The atheistic horde even had the audacity to throw Bibles into the flames. The leader of the Secularist mission, General Robert Ingersoll, stated “attacks like this are needed to make a strong statement about the dangers of Christmas in American society today. Don’t be surprised if you see more of these attacks in the coming days elsewhere in America.”
The question now becomes, how should America react to the upsurge in violence in the War on Christmas?
***
Obviously, the above “story” is a bit far-fetched ... or is it? For the second year in a row, Bill O’Reilly has been talking up the “War on Christmas” on his nightly television show, The O’Reilly Factor. This year, O’Reilly is focusing on retailers and their use of the dreaded “Christmas” word in their marketing and advertising. According to O'Reilly, retailers who don’t use Christmas in store displays, etc. are deemed to be exclusionary and hostile toward Christians, and can expect to lose millions of shoppers this holiday season.
Isn’t O’Reilly being a little paranoid here? A sales and marketing executive who was a guest on “The Factor” told the pundit that the point of the "Happy Holidays" marketing theme wasn’t to exclude Christians, but to include everyone, regardless of faith. That didn’t fly with O’Reilly and he told his guest that he thought he was crazy.
On his November 18th show, O’Reilly brought up the subject again with a far friendlier guest, fellow Fox News host John Gibson. Gibson actually has a book on this very topic and based on the transcript of the interview, is even more on the fringe of this subject than O’Reilly is. What this really boils down to is two old guys who aren’t comfortable with how America has changed and is continuing to change. They want everything in America to be just as it was when they were kids. Don’t we all feel that way sometimes? I know that I’m nostalgic about sports from my childhood. However, their paranoia drives them to the belief that their “way of life” is being marginalized. Claims of hostility towards Christianity sounds a lot like the people who organized Justice Sunday and said that “people of faith” were being discriminated against. Clearly, the accusation of discrimination is a powerful tool in mobilizing one’s base and O’Reilly isn’t bashful about calling out to his listeners to enlist them in his battles.
I suppose that this resistance to change is simply an indication as to why Bill O’Reilly is a conservative television host for Fox News. However, his resistance to change has manifested itself into a vision of sub-plots against his core beliefs that actually doesn't exist. I almost feel sorry for the man.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Come out swingin'
Over the last few days, members of the Bush administration have come out with their scripted talking points regarding the Iraq war amidst waves of criticism from all corners of America. Let’s summarize these talking points into a concise list so we can easily parse through the message:
· Everyone had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
· Democrats thought Saddam had WMD too.
· Democrats are contradicting themselves for political gain.
· War critics are re-writing history and are dishonest.
· Claiming that intelligence was fabricated dishonors the soldiers in Iraq.
Of course this is all utter rubbish. Fred Kaplan of Slate does an excellent job of breaking down President Bush’s Veterans Day speech and points out the falsehoods and misleading information contained within. A New York Times editorial also debunks the latest PR campaign from the Bushies.
I’d like to address a couple of these points myself. First, regarding the same intelligence claim, doesn’t it make sense that if everyone looked at the same “cooked” intelligence that they would all come to the same conclusion? Isn’t that exactly what you wanted to happen Mr. President? Of course, not everyone saw the same intelligence, as what was sent to Congress didn’t contain crucial dissenting views.
The most outrageous claim above is the one concerning dishonesty. Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned this in a speech today and while Cheney is certainly an expert on dishonesty (the last time he was truthful on any topic was circa 1620), his claims could only be backed up by further falsehoods regarding pre-war intelligence. At this point, it has become blatantly obvious to me that this administration flat-out lied to get the US into this war. The Downing Street memo, which stated that the intelligence would be fixed around the policy, was the smoking gun. Unfortunately, only the Progressive media saw it that way. The mainstream media (and some of my friends) largely chose to downplay the memo, perhaps thinking such blatant manipulation and conspiracy couldn’t happen. I guess the media forgot about Watergate and the level of conspiracy involved at that time. This memo, and the fact that Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq back in 2001 are two of the more salient points when discussing the dishonesty of this war.
Oh, and what about the claim that war critics are dishonoring our soldiers in Iraq by questioning the pre-war intelligence? Personally, I can’t think of anything more dishonorable than sending people to die in the wake of lies. Can you?
· Everyone had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
· Democrats thought Saddam had WMD too.
· Democrats are contradicting themselves for political gain.
· War critics are re-writing history and are dishonest.
· Claiming that intelligence was fabricated dishonors the soldiers in Iraq.
Of course this is all utter rubbish. Fred Kaplan of Slate does an excellent job of breaking down President Bush’s Veterans Day speech and points out the falsehoods and misleading information contained within. A New York Times editorial also debunks the latest PR campaign from the Bushies.
I’d like to address a couple of these points myself. First, regarding the same intelligence claim, doesn’t it make sense that if everyone looked at the same “cooked” intelligence that they would all come to the same conclusion? Isn’t that exactly what you wanted to happen Mr. President? Of course, not everyone saw the same intelligence, as what was sent to Congress didn’t contain crucial dissenting views.
The most outrageous claim above is the one concerning dishonesty. Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned this in a speech today and while Cheney is certainly an expert on dishonesty (the last time he was truthful on any topic was circa 1620), his claims could only be backed up by further falsehoods regarding pre-war intelligence. At this point, it has become blatantly obvious to me that this administration flat-out lied to get the US into this war. The Downing Street memo, which stated that the intelligence would be fixed around the policy, was the smoking gun. Unfortunately, only the Progressive media saw it that way. The mainstream media (and some of my friends) largely chose to downplay the memo, perhaps thinking such blatant manipulation and conspiracy couldn’t happen. I guess the media forgot about Watergate and the level of conspiracy involved at that time. This memo, and the fact that Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq back in 2001 are two of the more salient points when discussing the dishonesty of this war.
Oh, and what about the claim that war critics are dishonoring our soldiers in Iraq by questioning the pre-war intelligence? Personally, I can’t think of anything more dishonorable than sending people to die in the wake of lies. Can you?
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Thanks Pat!
If further confirmation was needed that Intelligent Design is simply Creationism in disguise, then Pat Robertson just delivered. According to Robertson, the city of Dover, PA has rejected God by ousting the school board that was in favor of including Intelligent Design in science classes. Of course the religious zealot didn’t stop there. The assassination-loving, disaster-targeting mouthpiece of God told the citizens of Dover not to turn to God if a natural disaster strikes their area, as they would get no help from him/her/it. I was surprised that Robertson actually used the term “natural disaster” as he usually calls for God to use his Dial-A-Disaster Machine and send it to the offending community for just punishment. He must have misspoken.
Robertson’s statements today confirmed two things:
1. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science. It is simply the latest weapon in Christian Fundamentalism’s war against Evolution and the truthful exploration of the universe.
2. Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to himself and the cause he purports to believe in. Publicly, few, if any, will come to his defense over his comments regarding Dover, PA. The credibility of the Religious Right may have been compromised as well since it appears that a nut-job is speaking for God-fearing Christians everywhere.
And while we are on the subject of Pat Robertson, why does this man have any credibility when it comes to the “thoughts” of God. The world seems to be filled with spokespeople for God and some of them must be wrong. In fact, I would guess that Pat Robertson has a 0.00% chance of getting anything right. By the way, if you are religious, do you really want to worship the God that Pat Robertson represents? If you do, then your God is egotistical, masochistic and unforgiving. Those don’t sound like the qualities of a higher being to me.
Let’s face it – all of these people that claim to speak for God are speaking for themselves and are using God as a means of pushing their agenda on others. Yes, it’s that simple and Pat Robertson is your proof. Do something that he disagrees with and you could end up dead, in a hurricane or both. Pat – just go away! You won’t be missed by anyone.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Separation of Church and State
Earlier today, I read a story that I fear will be twisted against those who staunchly support separation of church and state. Following the complaints of parents and students, a Newark, Delaware high school principal apologized for allowing a Christian-themed assembly to be staged at the school. The principal claimed that he was unaware of the specific nature of the content to be presented to the students.
Bravo to the students and parents that saw this as an inappropriate presentation in a public school for complaining forcefully enough to illicit an apology from the school’s principal. The concept of separation of church and state is under attack on multiple fronts, from court cases on Intelligent Design to the Federal Government’s Faith Based Initiative program. Public Schools are no place for Evangelical Christianity, and please don’t tell me there’s no harm in allowing such programs. In the next few days, don’t be surprised if we hear some Christian leaders come out and wonder why they are so persecuted. Please! It’s simply a ploy to mobilize their base to portray Christians as a group which is being discriminated against. If schools were presenting similar programs from members of the Jewish or Muslim faiths who were telling students how to act and what to do to get more involved with their religions, the Christian community would be in an uproar.
These parents and students deserve our support and respect just the same as the parents in Dover, Pennsylvania deserve it for their fight against Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. Let’s hope that these courageous people are not vilified for standing up for the preservation of separation of church and state, and let’s hope that the ignorance of Intelligent Design isn’t allowed to be taught in public schools as scientific theory.
Bravo to the students and parents that saw this as an inappropriate presentation in a public school for complaining forcefully enough to illicit an apology from the school’s principal. The concept of separation of church and state is under attack on multiple fronts, from court cases on Intelligent Design to the Federal Government’s Faith Based Initiative program. Public Schools are no place for Evangelical Christianity, and please don’t tell me there’s no harm in allowing such programs. In the next few days, don’t be surprised if we hear some Christian leaders come out and wonder why they are so persecuted. Please! It’s simply a ploy to mobilize their base to portray Christians as a group which is being discriminated against. If schools were presenting similar programs from members of the Jewish or Muslim faiths who were telling students how to act and what to do to get more involved with their religions, the Christian community would be in an uproar.
These parents and students deserve our support and respect just the same as the parents in Dover, Pennsylvania deserve it for their fight against Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. Let’s hope that these courageous people are not vilified for standing up for the preservation of separation of church and state, and let’s hope that the ignorance of Intelligent Design isn’t allowed to be taught in public schools as scientific theory.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Where are the Real Conservatives?
Today, both the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal government are controlled by the Republican Party, which historically has been the party of Conservatism. But is that still true? Traditional Conservatism is characterized by commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Under the current watch, all four of these principles are under attack by the very party that holds them so dear. It makes you wonder, is George Bush a conservative?
Let me provide some examples to illustrate why I think the Bush administration, being the main culprit, and Congressional Republicans are violating their own principles.
· Individual Liberty: The Patriot Act has allowed law enforcement to compromise the civil liberties of American citizens. An example of this is National Security Letters. NSLs can act as warrants, yet they are issued by the FBI with no judicial oversight. The War on Terror is no excuse for this legislation.
· Limited Government: In the history of the United States, the Federal Government has never been as large as it is today. The Government employs over 12 million people today and many of these are contractors.
· Constitutional Restraint: This principle has morphed into Judicial Restraint and it seems to represent the most schizophrenic portion of the Republican Party. Christian Conservatives and their political puppets like to use the phrase “activist judges” for those judges they believe are setting new and unconstitutional precedents. What “activist judges” really means is “judges who don’t agree with us”. Upholding or overturning precedents don’t mean anything to the Christian Right when it comes to “activist judges”.
· Fiscal Responsibility: The budget surplus of the Clinton Administration has been wiped out and replaced by a massive national debt that will only grow with the war in Iraq and the clean-up of Katrina.
Of course, I come to the conclusion that Bush is not a true conservative and that the Republican Party has lost its way. One reason it has lost its way is the “marriage” of the GOP and the Christian Right. If there was ever a marriage of convenience, this one is it. Christian Conservatives vote with the Republican Party simply because that party is more closely aligned with them on social issues and they feel they have no choice but to vote that way. Their views on government are not necessarily aligned in the same manner, but “morally” (I hate that word now) they feel they have no choice.
The GOP tolerates the Christian Right because of the huge voter bloc that it brings to the table. However, the influence of Christian Conservatives has begun to permeate the Republican Party at its highest levels including the Presidency of the United States. Christianity and religion are increasingly becoming a part of public life in this country and that feels like a bad thing to me. The rise of the Bush Administration has presented an opportunity for the Christian Right to grab as much power as it can and impose its values on the country.
It is that lust for power that drives Republican politics in America today. Conservative principles have been abandoned for cronyism, big government spending and the coveting of wealth and power. The idea of separation of church and state could be completely redefined by the party that is supposed to believe in Constitutional Restraint. All of these items make me wonder where true Conservatism is in America.
Let me provide some examples to illustrate why I think the Bush administration, being the main culprit, and Congressional Republicans are violating their own principles.
· Individual Liberty: The Patriot Act has allowed law enforcement to compromise the civil liberties of American citizens. An example of this is National Security Letters. NSLs can act as warrants, yet they are issued by the FBI with no judicial oversight. The War on Terror is no excuse for this legislation.
· Limited Government: In the history of the United States, the Federal Government has never been as large as it is today. The Government employs over 12 million people today and many of these are contractors.
· Constitutional Restraint: This principle has morphed into Judicial Restraint and it seems to represent the most schizophrenic portion of the Republican Party. Christian Conservatives and their political puppets like to use the phrase “activist judges” for those judges they believe are setting new and unconstitutional precedents. What “activist judges” really means is “judges who don’t agree with us”. Upholding or overturning precedents don’t mean anything to the Christian Right when it comes to “activist judges”.
· Fiscal Responsibility: The budget surplus of the Clinton Administration has been wiped out and replaced by a massive national debt that will only grow with the war in Iraq and the clean-up of Katrina.
Of course, I come to the conclusion that Bush is not a true conservative and that the Republican Party has lost its way. One reason it has lost its way is the “marriage” of the GOP and the Christian Right. If there was ever a marriage of convenience, this one is it. Christian Conservatives vote with the Republican Party simply because that party is more closely aligned with them on social issues and they feel they have no choice but to vote that way. Their views on government are not necessarily aligned in the same manner, but “morally” (I hate that word now) they feel they have no choice.
The GOP tolerates the Christian Right because of the huge voter bloc that it brings to the table. However, the influence of Christian Conservatives has begun to permeate the Republican Party at its highest levels including the Presidency of the United States. Christianity and religion are increasingly becoming a part of public life in this country and that feels like a bad thing to me. The rise of the Bush Administration has presented an opportunity for the Christian Right to grab as much power as it can and impose its values on the country.
It is that lust for power that drives Republican politics in America today. Conservative principles have been abandoned for cronyism, big government spending and the coveting of wealth and power. The idea of separation of church and state could be completely redefined by the party that is supposed to believe in Constitutional Restraint. All of these items make me wonder where true Conservatism is in America.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Couple of links
I recommend reading the two opinion articles linked below from TomPaine.com for a much needed perspective on the current administration. By the way, TomPaine.com is one of the best sources on the web for opinion and news. Enjoy.
Bush's Fantasy Foreign Policy
A Snake Oil President
Bush's Fantasy Foreign Policy
A Snake Oil President
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Book Review - Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
It’s been some time since I read Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby, but I still consider it to be one of the most important books that I have ever read. In fact, reading the book gave me a new found appreciation for the role of secularism in the formation and history of the United States of America.
Today, the separation of church and state is a polarizing issue in America. What did the Founding Fathers truly mean by separation of church and state? If you listen to today’s Conservative Christian leaders, you might think they never meant it at all. They’ll tell you that our founders were extremely pious people who would be aghast at how today’s “liberals” have twisted their words to do such things as eliminate school prayer and remove religious icons from public buildings. "Freethinkers" provides the reader with another perspective on our Founding Fathers and their intent when they left any mention of a higher power out of the Constitution; a perspective that is backed with facts and research rather than a revisionist and convenient history that plays well to a current day audience.
As I progressed through the book, I was surprised to learn how accepted secularism, agnosticism and atheism were in 19th century society. Leaders in these movements were well-respected, public individuals. The most well known of these figures, at the time, was probably Robert Ingersoll, a.k.a. the “Great Agnostic”. These movements were so well accepted in American society that some believed religion would cease to be a force in American life in the coming 20th century. American religious leaders saw this danger on the horizon and took effective steps to ensure the role of religion in American life. By 1920, the concepts of secularism, agnosticism and atheism were marginalized and demonized in the minds of most Americans.
The fervor of religion in American society and politics has grown increasingly throughout the 20th century to the point where separation of church and state is being re-examined in a whole new light. Jacoby addresses the rise of evangelical Christianity in the latter half of the 20th century and demonstrates its increasing political clout in the current Bush administration, using faith-based initiatives as an example.
I encourage you to read some of the reviews on Amazon.com for this book. I have provided a link above to see these. One reviewer of note is Christopher Hitchens, who is a well-respected conservative author. I think his thoughts on the book highlight the book's importance.
If you take the time to read this book, I’m sure you will find it as enlightening and thought provoking as I did, especially in light of the issues in this space today.
Today, the separation of church and state is a polarizing issue in America. What did the Founding Fathers truly mean by separation of church and state? If you listen to today’s Conservative Christian leaders, you might think they never meant it at all. They’ll tell you that our founders were extremely pious people who would be aghast at how today’s “liberals” have twisted their words to do such things as eliminate school prayer and remove religious icons from public buildings. "Freethinkers" provides the reader with another perspective on our Founding Fathers and their intent when they left any mention of a higher power out of the Constitution; a perspective that is backed with facts and research rather than a revisionist and convenient history that plays well to a current day audience.
As I progressed through the book, I was surprised to learn how accepted secularism, agnosticism and atheism were in 19th century society. Leaders in these movements were well-respected, public individuals. The most well known of these figures, at the time, was probably Robert Ingersoll, a.k.a. the “Great Agnostic”. These movements were so well accepted in American society that some believed religion would cease to be a force in American life in the coming 20th century. American religious leaders saw this danger on the horizon and took effective steps to ensure the role of religion in American life. By 1920, the concepts of secularism, agnosticism and atheism were marginalized and demonized in the minds of most Americans.
The fervor of religion in American society and politics has grown increasingly throughout the 20th century to the point where separation of church and state is being re-examined in a whole new light. Jacoby addresses the rise of evangelical Christianity in the latter half of the 20th century and demonstrates its increasing political clout in the current Bush administration, using faith-based initiatives as an example.
I encourage you to read some of the reviews on Amazon.com for this book. I have provided a link above to see these. One reviewer of note is Christopher Hitchens, who is a well-respected conservative author. I think his thoughts on the book highlight the book's importance.
If you take the time to read this book, I’m sure you will find it as enlightening and thought provoking as I did, especially in light of the issues in this space today.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Sundays with George
In the wake of recent reports that President Bush was told by God to invade Iraq, CPLA has obtained a transcript of a conversation that never happened between the President and God.
White House Operator: Mr. President, God is on line 2.
Bush: Thanks Harriet …hey God, how ya doin buddy?
God: Hello George, we need to talk. What’s all this that you told the Palestinians about our conversations?
Bush: Well God, I gotta tell ya, these Palestinian fellas just weren’t buyin’ our usual explanations, so I thought I would reassure 'em by lettin’ 'em know that you and I were talkin', and you were on our side on this thing.
God: Now George, did you really tell them I told you to invade Iraq? We both know that was Cheney’s idea and I don’t want you mixing the two of us up again.
Bush: Yeah God, I did tell ‘em you gave me the green light on that one. Those Palestinian boys seemed like God-fearing folk, and would appreciate an authorization from The Almighty. I didn’t mean any harm by it.
God: Well George, you’ve really got me in a pickle on that one. You know I haven’t authorized anything like that since the Old Testament. I’ve been working on my image for centuries and you go and foul it up in one stupid statement. I’m supposed to be the God of peace and love, and now you have me authorizing invasions and killing people. It's tough enough with the terrorists killing everyone in my name.
Bush: Well God, I am sorry about that, but I’m not too happy with you either. What’s with all these storms you been throwin’ my way? You’ve got me in an awful mess with those folks in the South. My poll numbers are way down and I had to get rid of Brownie.
God: Brownie was a fool, and quite frankly, just not pious enough for this administration. I figured this kind of storm would be just the thing to show how incompetent he was. It worked pretty well, don’t you think?
Bush: It sure did buddy, but now I got my work cut out down there. I could use a little help if you know what I mean. Speaking of help, Cheney wants to know when we can get that authorization on Iran?
End transcript.
If your neighbor told you that he or she spoke with God, you probably would think the person is not sane and needs some psychiatric counseling. Yet, if your President tells foreign diplomats that God talks to him, what should you think? Is that OK? Has he been granted an audience with the Almighty because he is the President of the United States? Does anyone really believe that God told him to invade Iraq?
I thought we invaded Iraq because of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Oh, that’s right, it turned out there weren’t any WMD, so we’re really there to spread freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Is Bush dropping that explanation in favor of playing the God card? Perhaps he is. So now we have a group of terrorists saying that God tells them to kill the infidels, and we have Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq, and subsequently kill thousands. Isn’t it transparent that both sides are using religion to justify their violent actions and manipulate the hearts and minds of millions? The sad thing is that it works and always has.
White House Operator: Mr. President, God is on line 2.
Bush: Thanks Harriet …hey God, how ya doin buddy?
God: Hello George, we need to talk. What’s all this that you told the Palestinians about our conversations?
Bush: Well God, I gotta tell ya, these Palestinian fellas just weren’t buyin’ our usual explanations, so I thought I would reassure 'em by lettin’ 'em know that you and I were talkin', and you were on our side on this thing.
God: Now George, did you really tell them I told you to invade Iraq? We both know that was Cheney’s idea and I don’t want you mixing the two of us up again.
Bush: Yeah God, I did tell ‘em you gave me the green light on that one. Those Palestinian boys seemed like God-fearing folk, and would appreciate an authorization from The Almighty. I didn’t mean any harm by it.
God: Well George, you’ve really got me in a pickle on that one. You know I haven’t authorized anything like that since the Old Testament. I’ve been working on my image for centuries and you go and foul it up in one stupid statement. I’m supposed to be the God of peace and love, and now you have me authorizing invasions and killing people. It's tough enough with the terrorists killing everyone in my name.
Bush: Well God, I am sorry about that, but I’m not too happy with you either. What’s with all these storms you been throwin’ my way? You’ve got me in an awful mess with those folks in the South. My poll numbers are way down and I had to get rid of Brownie.
God: Brownie was a fool, and quite frankly, just not pious enough for this administration. I figured this kind of storm would be just the thing to show how incompetent he was. It worked pretty well, don’t you think?
Bush: It sure did buddy, but now I got my work cut out down there. I could use a little help if you know what I mean. Speaking of help, Cheney wants to know when we can get that authorization on Iran?
End transcript.
If your neighbor told you that he or she spoke with God, you probably would think the person is not sane and needs some psychiatric counseling. Yet, if your President tells foreign diplomats that God talks to him, what should you think? Is that OK? Has he been granted an audience with the Almighty because he is the President of the United States? Does anyone really believe that God told him to invade Iraq?
I thought we invaded Iraq because of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Oh, that’s right, it turned out there weren’t any WMD, so we’re really there to spread freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Is Bush dropping that explanation in favor of playing the God card? Perhaps he is. So now we have a group of terrorists saying that God tells them to kill the infidels, and we have Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq, and subsequently kill thousands. Isn’t it transparent that both sides are using religion to justify their violent actions and manipulate the hearts and minds of millions? The sad thing is that it works and always has.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Christopher Hitchens and the Anti-War Movement
In a recently televised debate with British MP, George Galloway, Christopher Hitchens stated that if the anti-war movement had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would be the ruler of Kuwait. This struck me as an unfair (but not entirely unexpected) statement regarding the segment of the population that is against the current involvement in Iraq.
The above statement assumes that everyone who is against this war in Iraq was also against the Gulf War in 1991. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth, and the difference in attitude toward the 2 wars lies in the justification for each. The Gulf War was a response to a direct provocation by Iraq. It was a response that was broadly supported throughout the international community, including Arab states.
In contrast, there was no direct provocation for the most recent conflict, and in fact the original justification of imminent threat has been totally discredited. Based on that, it is reasonable to oppose the current conflict, yet have been a supporter of the Gulf War.
Mr. Hitchens considers the case for war in Iraq today to be unimpeachable. If that’s the case and we are to apply the same criteria for invasion to other countries in the region, then who’s next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Does Mr. Hitchens’ contention take into account the fact that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq on September 12, 2001?
This “new” criteria for starting military conflict is disturbing. Historically, America has been a reluctant participant in wars, choosing to deploy troops only when attacked or in response to the overt malignant actions of others. This was certainly true with WWI and WWII. But now the bar has been lowered to a point where the reasons for armed conflict are nebulous and could be as trivial as a whim. Although Saudi Arabia is probably the largest exporter of terror in the world and its government one of the main reasons for it, we’ll never see this administration handle that situation in the same way that Iraq has been handled. That demonstrates that today’s justification is one of convenience and not one that can be applied across the board.
The above statement assumes that everyone who is against this war in Iraq was also against the Gulf War in 1991. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth, and the difference in attitude toward the 2 wars lies in the justification for each. The Gulf War was a response to a direct provocation by Iraq. It was a response that was broadly supported throughout the international community, including Arab states.
In contrast, there was no direct provocation for the most recent conflict, and in fact the original justification of imminent threat has been totally discredited. Based on that, it is reasonable to oppose the current conflict, yet have been a supporter of the Gulf War.
Mr. Hitchens considers the case for war in Iraq today to be unimpeachable. If that’s the case and we are to apply the same criteria for invasion to other countries in the region, then who’s next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Does Mr. Hitchens’ contention take into account the fact that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq on September 12, 2001?
This “new” criteria for starting military conflict is disturbing. Historically, America has been a reluctant participant in wars, choosing to deploy troops only when attacked or in response to the overt malignant actions of others. This was certainly true with WWI and WWII. But now the bar has been lowered to a point where the reasons for armed conflict are nebulous and could be as trivial as a whim. Although Saudi Arabia is probably the largest exporter of terror in the world and its government one of the main reasons for it, we’ll never see this administration handle that situation in the same way that Iraq has been handled. That demonstrates that today’s justification is one of convenience and not one that can be applied across the board.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Response to Jeff Jacoby's "The timeless truth of creation".
In today's Boston Globe, Op-Ed columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote a piece entitled "The timeless truth of creation". The column asserts that Intelligent Design is science and attempts to further the cause of promoting ignorance in American schools. What appears below is my response to Mr. Jacoby's column.
Dear Jeff,
After reading your column (“The timeless truth of creation”) on one of today’s hot topics, I felt compelled to write to you. It seems to me that the portion of “Intelligent Design” that is deemed offensive by its opponents is the leap from lack of understanding to coherent design by a higher power, and then calling that “science”.
Science constitutes the process of theorizing and proving based on empirical evidence. Is the evolution of man a thoroughly proved theory or concept? No it isn’t, but it does have a strong cache of evidence that leads many to believe that it’s the right path to explore.
What is not science is stating that since we don’t fully understand a concept, it must be due to a higher power. In other words, the lack of understanding equals evidence for Intelligent Design. I find that notion to be farcical and just plain un-scientific. Throughout our history, there have been many things that weren’t understood and were thus explained away as the responsibility of a higher power. Some examples are fire, the weather, the stars, the movement of the earth and sun, etc. With further understanding, we have learned that a higher power has nothing to do with these things. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth; God doesn’t send lightning down because he is angry. Just because we don’t fully understand the evolution of man today, that doesn’t mean we won’t understand it completely at some time in the future. Intelligent Design isn’t science because there isn’t any evidence for it. Evolution's perceived shortcomings don’t prove Intelligent Design.
A couple of other points that I wanted to raise: your statement that Intelligent Design isn’t a religiously based notion rings hollow to an atheist. The suggestion of a higher power is religious in nature and you can’t get around that. To say that it isn’t presupposes that everyone believes in some form of higher power, and that is not the case. Also, Intelligent Design is primarily backed by conservative Christian groups that have been trying to get Evolution out of schools for decades. They have masterfully crafted “Intelligent Design” as their new weapon to get their anti-evolution message into our schools. If it isn’t religious, then why are several religious leaders who are members of groups for the separation of church and state against Intelligent Design? I think it is because they see through the façade and recognize Intelligent Design for what it is – Creationism.
Dear Jeff,
After reading your column (“The timeless truth of creation”) on one of today’s hot topics, I felt compelled to write to you. It seems to me that the portion of “Intelligent Design” that is deemed offensive by its opponents is the leap from lack of understanding to coherent design by a higher power, and then calling that “science”.
Science constitutes the process of theorizing and proving based on empirical evidence. Is the evolution of man a thoroughly proved theory or concept? No it isn’t, but it does have a strong cache of evidence that leads many to believe that it’s the right path to explore.
What is not science is stating that since we don’t fully understand a concept, it must be due to a higher power. In other words, the lack of understanding equals evidence for Intelligent Design. I find that notion to be farcical and just plain un-scientific. Throughout our history, there have been many things that weren’t understood and were thus explained away as the responsibility of a higher power. Some examples are fire, the weather, the stars, the movement of the earth and sun, etc. With further understanding, we have learned that a higher power has nothing to do with these things. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth; God doesn’t send lightning down because he is angry. Just because we don’t fully understand the evolution of man today, that doesn’t mean we won’t understand it completely at some time in the future. Intelligent Design isn’t science because there isn’t any evidence for it. Evolution's perceived shortcomings don’t prove Intelligent Design.
A couple of other points that I wanted to raise: your statement that Intelligent Design isn’t a religiously based notion rings hollow to an atheist. The suggestion of a higher power is religious in nature and you can’t get around that. To say that it isn’t presupposes that everyone believes in some form of higher power, and that is not the case. Also, Intelligent Design is primarily backed by conservative Christian groups that have been trying to get Evolution out of schools for decades. They have masterfully crafted “Intelligent Design” as their new weapon to get their anti-evolution message into our schools. If it isn’t religious, then why are several religious leaders who are members of groups for the separation of church and state against Intelligent Design? I think it is because they see through the façade and recognize Intelligent Design for what it is – Creationism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)