The Limited Modified Hangout

Towing the lion since June 2003.

Monday, January 31, 2005


Not chasing the bait
I don’t have a lot to say about the Iraqi elections because it’s way too early to know exactly what happened and what its ultimate effect will be. Yes, the pictures are moving, but really, a little perspective please. Reporting out of Baghdad in 2005 mirrors reporting out of San Salvador in 1984. That was said to be a magnificent success and an expression of a people’s willingness to brave violence in order to express their commitment to Western style democracy. We heard the same stories; people waiting on long lines; telling off guerrillas, walking miles for the right to exercise their democratic rights. Most of this turned out to be an illusion, created by the U.S. military and intelligence forces there, and the voting percentages turned out to be a fraction of what a quiescent media reported at the time. U.S. supported (and perhaps created) death squads continued to exercise their campaign of mass murder, unconcerned with the results of meaningless elections. ...


U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here....


...important insights from author Greg Boyd
regarding what I believe is the major problem that confronts the Christian
community today: the tragic lack of love [and grace] among us. (Critics of Boyd's
Open Theology: I know it is hard for you, but please put that aside for a moment
and hear him on a point that has nothing to do with that debate. Thanks.) He
writes:

"How much harm has been done to the church and to the cause of Jesus Christ
because Christians have placed other considerations alongside or above the command
to love as God loves? In the name of truth, Christians in the past have
sometimes destroyed people, even physically torturing and murdering them. In the name
of holiness, Christians have often pushed away and shamed those who don't meet
their standard, creating their own little holiness club to which struggling
sinners need not apply. And in the name of correct biblical doctrine, Christians
have frequently destroyed the unity of the body of Christ, refusing to minister
or worship together because of doctrinal differences, sometimes viciously
attacking those who disagree with them."

"The unsurpassable worth of the person who doesn't share our truth, doesn't
meet our definition of holiness, or doesn't agree with our "correct biblical
doctrine" has all too often been neglected or denied. Which means that in such cases
the truth, holiness, or correct doctrine we have defended was altogether
worthless: clashing cymbals, resounding gongs, religious noise, nothing more. Such
noise tarnishes the reputation--the glory--of God. It also explains why the
church generally has been known for many things other than love and many things that
contradict love."


...There is something terribly wrong with people who call themselves "born again"
believers in America today. Greg Boyd (above) nails it: we are judgmental,
moralistic and almost completely lacking in the grace and love that mark God's
character. As Christians, we fail to heed the most basic truth that marks the
breaking in of the new age:

For the law was given through Moses;
but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I have seen it first hand on almost a daily basis for years -- especially since
opening our book ministry five years ago. Judgment. Accusation. Vindictiveness.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It is most notorious in Reformed
circles -- the people who love "the Law." But it tends to mark all too many of
those who are conservative and evangelical in their beliefs. And it makes me angry.
Sometimes irrationally so. For that I do apologize. Most sincerely. ...


Counting Sheep?
The proselytizing zeal of American missionaries knows no slack even in tsunami aid

Are American Christian evangelists using the devastation wreaked by the tsunami to spread the word of God – their God? Disturbing stories from the region and fund-raising appeals from religious leaders in the US who want to "plant Christian principles as early as possible" in the orphans of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India have raised profound questions about proselytisation of vulnerable people in times of tragedy. Some groups send help along with Bibles – in Bhojpuri – to increase the fold in affected countries, making it harder for others to provide relief. By lacing help with questions of faith, however delicately, evangelical groups can deepen religious faultlines at a time when talk of civilisational wars rages in e-chat rooms.

The controversy surfaced earlier this month when Vernon Brewer, president of the Virginia-based missionary group World Help, told journalists he wanted to airlift 300 'tsunami orphans' from Banda Aceh to raise them in a Christian children's home. He quickly retracted when the Indonesian government banned adoptions by non-Muslim groups. From India surfaced a story about Samanthapettai, a fishing village in Tamil Nadu hit by the tsunami, where some Christian missionaries reportedly refused to distribute biscuits and water unless the Hindu recipients agreed to change their faith. When TV reporters approached the nuns, they refused to comment and left.

Local missionaries in India and other non-Christian countries are funded to a large extent by resource-rich American groups – powerful multi-million dollar corporations complete with TV channels and private planes. The websites, updated with fervent appeals for funds and tearful photos of tsunami survivors, are a window to their incredible organisation and explicit agendas for touching the "unreached people" or non-Christians with the hand of God. They look at India and Indonesia as "opportunities" for spreading the gospel. India is often described as a land of darkness, of idol worshippers and an area ripe for redemption. ...

... "This kind of proselytisation demeans the idea of religious conversion, for it uses helplessness to spread a religion," says Ashutosh Varshney, political science professor at Michigan University. "A genuine change in conviction remains the best basis for religious conversion and should not be stopped. Few people in abysmal distress can exercise sound judgement."...

... When religious passions are high, it's important to analyse the role of all religious fundamentalists. While Muslim extremists are commonly denounced in the US media, Christian hardliners are rarely challenged. Leading evangelists routinely smear other religions, specially Islam, on mainstream networks and still receive grants from President George Bush. Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority, called Prophet Mohammad "a terrorist" on CBS on October 6, 2002. The insult sparked a riot all the way out in Solapur, India, killing eight people and injuring 90 others.

At a time when America is increasingly viewed as waging a war against the Muslim world, hateful speech and charity with an ambiguous agenda from zealous Christians can only add to the tension.

Friday, January 28, 2005


SpongeBob, Part 2
...Is the position of Christianity really that we shouldn't have respect for other people, including those with whom we disagree? What happened to "love your neighbor as yourself" from the Sermon on the Mount? What happened to the phrase that's become a mantra for social conservatives, "hate the sin and love the sinner"? Please keep in mind the Tolerance Pledge doesn't say that we should respect the differences, it says that we should have respect "for people".

To be honest with you, I think things are getting pretty crazy out there when our side attacks a cartoon character for appearing in a video that's produced by a company that has a Tolerance Pledge on it's website (not in the video) for a statement of respect (not agreement, endorsement or approval) of cultural, religious and sexual differences. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that homosexuality has become, to some degree, an obsession of the religious right. After all, where are the complaints about respecting differences in beliefs in the Tolerance Pledge? We're all worked up about something that might imply respecting homosexuals but don't seem to have any concern whatsoever that tells us we should respect atheists and Islamists. I think for many in our tribe who say homosexuality is a sin (which indeed it is), they actually believe that it is more than a sin. It's kind of like a Protestant Evangelical version of mortal and venial sins.


Guantanamo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon (news - web sites) review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.

It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.

"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, 29, told AP. ...


Turin shroud 'older than thought'
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.

A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.

The shroud, which bears the faint image of a blood-covered man, is believed by some to be Christ's burial cloth.

The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic

It was this material that was responsible for an invalid date being assigned to the original shroud cloth, he argues.

"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US.

Fire damage

He says he was originally dubious of untested claims that the 1988 sample was taken from a re-weave.

"It was embarrassing to have to agree with them," Mr Rogers told the BBC News website....


The secret list of ID theft victims
Consumers could be warned, but U.S government isn't talking

Linda Trevino, who lives in a Chicago suburb, applied for a job last year at a local Target department store, and was denied. The reason? She already worked there -- or rather, her Social Security number already worked there.

Follow-up investigation revealed the same Social Security number had been used to obtain work at 37 other employers, mostly by illegal immigrants trying to satisfy government requirements to get a job.

Trevino is hardly alone. MSNBC.com research and government reports suggest hundreds of thousands of American citizens are in the same spot -- unknowingly lending their identity to illegal immigrants so they can work. And while several government agencies and private corporations sometimes know whose Social Security numbers are being ripped off, they won't notify the victims. That is, until they come after the victims for back taxes or unpaid loans owed by the imposter. ...

...Frustration can mount for victims of this kind of fraud. Eventually, the government agencies involved do catch up with the legitimate consumers; but often, not until they are looking for money. Victims can have trouble getting disability or unemployment benefits, Utah's Hamp said.

Others find the Internal Revenue Service on their backs, looking for payment of back taxes for wages earned by their imposters. Some see refunds held up by the confusion; others see their wages garnished.

Trevino found herself in a financial nightmare. All those imitators made a mess out of her work history, her Social Security benefits records and her credit report. She was haunted by bills and creditors. She received threatening letters from the IRS, asking her to pay taxes on money earned by her imposters. She was told to re-pay unemployment benefits she had received, after the government discovered she was "working" while drawing benefits.

"At the time I'm thinking, 'I'm unemployed. I wish I could have at least one job, let alone all these different jobs,’" she said.

"This is total purgatory that this puts U.S. citizen taxpayers into," said Marti Dinerstein, president of Immigration Matters, a public-policy analysis firm in New York. "It's a nightmare to get it stopped. And when they do get it stopped, it is only for that particular year. The whole mess could begin anew next tax season."

But neither the Social Security Administration nor the IRS tells consumers that something unusual is happening with their Social Security numbers. It seems consumers are the last ones in on the joke.

“This is the schizophrenia of the federal government," Huse, the former Social Security inspector general said. "The Homeland Security people are screaming about the accuracy of records, and you have the IRS taking money from wherever it comes."

Since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, workers must produce a Social Security card or similar identity verification when obtaining employment. Employers are supposed to verify that the card is legitimate, but many don't.

By creating a black market for counterfeit Social Security cards, the law may have inadvertently kicked off the identity theft crisis, experts say.

"It's truly an unintended consequences of the 1986 immigration law," said Marilanne Hincapie of the National Immigration Law Center....


Criminals the lot of us
The invasion of Iraq was a crime of gigantic proportions, for which politicians, the media and the public share responsibility

The White House's acknowledgement last month that the United States has formally ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq brought to a close the most calamitous international deception of modern times.

This decision was taken a month after a contentious presidential election in which the issue of WMD and the war in Iraq played a central role. In the lead-up to the invasion, and throughout its aftermath, President Bush was unwavering in his conviction that Iraq had WMD, and that this posed a threat to the US and the world. The failure to find WMD should have been his Achilles heel, but the Democratic contender, John Kerry, floundered, changing his position on WMD and Iraq many times.

Ironically, it was Kerry who forced the Bush administration to acknowledge that it was WMD that solely justified any military action against Iraq. Before the US Senate in 2002, secretary of state Colin Powell responded to a question posed by Kerry about what would happen if Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors to return and they found the country had in fact disarmed.

"If Iraq was disarmed as a result of an inspection regime that gave us and the security council confidence that it had been disarmed, I think it unlikely that we would find a casus belli." ...

Thursday, January 27, 2005


We Are All Torturers Now
At least since Watergate, Americans have come to take for granted a certain story line of scandal, in which revelation is followed by investigation, adjudication and expiation. Together, Congress and the courts investigate high-level wrongdoing and place it in a carefully constructed narrative, in which crimes are charted, malfeasance is explicated and punishment is apportioned as the final step in the journey back to order, justice and propriety.

When Alberto Gonzales takes his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for hearings to confirm whether he will become attorney general of the United States, Americans will bid farewell to that comforting story line. The senators are likely to give full legitimacy to a path that the Bush administration set the country on more than three years ago, a path that has transformed the United States from a country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that practices torture routinely. Through a process of redefinition largely overseen by Mr. Gonzales himself, a practice that was once a clear and abhorrent violation of the law has become in effect the law of the land....

...The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are ultimately political in character. Victory depends in the end not on technology or on overwhelming force but on political persuasion. By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage - the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights - that the president has so persistently claimed is America's most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism. One does not reach democracy, or freedom, through torture.

By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us. True, that miserable man who pulled out his hair as he lay on the floor at Guantánamo may eventually tell his interrogators what he knows, or what they want to hear. But for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all.


The Widening Chasm Among Conservatives
The machinery of state decision-making is rarely exposed to public scrutiny. The cover of representative government is a scrupulously maintained fiction concealing the nuts-and-bolts of real statecraft. Normally, politicians and their accomplices in the media can keep the illusion of representative government intact; avoiding the embarrassing implication that the current order is really upheld by the decision-making of elites. It's only when a major rift appears between the members of the ruling class that we have the opportunity to marvel at the moving parts of the imperial apparatus.

The deteriorating situation in Iraq has precipitated this very scenario. The rift we allude to, has, in fact, developed into a yawning chasm; pitting one faction of conservative elder statesmen against their antecedents in the Bush administration. This battle of the giants can be expected to grow exponentially as the principle characters clash over the future of the Iraq occupation.

On the one hand, we have perhaps the most widely respected (conservative) policy experts alive today, advising the administration to withdraw from Iraq. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker have joined the ranks of anti-war Leftists in calling for an immediate withdrawal of all American troops. They have noted the failed attempts by the Bush administration to establish even minimal security or to achieve the overall objectives of the invasion. With Iraq tilting precipitously towards civil war, and with America's prestige irreparably damaged, their protestations should be regarded as an appeal for a return to political sanity.

Clearly these staunch supporters of American supremacy would never accept such a humbling defeat if there was even the remotest possibility of success. This gives us some idea of the extent to which the media has been concealing the crucial details of the disaster in Iraq from the public. Even those who are most likely to benefit the most from regional domination are jumping-off the sinking ship-of-state....


The Military is Nowhere; the Press is Nowhere; the Congress is Nowhere...
We've Been Taken Over By a Cult
By SEYMOUR HERSH

Editors' Note: This is a transcript of remarks by Seymour Hersh at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York.

About what's going on in terms of the President is that as virtuous as I feel, you know, at The New Yorker, writing an alternative history more or less of what's been going on in the last three years, George Bush feels just as virtuous in what he is doing. He is absolutely committed -- I don't know whether he thinks he's doing God's will or what his father didn't do, or whether it's some mandate from -- you know, I just don't know, but George Bush thinks this is the right thing. He is going to continue doing what he has been doing in Iraq. He's going to expand it, I think, if he can. I think that the number of body bags that come back will make no difference to him. The body bags are rolling in. It makes no difference to him, because he will see it as a price he has to pay to put America where he thinks it should be. So, he's inured in a very strange way to people like me, to the politicians, most of them who are too cowardly anyway to do much. So, the day-to-day anxiety that all of us have, and believe me, though he got 58 million votes, many of people who voted for him weren't voting for continued warfare, but I think that's what we're going to have.

It's hard to predict the future. And it's sort of silly to, but the question is: How do you go to him? How do you get at him? What can you do to maybe move him off the course that he sees as virtuous and he sees as absolutely appropriate? All of us -- you have to -- I can't begin to exaggerate how frightening the position is -- we're in right now, because most of you don't understand, because the press has not done a very good job. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the new bill that was just passed, provoked by the 9/11 committee actually, is a little bit of a kabuki dance, I guess is what I want to say, in that what it really does is it consolidates an awful lot of power in the Pentagon -- by statute now. It gives Rumsfeld the right to do an awful lot of things he has been wanting to do, and that is basically manhunting and killing them before they kill us, as Peter said. "They did it to us. We've got to do it to them." That is the attitude that -- at the very top of our government exists. And so, I'll just tell you a couple of things that drive me nuts. We can -- you know, there's not much more to go on with.

I think there's a way out of it, maybe. I can tell you one thing. Let's all forget this word "insurgency". It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started -- they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting. The frightening thing about it is, we have no intelligence. Maybe it's -- it's -- it is frightening, we have no intelligence about what they're doing. A year-and-a-half ago, we're up against two and three-man teams. We estimated the cells operating against us were two and three people, that we could not penetrate. As of now, we still don't know what's coming next. There are 10, 15-man groups. They have terrific communications. Somebody told me, it's -- somebody in the system, an officer -- and by the way, the good part of it is, more and more people are available to somebody like me.

There's a lot of anxiety inside the -- you know, our professional military and our intelligence people. Many of them respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as much as anybody here, and individual freedom. So, they do -- there's a tremendous sense of fear. These are punitive people. One of the ways -- one of the things that you could say is, the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. ...


“You cannot understand history without understanding Divine Providence. The whole of history can be looked at from a Biblical philosophy, because there is an overall purpose that unifies all the specific events of history. From a humanistic standpoint, there is no purpose in history and hence no unifying theme that ties the events of history together. Many modern educators deny the Providential view of history and would have us believe that their promotion of one of several ‘secular’ views of history is simply the recounting of brute facts.

“God’s plan for the nations has been unfolding in a specific geographic direction. This geographical march of history is called the Chain of Christianity or the Chain of Liberty. It seems as if God’s direction is westward. ‘Christian’ geography (which is true geography) is the view that the earth’s origin, end, purposes, and physiography are for Christ and His glory. Like individuals, nations have a unique purpose. We will see throughout this book how God has raised up and put down nations of the world for His purposes.

“Arnold Guyot, a nineteenth-century scientist and professor of geology at Princeton University, noted that God had arranged the structure of the earth to assure that the Chain of Christianity would move not south into Africa or east into Asia but westward into Europe. That which originated in Asian and developed in Europe has had its greatest fulfillment in America. Now, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, travel and climatic barriers are being conquered by air travel and air-conditioning. It appears that the internal preparation is taking place so that the Chain of Liberty and all its external blessings might continue their westward march from America around the globe.”

Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Religious Freedom Day ‘05: unknown holiday for a forgotten freedom
Jan. 16 is officially “Religious Freedom Day.” I know this because the president of the United States dutifully proclaims it so every year.

If this is news to you, don’t feel too bad. Presidential proclamations are a dime a dozen. In fact, 110 were issued in 2004 alone, ranging from the obvious (Independence Day) to the obscure (Leif Erikson Day, Oct. 9).

But if I could nominate just one of these many proclaimed days to join the pantheon of major American holidays, Jan. 16 would be it. Why? Because on that fateful date in 1786, the Virginia Assembly passed the Statute for Religious Freedom — the first legislation in history to guarantee religious liberty for every citizen....

...Forgive the history lesson. But with more and more churches lining up these days to get government dollars for social services, and growing numbers of Americans calling for more government endorsement of religion, it is worth remembering what many of us seem to have forgotten: Religious freedom in America means keeping the government out of religion and protecting the right of all people to follow the dictates of conscience in matters of faith.

Proclaiming “Religious Freedom Day” isn’t enough — only an abiding commitment to the principles enacted on Jan. 16, 1786, will keep us free.


Blackaby says tsunamis God's judgment; missions experts question theology
DALLAS (ABP) --"Experiencing God" author Henry Blackaby believes the tsunamis that hit South Asia were God's punishment of an area where Christians have experienced particularly intense persecution. But some missions experts with links to the region question both his theology and his assertions about persecution.

Blackaby told a Kentucky pastors' conference workshop he recognized God's hand of judgment in the tsunami after he saw a map published by Voice of the Martyrs showing areas of intense persecution of Christians worldwide.

Many of the areas highlighted on that map "match to a T" the tsunami's impact, he said.

He later told a reporter for Baptist Press: "If you read the Old Testament, especially, God is very concerned how the nations treat his covenant people. The nations that persecuted, offended and killed his people, God came down and destroyed them. And he's the same God today. He's just as concerned about his people."...

...Regardless whether persecution is more intense in South Asia than in other parts of the world, Stan Parks, international liaison with the Baptist General Convention of Texas-affiliated WorldconneX missions network, said he would "categorically disagree" with Blackaby's assessment.

"If anybody deserves judgment, it's Christians who hoard the gospel and who lavish God's blessings on themselves with bigger buildings and finer homes," he said, adding if God gave people what they deserved, American Christians would have more to fear than non-Christians in South Asia....


Make no mistake—Captain Kirk and his crew were cowboys and they treated the universe like the Wild West. There was always a lot of solemn talk about the Prime Directive and not interfering with native cultures, but that went right out the window the moment Kirk laid eyes on the first attractive female of whatever species they came across. Sure, they solved a lot of problems, but half the time they were solving problems they created. The crew of the original Enterprise wasn’t trying to unite the universe, they weren’t trying to right the universe’s many and sundry wrongs—they were looking for kicks.

And alcohol played and essential role in that quest. It was a beautiful situation—you not only got to drink, you got to drink ales, wines and liquors the human race couldn’t even imagine. And they always seemed stronger than our silly earthling libations, every alien race bragged their booze would floor a human if he so much as looked in the bottle’s direction. Klingon Blood Wine, Romulan Ale, Saurian Brandy—they came on harder than a photon torpedo barrage and when you woke up, if you woke up, you’d be nursing a nebula-sized hangover the fastest warp drive in the universe couldn’t outrun. Humans were considered the lightweights of the universe, a bunch of Bartle-and-James swilling high school punks among whiskey-chugging dilithium-crystal miners.

Then Kirk and his boys came along. Kirk could not only hold his own with the extraterrestrial hooch, he was backed up by a hard-pounding crew. Spock wasn’t much help (Vulcans are the designated drivers of the Universe), but Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy thought so little of the potent alien liquors he administered them as cough syrup. And he had skills too, when he wasn’t wiping out planetary epidemics and pronouncing any number of security crewmen dead, he was concocting cocktails that that would become infamous from one end of the galaxy to the other. And Scotty, don’t get me started on that beautiful son of bitch. Born and bred to it like bird dog, this Aberdeen son could drink a transporter room full of aliens under the table then whistle Tura-lura-lura all the way back to his private stash of scotch. These three walk in a Klingon pub and half an hour later Klingon heads are hitting tables like Bacchus’s own drum roll.

And why shouldn’t they have been boozy philanderers? Their creator, Gene Rodenberry certainly was. So was the inventor of the Warp Drive, Zefram Cochrane. Zeph refused to pilot a starship sober, under any circumstances, and was even able to coerce that super-PC empath Counselor Troi into getting hammered on shots of tequila.

It was because of the hard (yet somehow enjoyable) work of the original crew that earthlings soon enjoyed a universal reputation as being the hardest drinking wild-asses who ever rode a rocket into space. Then everything went to hell....


How the U.S. Became the World's Dispensable Nation
In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited....

...That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."

In recent memory, nothing could be done without the US. Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation.

In 1998 Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, said of the U.S.: "We are the indispensable nation." By backfiring, the unilateralism of Mr Bush has proven her wrong. The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation.

Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war....


Sticker stuck in cop's craw
A Denver police sergeant is under investigation for allegedly threatening to arrest a woman Monday for displaying on her truck a derogatory bumper sticker about President Bush.

"He told her that this was a warning and that the next time he saw her truck, she was going to be arrested if she didn't remove the sticker," said Alinna Figueroa, 25, assistant manager of The UPS Store where the confrontation took place. "I couldn't believe it."...

..."He said, 'You need to take off those stickers because it's profanity and it's against the law to have profanity on your truck,' " Bates said. "Then he said, 'If you ever show up here again, I'm going to make you take those stickers off and arrest you. Never come back into that area.' "

McCrimmon, who had followed the officer into the store, said Karasek wrote down the woman's license-plate number and then told her: "You take those bumper stickers off or I will come and find you and I will arrest you." ...

...Colorado ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein said that the alleged threat of arrest clearly violates First Amendment protection.

"The Supreme Court considered a case about 30-some years ago where a person was prosecuted for wearing a jacket that said, 'F--- the draft,' on the back. The Supreme Court said states could not prohibit people from wearing such a jacket," he said. "They said, 'One man's profanity is another man's lyric.' " ...


Making Tolerance a Sin; Intolerance a Virtue
The Intolerance of Christian Conservatives

...I've noticed that liberal and moderate writers make the same mistaken assumption about what's causing rightwing Christians to become more actively intolerant towards people who are different from themselves: that intolerance and persecution fly in the face of Christian teachings, hence represent hypocrisy. And if that's all it is, then we need only alert them to this fact and they, being Christians, will be horrified to realize that they've been led astray, repent, and change their ways.

My friend, the truth hurts: Intolerance has become a standard "Christian" teaching in conservative circles and is now a badge of honor. When Antonio Scalia exhorted conservative Christians to "Be a fool for Christ!", he was speaking in the longstanding tradition of sacrificing one's pride and risking ridicule with gratitude for Christ's ultimate sacrifice for us (even semi-atheistic Mark Twain once wrote, "I'm God's fool"). But Scalia was also alluding to the proud-to-be-intolerant theme.

Scalia was urging his listeners to hold onto their intolerance even when others (liberal Christians included) accused them of being persecutory, hostile, or bigoted. They must remain intolerant because intolerance has been given a makeover: It's now the most readily observable hallmark of the virtuous and courageous conservative Christian. While intolerance was considered a grave sin back when America was marching towards civil rights instead of away from them, today that vice has become-presto!-a virtue. This means that conservative Christians must become increasingly intolerant in order to demonstrate their faith, and the more in-your-face the intolerance is, the better.

No room here for wishy-washy-"Well I don't like gay marriage but I guess it doesn't bother me; I don't even know any gay people"-if you want to win God's approval and that of your conservative Christian friends, by golly you'd better start letting gay people know you mean business...

...Some progressive Christians are trying to win the hearts and minds of conservative Christians, believing that with just the right words and scripture they can be won back from this new antagonistic, highly political version of Christianity. I hope they succeed, and perhaps they will-but there are no guarantees.

Because intolerance is now a virtue to be acquired rather than a vice to be cast away, there is nothing that you or I can say to awaken the conscience of conservative Christians. They're too far gone, for their beliefs have changed radically over the last few years. They worship a different God than the one we grew up with; perhaps it's more accurate to say that they worship the Old Testament God, without the moderating influence of Jesus, who's considered symbolic and sweet and nice-but nobody whose teachings must be obeyed.

Ask a conservative Christian about Jesus' teachings, and you'll be told that they're wonderful spiritual teachings-for the inner life, not the outer.

Conservative Christians have adopted the warrior mentality of Onward Christian Soldiers, and intolerance is nothing to be hidden under a white robe and pointed white hood: it's to be waved proudly as a flag demonstrating Christian rigor and personal rightness. Indeed, their conscience, their moral values, and their spiritual priorities have been altered, but not by hypocrisy. They've been reversed.

What was wrong is now right. What was down is now up. What was evil is now good. As one writer has pointed out, rhetoricians of Hobbes' day called this reversal of values "paradiastole": the method of rhetorical redescription by which what had been defined as vices could be redescribed as virtues, and vice versa. The radical right has turned paradiastole into an art form.

And in case you think this situation is all George W. Bush's doing, think again. Christians, even conservative ones, can't be swayed by politicians unless preachers pave the way first. Being more authoritarian than liberal Christians, conservatives are all the pickier about learning only from those who are considered respectable church authorities by other conservative Christians.

This is not to say that they won't learn from a Rush Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter-they certainly do, and with uncritical enthusiasm-it just means that they must hear those same views endorsed, specifically or generally, by a proper member of the clergy. That's why you can watch Fox News or listen to the rightwing kingdom of talk radio, then watch the TV preachers (all conservative, of course) on Sunday morning, without hearing a single contradictory word....

..."The word 'tolerant' means 'liberal,' 'broad-minded,' 'willing to put up with beliefs opposed to one's convictions' and 'the allowance of something not wholly approved.' Tolerance, in one sense, implies the compromise of one's convictions, a yielding of ground upon important issues. Hence, our tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby and devoid of convictions. We have become tolerant about divorce; we have become tolerant about the use of alcohol; we have become tolerant about delinquency; we have become tolerant about wickedness in high places; we have become tolerant about immorality; we have become tolerant about crime and we have become tolerant about godlessness."
From The Sin of Tolerance by Rev. Billy Graham


Holy Matrimony
The Moose wonders whether the religious right will break out of its abusive relationship.

Are religious conservatives just a cheap date? It appears that GOP faithful flock and the President might require some professional counseling to keep their relationship on a sound footing. It could be dawning on the religious right that the Bushies take them for suckers. ...

...If the religious right leaders had been reading the musings of the Moose they would know that those suave and debonair Republican casanovas only want the religious right for their bodies on election day. After that, they abandon them for the true lovers - the money men. Isn't it always that way?...


Professor Fritz Stern
Honoree of the Leo Baeck Medal

...We who were born at the end of the Weimar Republic and who witnessed the rise of National Socialism—left with that all-consuming, complex question: how could this horror have seized a nation and corrupted so much of Europe?—should remember that even in the darkest period there were individuals who showed active decency, who, defying intimidation and repression, opposed evil and tried to ease suffering. I wish these people would be given a proper European memorial—not to appease our conscience but to summon the courage of future generations. Churchmen, especially Protestant clergy, shared his hostility to the liberal-secular state and its defenders, and they, too, were filled with anti-Semitic doctrine.

Allow me a few remarks not about the banality of evil but about its triumph in a deeply civilized country. After the Great War and Germany’s defeat, conditions were harsh and Germans were deeply divided between moderates and democrats on the one hand and fanatic extremists of the right and the left on the other. National Socialists portrayed Germany as a nation that had been betrayed or stabbed in the back by socialists and Jews; they portrayed Weimar Germany as a moral-political swamp; they seized on the Bolshevik-Marxist danger, painted it in lurid colors, and stoked people’s fear in order to pose as saviors of the nation. In the late 1920s a group of intellectuals known as conservative revolutionaries demanded a new volkish authoritarianism, a Third Reich. Richly financed by corporate interests, they denounced liberalism as the greatest, most invidious threat, and attacked it for its tolerance, rationality and cosmopolitan culture. These conservative revolutionaries were proud of being prophets of the Third Reich—at least until some of them were exiled or murdered by the Nazis when the latter came to power. Throughout, the Nazis vilified liberalism as a semi-Marxist-Jewish conspiracy and, with Germany in the midst of unprecedented depression and immiseration, they promised a national rebirth.

Twenty years ago, I wrote about “National Socialism as Temptation,” about what it was that induced so many Germans to embrace the terrifying specter. There were many reasons, but at the top ranks Hitler himself, a brilliant populist manipulator who insisted and probably believed that Providence had chosen him as Germany’s savior, that he was the instrument of Providence, a leader who was charged with executing a divine mission. God had been drafted into national politics before, but Hitler’s success in fusing racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity was an immensely powerful element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas.

German moderates and German elites underestimated Hitler, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the Nazis’ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

Let me cite one example of the acknowledged appeal of unreason. Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker, Nobel-laureate in physics and a philosopher, wrote to me in the mid-1980s saying that he had never believed in Nazi ideology but that he had been tempted by the movement, which seemed to him then like “the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” On reflection, he thought that National Socialism had been part of a process that the National Socialists themselves hadn’t understood. He may well have been right: the Nazis didn’t realize that they were part of an historic process in which resentment against a disenchanted secular world found deliverance in the ecstatic escape of unreason. German elites proved susceptible to this mystical brew of pseudo- religion and disguised interest. The Christian churches most readily fell into line as well, though with some heroic exceptions....


Dear Mister Answer Man: I am confused about the correct usage of the term “bait and switch.” Specifically, I am unclear as to how Paul Batura of Focus on the Family can object to a SpongeBob SquarePants video on “tolerance” as “a classic bait and switch." In a bait and switch, doesn’t something have to be switched for something else? Or is it possible, given Dr. Dobson’s well-documented obsession with physical punishments for small children, that “bait and switch” has a special meaning for Focus on the Family employees? --D.P. Schreber, Dresden

Mister Answer Man replies: You have no basis for confusion; Mr. Batura is using the phrase correctly. What Focus on the Family is objecting to is the fact that songwriter Nile Rodgers created a music video ostensibly to teach schoolchildren about multiculturalism and inclusiveness, but, through characters like SpongeBob SquarePants, is actually helping to spread the homosexual agenda to our children. The “bait,” then, is the promise that the video promotes tolerance. Christian conservatives have nothing against tolerance; they have long argued, for example, that liberals should be more tolerant of Christian conservatives. However, they draw the line at tolerating individuals whose lifestyles are in conflict with God’s word. It is literally a sin to “tolerate” people who, in satiating their own lusts, have chosen eternal damnation. Therein lies the “switch.” Therefore, Dr. Dobson and his group are correct to complain that an apparently innocuous music video about “tolerance” is secretly suggesting that we should tolerate not only groups who deserve tolerance but also animated gay male sponges who often hold hands with their male sidekicks. ...


Poll Says Church-Going Americans are Less Tolerant Than Others
Religious voters are less tolerant of other views on issues they consider important now than they were four years ago, according to a new study.

A Public Agenda survey on religion in public life released Sunday found significant shifts in the percentages of Americans who believe elected leaders should vote based on their own religious views rather than compromise on issues like abortion and gay rights.

The trend is strongest among voters who say they attend church once a week or more.

Just under three fourths of Americans (74 percent) said the following statement comes close to their view: “Even elected officials who are deeply religious sometimes have to make compromises and set their convictions aside to get results while in government.” That is 10 percent fewer than the 84 percent who answered the question that way in 2000.

Among those identifying themselves as evangelicals, support for political compromise dropped from 79 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2004. Fewer than two in three (63 percent) people who attend church once a week said they agreed with the statement, down from 82 percent.

Barely half (55 percent) of those who attend church more than once a week thought politicians should compromise their religious convictions in order to get results. That compares to three fourths (75 percent) who said so four years ago.

Sixty percent of frequent church attenders (more than once a week) said politicians who are deeply religious should vote based on their own religious views when it comes to gay rights, while 29 percent said they should be willing to compromise with those holding another view. Sixty-nine percent of frequent worshippers opposed compromise on abortion, while 23 percent said compromise on the issue is acceptable.

“Compromise has a long and important history in American politics,” Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, a non-partisan public policy research firm, said in a news release. “But in 2004 there were more Americans who wanted elected officials to keep their religious principles in mind when they vote on issues like abortion and gay rights.”

Wooden told Reuters the trends could indicate that religion has become “more prominent in American discourse,” but it could also indicate “more polarized political thinking.”...

...“The truth is, many Christians now think intolerance is virtuous,” Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists wrote in a Weblog. He quoted from writings of R.J. Rushdoony, whose “Christian Reconstructionism” is popular among some conservative Christians, as a possible influence.

“In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal and the adherents of other religions,” Rushdoony, who died in 2001, wrote in his Institutes of Biblical Law.


Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of World War
George W. Bush is the liberventionists' dream president, minus, perhaps, some differences on a few domestic issues. But he talks the privatization and tax-cut talk (even as he walks the corporate-social-democratic welfare-state walk) and he is fond of waging war in the name of freedom. War in the name of freedom is the most valued policy in the agenda of the pro-war libertarian. War in the name of freedom inspires the liberventionist to tolerate virtually anything else the government does at home. And yet, war in the name of freedom has been the largest cause of America's decline in liberty, as well as safety, in all its history, or at least since the War Between the States....


Wake Up! Bush Is Serious
...The neoconservatives are Jacobins. The neocons are the greatest threat America has ever faced, and they have the reins of power. Americans need to wake up to this fact and stop indulging their macho "kick their Muslim butts" fantasies and their "end times" Rapture fantasies.

The Bush administration is not establishing any democracies. It is starting a war that will last a generation. That is the neocon plan. They have put their intentions in writing just as Hitler did. It is no protection that their plan is detached from reality. Robespierre was detached from reality, and that did not stop him. So were Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. People with power in their hands who are detached from reality are the most dangerous people of all. The delusional quality of their rantings disarms people from taking them seriously: "Oh, they couldn't mean that." But they do.


Torture treaty doesn't bar `cruel, inhuman' tactics, Gonzales says
WASHINGTON - Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.

In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.

But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.

Gonzales, White House counsel and a close Bush adviser, described recent reports of prisoner abuse as "shocking and deeply troubling." But he refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful.

He warned that any public discussion about interrogation tactics would help al-Qaida terrorists by giving them "a road map" of what to expect when captured. ...

... Cal Jillson, a constitutional scholar who's followed the careers of Gonzales and Bush since they were in Texas, said Gonzales was following basic Bush administration policy: Don't admit mistakes or re-evaluate decisions.

"They are very loath to reconsider actions in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks," said Jillson, a professor at Southern Methodist University. "The message is, the president never approved of torture, but the question is, did you play with the definition so that almost nothing qualified as torture?" ...

Tuesday, January 25, 2005


Mass Suicide Bid at Guantanamo
Twenty-three inmates at the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay staged a mass suicide attempt in 2003 by trying to hang or strangle themselves.

US military confirmation of the mass suicides came yesterday as the families of four Britons detained without charge for three years by the US authorities waited for their loved ones to arrive home from the prison on Cuba. The four will be arrested by anti-terrorist police officers as soon as they are released from American custody.

The US Southern Command yesterday admitted that, between 18 and 26 August 2003, the detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves with pieces of clothing and other items in their cells. However they played down the incidents, saying that one - on 22 August - was "a coordinated effort to disrupt camp operations and challenge a new group of security guards from the just-completed unit rotation"....


Cancer: (June 22—July 22)
You may think of yourself as a victim of horribly tragic circumstances, but God put a lot of time and effort into making sure things happened just so.


A Powerful Tale Unravels
On July 21, 2003, The Post published a wrenching front-page story about a 41-year-old Iraqi woman, Jumana Michael Hanna, who said that during the mid-1990s she had endured torture and rape inside the prison cells of Saddam Hussein's "police academy." The headline over the 2,800-word story by correspondent Peter Finn read, "A Lone Woman Testifies to Iraq's Order of Terror."

The story was very detailed, with lots of quotes from Hanna, her mother and others. Human rights officials said hundreds and possibly thousands of women had been tortured or sexually assaulted by Hussein's agents. But survivors left much unsaid. Hanna spoke out and became the face of this horror. After the Post story appeared, Hanna was taken into protective custody and honored by the Coalition Provisional Authority, then taken to the United States with her family. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told a Senate committee about her courage in providing "what is very likely credible information."

The problem, however, as The Post and Peter Finn reported Thursday in a follow-up article, is that her claims were false. But the only reason we now know this is because of an even lengthier article in the January edition of Esquire magazine by Sara Solovitch, who had contracted to do a book about Hanna and who, in the course of interviewing her, uncovered what first seemed like exaggerations, then crippling doubts and then untruths in her story.

The Esquire piece focused heavily on the impact of the Post piece, and readers who saw the magazine late in December wrote to ask whether The Post was going to retract or correct its reporting. The initial internal reaction here, and from Finn, was to point out that many of the claims Hanna made to Solovitch that proved false had not been made to The Post. Hanna never told Finn, for example, that she went to Oxford University. She never spoke of the killing of fellow female prisoners, or said that one of them was the sister of a well-known cleric, or that the word "traitor" had been branded on her breast, or that she knew Hussein's first wife and counseled her on how to romance him.

Nevertheless, Finn said, the Esquire report that Hanna's husband was still alive and had not been shot and killed in an Iraqi prison, as Hanna had told The Post, was clearly serious and required new investigation. ...


Decoding Bush's God-Talk
Beliefnet provides an annotated guide to the president's inaugural speech.

President Bush delivered his second inaugural address Thursday after being sworn in for a second term. This is a transcript of his remarks, with annotations by Beliefnet senior editor Deborah Caldwell, who examines the speech's "God-talk."...


Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."...


Pentagon Files Reveal More Allegations of Abuse in Iraq
Documents contain descriptions of severe detainee mistreatment beyond Abu Ghraib.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon documents released Monday disclosed that Iraqi prisoners had lodged dozens of abuse complaints against U.S. and Iraqi personnel who guarded them at a little-known palace in Baghdad converted to a U.S. prison. Among the allegations was that guards had sodomized a disabled man and killed his brother, whose dying body was tossed into a cell, atop his sister.

The documents, obtained in a lawsuit against the federal government by the American Civil Liberties Union, suggest for the first time that numerous detainees were abused at Adhamiya Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's villas in eastern Baghdad that was used by his son Uday. Previous cases of abuse of Iraqi prisoners have focused mainly on Abu Ghraib prison.

A government contractor who was interviewed by U.S. investigators said that as many as 90 incidents of possible abuse took place at the palace, but only a few were detailed in the hundreds of pages of documents released Monday.

The documents also touch on alleged abuses in other U.S.-run lockups in Iraq. The papers include investigative reports linking some abuses to ultrasecret Pentagon counter-terrorism units.

The latest allegations add to a pattern that human rights activists said suggested systematic abuse of prisoners at U.S. military detention facilities across the globe. ACLU officials, who have obtained and released thousands of documents in recent months, on Monday accused the Pentagon of a "woefully inadequate" response to hundreds of incidents of alleged abuse.

"Some of the investigations have basically whitewashed the torture and abuse," said the group's director, Anthony D. Romero. "The documents that the ACLU has obtained tell a damning story of widespread torture reaching well beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib."

Responding to the latest allegations, U.S. military officials maintained that a few low-level troops had committed the abuses, independent of senior commanders. They noted that more than 300 criminal investigations had examined allegations of prisoner mistreatment and subjected 100 soldiers to court-martial proceedings and administrative punishments.

"The Army and Department of Defense have aggressively investigated all credible allegations of detainee abuse and held individuals accountable," said Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, an Army spokesman.

Few of the alleged abuses at the Adhamiya palace have previously received attention from Pentagon investigators or human rights groups. The palace is a prison overseen by the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, with interrogations conducted at least in part by members of the 5th Special Forces Group of Ft. Campbell, Ky.

The alleged abuse at the palace included forced sodomy, electric shocks, cigarette burns and severe beatings. Some allegations by prisoners were corroborated by U.S. civilian military contractors hired to help interrogate detainees, according to the Pentagon documents.

One prisoner held at the palace during 2004 said an Iraqi security officer had burned him with cigarettes and struck him repeatedly, the documents state. Another said Iraqi interrogators had pinched his nose and poured water in his mouth, raped him with a wooden stick and shocked his testicles.

In one of the more detailed cases, Iraqi security troops arrested several members of a family accused of supplying arms and money to members of the fedayeen, paramilitaries who had been allied with Hussein's regime.

A woman whose name was blacked out from the documents claimed in interviews with U.S. Army investigators that the bloody, bruised body of her brother had been tossed into her cell on top of her sister. Her brother died shortly afterward, according to her account.

Another brother, who is disabled, said guards pulled him around by his penis. The guards forced a water bottle up his rectum, he told investigators....


Pentagon Files Reveal More Allegations of Abuse in Iraq
Documents contain descriptions of severe detainee mistreatment beyond Abu Ghraib.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon documents released Monday disclosed that Iraqi prisoners had lodged dozens of abuse complaints against U.S. and Iraqi personnel who guarded them at a little-known palace in Baghdad converted to a U.S. prison. Among the allegations was that guards had sodomized a disabled man and killed his brother, whose dying body was tossed into a cell, atop his sister.

The documents, obtained in a lawsuit against the federal government by the American Civil Liberties Union, suggest for the first time that numerous detainees were abused at Adhamiya Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's villas in eastern Baghdad that was used by his son Uday. Previous cases of abuse of Iraqi prisoners have focused mainly on Abu Ghraib prison.

A government contractor who was interviewed by U.S. investigators said that as many as 90 incidents of possible abuse took place at the palace, but only a few were detailed in the hundreds of pages of documents released Monday.

The documents also touch on alleged abuses in other U.S.-run lockups in Iraq. The papers include investigative reports linking some abuses to ultrasecret Pentagon counter-terrorism units.

The latest allegations add to a pattern that human rights activists said suggested systematic abuse of prisoners at U.S. military detention facilities across the globe. ACLU officials, who have obtained and released thousands of documents in recent months, on Monday accused the Pentagon of a "woefully inadequate" response to hundreds of incidents of alleged abuse.

"Some of the investigations have basically whitewashed the torture and abuse," said the group's director, Anthony D. Romero. "The documents that the ACLU has obtained tell a damning story of widespread torture reaching well beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib."

Responding to the latest allegations, U.S. military officials maintained that a few low-level troops had committed the abuses, independent of senior commanders. They noted that more than 300 criminal investigations had examined allegations of prisoner mistreatment and subjected 100 soldiers to court-martial proceedings and administrative punishments.

"The Army and Department of Defense have aggressively investigated all credible allegations of detainee abuse and held individuals accountable," said Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, an Army spokesman.

Few of the alleged abuses at the Adhamiya palace have previously received attention from Pentagon investigators or human rights groups. The palace is a prison overseen by the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, with interrogations conducted at least in part by members of the 5th Special Forces Group of Ft. Campbell, Ky.

The alleged abuse at the palace included forced sodomy, electric shocks, cigarette burns and severe beatings. Some allegations by prisoners were corroborated by U.S. civilian military contractors hired to help interrogate detainees, according to the Pentagon documents.

One prisoner held at the palace during 2004 said an Iraqi security officer had burned him with cigarettes and struck him repeatedly, the documents state. Another said Iraqi interrogators had pinched his nose and poured water in his mouth, raped him with a wooden stick and shocked his testicles.

In one of the more detailed cases, Iraqi security troops arrested several members of a family accused of supplying arms and money to members of the fedayeen, paramilitaries who had been allied with Hussein's regime.

A woman whose name was blacked out from the documents claimed in interviews with U.S. Army investigators that the bloody, bruised body of her brother had been tossed into her cell on top of her sister. Her brother died shortly afterward, according to her account.

Another brother, who is disabled, said guards pulled him around by his penis. The guards forced a water bottle up his rectum, he told investigators....


Torture Still Routine in Iraqi Jails, Report Says
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi authorities routinely torture prisoners, a leading human rights group said on Tuesday, citing examples of abuse which will sound all too familiar to those who suffered under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Prisoners have been beaten with cables and hose pipes, and suffered electric shocks to their earlobes and genitals, the U.S.-based group Human Rights Watch said. Some have been starved of food and water and crammed into standing-room only cells.

"The people of Iraq (news - web sites) were promised something better than this after the government of Saddam Hussein fell," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the group's Middle East and North Africa division....

..."Detainees report kicking, slapping and punching, prolonged suspension from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back, electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body ... and being kept blindfolded and/or handcuffed continuously for several days," the group said in a report.

"In several cases, the detainees suffered what may be permanent physical disability."

The report also said Iraq's intelligence service had violated the rights of political opponents.

It highlighted the systematic use of arbitrary arrest, pre-trial detention of up to four months, improper treatment of child detainees and abysmal conditions in pre-trial facilities.

The report follows a scandal over U.S. treatment of prisoners in the American-run Abu Ghraib prison, which erupted last year after the discovery of photographs showing prisoners being tortured and sexually abused.

While the Human Rights Watch report looked solely at Iraqi institutions and did not address torture of prisoners by U.S. soldiers, it said international police advisers, mostly Americans, had turned a blind eye to Iraqi abuse....


Living with the hammer and sickle
How the West doesn't mind the SovIet era symbol, but abhors the swastika

...It is truly one of the strangest distortions of our times, this selective myopia concerning the legacy of Soviet-style communism. Perhaps the most incisive analysis of this phenomenon comes to us in Applebaum's aforementioned study of the Soviet system of exile and labour camps, Gulag.

Applebaum examines the strange mix of idealism and selective memory that gives rise to what amounts to a collective apologia for among the worst crimes of the 20th century. She recounts, for instance, a conversation with the current lord mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, known affectionately among his constituents as "Red Ken" for his dalliances with pure laine socialism. Livingstone patiently explains that, while it is appropriate to describe the Nazis as "evil," one must understand that the Soviet Union was, by contrast, "deformed."

"That view," writes Applebaum, "echoes the feeling that many people have, even those who are not old-fashioned left wingers: the Soviet Union simply went wrong somehow, but it was not fundamentally wrong in the way that Hitler's Germany was wrong."

In other words, the teleology of a classless society based on the principle "to each according to their need from each according to their ability" mitigates the most heinous crimes, whereas Nazi Germany's race-based ideology does not.

And while it seems a gossamer thread on which to hang an analysis of the perceived differences between these two Satans, Applebaum bravely pushes past righteous indignation into a sustained discourse on the subject. She points out that both the Soviet and Nazi systems of concentration camps were born of a common fin de siècle European "colonial" experience.

"The notion that some types of people are superior to other types of people was common enough in Europe," writes Applebaum. "Both regimes legitimated themselves, in part, by establishing categories of `enemies' or `sub humans' whom they persecuted or destroyed on a mass scale."

For the Nazis, this began with the crippled and the retarded and moved on to gypsies, homosexuals and, above all, the Jews. And the Soviets? At different times, Stalin systematically persecuted Poles, Chechens, Tartars, and, on the eve of his death, Jews.

In the end, Applebaum draws a fine and chilling distinction between the two systems, both on the basis of intent and result. Whereas the Nazi concentration camps were designed specifically to eradicate the Jews and other "undesirables" from Europe, the gulag prisoners were exploited for economic ends.

"They were, to use Marxist language, exploited, reified, and commodified. Unless they were productive, their lives were worthless to their masters." From each according to his ability to each according to their need, indeed.

And still for all that, the hammer and sickle, the symbol of this "deformed" ideology, raises nothing like the hackles and discomfort one feels at the sight of the much loathed swastika. At least in the West, the Soviet symbol is a signifier for a kind of folie de grandeur.

"While the symbol of one mass murder fills us with horror," writes Applebaum, "the symbol of another mass murder makes us laugh."...


Jacobin to the Core
After listening to his inaugural speech, anyone who thinks President Bush and his handlers are sane needs to visit a psychiatrist. The hubris-filled megalomaniac in the Oval Office has promised the world war without end.

Bush's crazy talk has even upset rah-rah Republicans. One Republican called Bush's speech "God-drenched." It has begun to dawn on the formerly Grand Old Party that a bloodless coup has occurred and Republicans have lost their party to Jacobins, who cloak themselves under the term "neoconservatives."

What is a Jacobin? Jacobins ushered in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins saw themselves as virtuous champions of universalist principles that required them to impose "liberty, equality, fraternity" not merely on France by a reign of terror, but also on the rest of Europe by force of arms.

Unlike America's Founding Fathers, who exhorted their countrymen to cultivate their own garden, Jacobins were not content with revolutionizing France. They were driven to revolutionize the world.

President Bush's second inaugural speech is Jacobin to the core. It stands outside the American tradition....

...Kagan calls America's moral crusade against the world "the higher realism that Bush now proclaims."...

...Bush and the Republican Party have morphed into a Jacobin Party. They sincerely believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the obligation to impose U.S. virtue on the rest of the world. This Jacobin program requires the supremacy of executive power and is dependent on an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of force.

There is nothing American or democratic about this program. Bush speaks as Robespierre when he invokes "a fire in the minds of men" that "warms those who feel its power." Bush possesses Robespierre's "pure conscience" as he destroys Iraq's infrastructure and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, levels cities, and practices torture....

...Led by Bush, the Republican Party now stands for detainment without trial and war without end. It is a party destructive of all virtue and a great threat to life and liberty on earth.


Army Closed Many Abuse Cases Early
Few Detainee-Treatment Inquiries Led to Penalties, Documents Show

Army personnel have admitted to beating or threatening to kill Iraqi detainees and stealing money from Iraqi civilians but have not been charged with criminal conduct, according to newly released Army documents.

Only a handful of the 54 investigations of alleged detainee abuse and other illicit activities detailed in the documents led to recommended penalties as severe as a court-martial or discharge from military service. ...

... The newly released reports detail allegations similar to those that surrounded the documented abuse at Abu Ghraib -- such as beatings with rifle butts, prolonged hooding, sodomy, electric shocks, stressful shackling, and the repeated withholding of clothing and food -- but they also encompass alleged offenses at military prisons and checkpoints elsewhere in Iraq. The elite soldiers with Army Special Forces and other Special Operations personnel stationed in various parts of Iraq were also implicated in some of the abuse but did not admit involvement, according to the documents.

The reports, drawn directly from Army case files, also explain for the first time exactly how many of the abuse allegations were investigated and adjudicated.

A January 2004 probe, for example, found that nine soldiers in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment based at Fort Carson, Colo., and deployed in Iraq "were possibly involved in a criminal conspiracy to rob Iraqi citizens of currency" at traffic-control points. Two members of the unit affirmed the plan in sworn statements and named its participants. But the investigation was terminated after the commander "indicated an intent to take action amounting to less than a court proceeding," the report said. ...

... Another case involved a 73-year-old Iraqi woman who was captured by members of the Delta Force special unit and alleged that she was robbed of money and jewels before being confined for days without food or water -- all in an effort to force her to disclose the location of her husband and son. Delta Force's Task Force 20 was assigned to capture senior Iraqi officials.

She said she was also stripped and humiliated by a man who "straddled her . . . and attempted to ride her like a horse" before hitting her with a stick and placing it in her anus. The case, which attracted the attention of senior Iraqi officials and led to an inquiry by an unnamed member of the White House staff, was closed without a conclusion.

The military eventually released her and reimbursed her "for all property and damage" after her complaints, the report said; details of the Delta Force investigation remain classified. ...

... Another detainee said he was whisked off a Baghdad street by two U.S. soldiers, blindfolded and taken to an unknown location, where he was beaten by wooden sticks, sodomized and given electric shocks during an interrogation session. He was also one of three detainees who said in separate cases that he was forced to drink urine.

"They made me take a picture with the captain giving me a hundred-dollar bill," the detainee said. "They then threatened to show the picture to the Iraqis and say I was working with them."

Medical examinations corroborated the injuries to the detainee's wrists and noted injuries to his anus. Military lawyers ruled that the "investigation did not further diminish the integrity or credibility of [the] allegation," according to a report dated Aug. 5, but they closed the case.

Monday, January 24, 2005


Just Another Word For Everything Left to Lose
In his second-term inaugural address on Thursday, George W. Bush used the words freedom or liberty, in some form, 49 times. Say this for the president: He can hammer home a message.

Among these instances was this declaration: “We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner ‘Freedom Now’ -- they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.”

Freedom. Liberty. God. Bush’s emphases on these, so consistently highlighted in his public communications over the past four years, both lay bare and obscure underlying truths about the administration. Regarding the former, the president’s linkage of freedom and liberty with divine wishes is indicative of how central an evangelical worldview is to his conception of the United States’ role in the world, particularly in the struggle against terrorism. At the same time, emphasis on these values masks the reality that the administration is determined to define what counts as freedom and liberty and who will have the privilege to experience it. Let’s consider each of these points. ...

...The certitude present in Bush’s rhetoric and in the support for Bush by Falwell (and by other Religious Right leaders such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer) is emblematic of fundamentalists’ confidence that their understanding of the world provides what religion scholar Bruce Lawrence terms “mandated universalist norms” to be spread across cultural and historical contexts. For Bush and the Religious Right, those norms first and foremost are U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty. Since September 11, 2001, these values have gained a special resonance among Americans -- and the administration, both because of genuine ideological as well as strategic reasons, has capitalized. Since the attacks, Bush has consistently claimed that the freedom and liberty he seeks to spread is God’s will for the world....

...The claim that the U.S. government is doing God’s work may appeal to many Americans, but it frightens those who might run afoul of administration wishes-cum-demands. This is particularly so when one considers how declarations of God’s will have been used by European-Americans in past eras as rationale for subjugating those who are racially and religiously different, most notably Native Americans, Africans, Chinese, and African Americans.

Indeed, scholar R. Scott Appleby in 2003 declared that the administration’s omnipresent emphasis on freedom and liberty functions as the centerpiece for “a theological version of Manifest Destiny.” Unfortunately, this twenty-first century adaptation of Manifest Destiny differs little from earlier American versions: The goal remains to vanquish any who do not willingly adopt the supposedly universal norms and values of Protestant conservatives. The result, by implication in the president’s rhetoric, is that the administration has transformed Bush’s “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” policy into “Either you are with us, or you are against God.”

To the great misfortune of American democracy and the global public, such a view is indistinguishable from that of the terrorists it is fighting. One is hard pressed to see how the perspective of Osama bin Laden, that he and his followers are delivering God’s wishes for the United States, is much different from Bush’s perspective that the United States is delivering God’s wishes to the Taliban or Iraq....


'Braveheart' Becomes Role Model for Christian Men
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Movies like "Braveheart" and "Legends of the Fall" are on the viewing list for men in a growing Christian movement that calls for them to throw off their "nice guy" personas and emulate warriors. ...

...The movement has stirred controversy, attracting criticism from some Christian leaders who fear he may just be reinforcing stereotypes.

While some women have welcomed suddenly receiving flowers and more attention from their husbands, in the long-term there are concerns about the impact on marriages.

"The basic premise that men need a princess to rescue has set back male female relationship in the church by 30 years. He sanctifies a mythological view of 1950s malehood," said Chapman Clark, associate professor of youth, family, and culture at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California.

"It is destructive (to marriages) in the long-term," Clark said, adding that treating women as a figurine rather that the personal image of God will hurt relationships over time.

Clark said Eldredge had tapped into an angst among middle-aged white men who are dissatisfied with their lives and for whom depression had become a very serious problem. ...

Saturday, January 22, 2005


Mix of Quake Aid and Preaching Stirs Concern
MORAKETIYA, Sri Lanka, Jan. 19 -A dozen Americans walked into a relief camp here, showering bereft parents and traumatized children with gifts, attention and affection. They also quietly offered camp residents something else: Jesus.

The Americans, who all come from one church in Texas, have staged plays detailing the life of Jesus and had children draw pictures of him, camp residents said. They have told parents who lost children that they should still believe in God, and held group prayers where they tried to heal a partly paralyzed man and a deaf 12year-old girl.

The attempts at proselytizing are angering local Christian leaders, who worry that they could provoke a violent backlash against Christians in Sri Lanka, a predominantly Buddhist country that is already a religious tinderbox.

Last year, Buddhist hard-liners attacked the offices of the World Vision Christian aid group and vandalized or threatened churches and pastors 75 times. They accuse Christians of using money and social programs to cajole and coerce conversions.

Most American groups, including those affiliated with religious organizations, strictly avoid mixing aid and missionary work. But scattered reports of proselytizing in Sri Lanka; Indonesia, which is predominantly Muslim; and India, with large Hindu and Muslim populations, are arousing concerns that the good will spread by the American relief efforts may be undermined by resentment.

The Rev. Sarangika Fernando, a local Methodist minister, witnessed one of the prayer sessions in Sri Lanka and accused the Americans of acting unethically with traumatized people. "They said, 'In the name of Jesus, she must be cured!' " he said. "As a priest, I was really upset."

The Americans in Sri Lanka belong to the Antioch Community Church, an evangelical church based in Waco, Tex. Two members of the church were arrested, and accused of proselytizing, by the Taliban in Afghanistan in August 2001. When the United States invaded the country several months later, pro-American Northern Alliance forces freed the women, who church officials say did speak with Afghans about their personal "relationship with Jesus."

The Antioch Community Church is one of a growing number of evangelical groups that believe in mixing aidgiving with discussing religion, an approach that older, more established Christian aid groups like Catholic Relief Services call unethical. ...

...The Rev. Duleep Fernando, a Methodist minister based in Colombo, the capital, brought the Americans to the camp here. Mr. Fernando said they had described themselves as humanitarian aid workers. He and other Sri Lankan Christian leaders say raising religion with traumatized refugees is unethical.

"We have told them this is not right, but now we don't have any control over them," said Mr. Fernando, who called the group's Web site postings "unnecessarily explosive."

"This is a dangerous situation," he said....

...W. L. P. Wilson, 38, a disabled fisherman with a sixth-grade education, said he allowed the Americans to pray three times for the healing of his paralyzed lower leg because he was desperate to provide for his wife and three children again. Mr. Wilson, a Buddhist, said that he believed that the Americans were trying to convert him to Christianity but that he was in "a helpless situation now" and needed aid.

"They told me to always think about God and about Jesus and you will be healed," he said. "Whenever I ask for help they always mention God, but they do not give any money for treatment."


An Interview with Army Medic, Patrick Resta
... The thing that is most troubling to me about what is going on in Iraq is the public's reaction, or lack thereof, to it. It seems to me that the public is a little too accepting of whatever the media feeds them and unwilling to research things for themselves. I think the misconceptions harbored by the public about how things are going in Iraq are dangerous. By this I refer to the following ideas: that the Iraqi people want us there, that we are rebuilding the country, that we are helping the Iraqi people, that the Iraqi security forces are anywhere near capable of taking over, and the list goes on and on. I cover each of these topics extensively in my comments I have readied for public speaking engagements. (Contact Patrick Resta at eosonifilic@aol.com).

There are also the troubling ideas the American public still harbors about soldiers in Iraq. A huge one is that most soldiers support the war and are happy to be there. During my time in Iraq, "The Stars and Stripes", which is a military newspaper, released a poll that showed a clear majority of soldiers in Iraq as unsupportive of the policies. The paper also ran many letters to the editor that were critical of the administration and the war in general. The lack of armor on vehicles continues to be a problem that costs soldiers their lives and limbs. My unit had a huge problem with this issue. I have plenty of pictures of our vehicles with plywood "armor" being sent into combat (see these pictures here: http://www.lefthook.org/)

You said that it was troubling to you that most Americans still believe that a most soldiers still support the policies our government is carrying out in Iraq. Soldiers' opinions on the war vary, naturally. You were in Iraq for several months, and now you're involved with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Are a good number of soldiers questioning the war and occupation and getting fed up with what's going on?

I feel that plenty of soldiers don't see the point of the efforts they're making in Iraq. As my time wore on in Iraq more and more people were getting increasingly frustrated with being there. It becomes even more frustrating when you're getting attacked pretty frequently, having people get injured, and even members of other units get killed. For a while after I first got there I would try to think of a reason for being in Iraq before I went to bed every night. I couldn't think of one. I finally saw two pictures in National Geographic that made it pretty clear why I was there, and I taped them above my cot as a reminder. The first picture shows about 30 Marines guarding the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad. The second picture shows Navy personnel escorting an oil tanker through the Persian Gulf.

Being placed in that situation is only made worse by the lack of equipment. I realized rather quickly what my life was worth to this administration and to the American public. That being said, we all took our mission seriously and tried to have some positive impact to make our time in Iraq worth something. However, this was made pretty difficult with the rules that were put in place, such as only being allowed to treat Iraqis that were in danger of losing life or limb. It's depressing to realize that for the next several months or even year of your life you will be risking your life for nothing. Any rocket or mortar coming in could take your life, or arms, or legs and there is little point to it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want you there, the reasons given for the war have proven false, and your continued presence only inflames the situation. ...

...Most Iraqi's are not overtly confrontational with American soldiers. However, if you engage them in conversation and ask their opinion (as I often did) they will not hesitate to tell you that you are not wanted in Iraq by anyone. After the WMD story turned out to be a hoax the war was then sold as a humanitarian mission. Shortly after arriving in Iraq we were instructed that we could not treat Iraqi's unless they were in danger of losing life or limb. Basically, the local nationals had to be in danger of dying before we could treat them. This was the official guidance that we received in writing, repeatedly, from way up the chain of command. The excuses ranged from not having the money/supplies to wanting the Iraqi's to get used to using their own healthcare infrastructure. Why were we there then? It was little things like this that served to quickly turn our opinion about what this war was really about.

Most of the sentiment voiced publicly by the local nationals all focused on the same few ideas. The war was sold to them as a way to get rid of Saddam, which they favored. But, it quickly became evident that that's not what this war was really about. They were lied to by this administration too. They are now being occupied and they know the war is all about oil.

Not only are they being occupied, but they still have no security. I was told again and again that at least under Saddam they didn't have roadside bombs littering the country and gangs of insurgents roving and ravaging the country with impunity. Again, I could talk about this for hours. I will leave my contact information (eosonifilic@aol.com) and people can contact me with individual questions and/or requests to speak about my opinions and experiences in Iraq....

... When I joined the military I took an oath that I took seriously. I just wish that my elected officials took it as seriously as I did. But, why should they? Few if any of them have ever taken it before themselves. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and the people of America, clearly that is not what I did in Iraq. In fact, if the Constitution needs defending anywhere it is in Washington, DC.

No one in the military signs up to die for nothing, I know I surely didn't. Soldiers aren't assembled at the Pentagon, they are real people with real families. Most come from poor and working class families and I believe that has something to do with the public's sick view that the life of a soldier is worth inherently less than the life of an average American citizen.

If you're going to commit hundreds of thousands of troops for something this ridiculous, at least equip them so they have a fighting chance of surviving and keeping all of their limbs. Supporting our troops? Hardly. Let me break it down for you real easy: most of the kids dying in Iraq, and they are kids, are between 18 and 22. These kids will never go to college, never get married, never have kids, never have grandchildren, never retire, and never get to enjoy life. They leave behind children that will never know their fathers and widows that will never know peace.

Too many people have suffered way too much already. I will continue to speak out until the last soldier leaves Iraq and the last veteran gets the care they are owed. Not another Vietnam....

Friday, January 21, 2005


Veiled sect hails Bush, Martinez
TALLAHASSEE - A mysterious committee backed by members of a secretive religious group whose members are forbidden to vote spent more than $500,000 on newspaper ads last year supporting President Bush and U.S. Senate candidate Mel Martinez.

The Thanksgiving 2004 Committee raised the money from residents of 18 states, plus $377,262 from Bruce Hazell of London, England. None of the money was raised in Florida, according to a report filed with the Federal Elections Commission....


Faith-Based Fitness
Religion is used to market everything from books to politicians. But diets and exercise programs? Of course.

...Like church-run AA groups or grief counseling, many faith-based weight-loss programs started off as support groups in church basements, or self-improvement projects through congregation-based buddy systems. Tapping into faith provides the motivation, support, and willpower to tackle the slow and difficult process of weight loss and to maintain determination when results are less than dramatic. As recent trends in politics and culture indicate Americans are a religious people, open to applying religious principles to all aspects of their lives, the market has thrown open its doors for faith-based diet regimes and fitness programs. Religion and weight loss already rule the self-help shelves, so why not bring the two together?...



Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition
For well over a decade, the evangelical church has paid close attention to an area called the "10/40 Window," a term coined by Argentinean evangelist Luis Bush. This area, demarcated by a giant rectangle between 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator, stretches from western Senegal to eastern China and contains the "core" of people who have had little or no exposure to the gospel. Close to 4 billion people inhabit the 10/40 Window, including 90 percent of the world’s "poorest of the poor," according to Window International, an organization spearheading much of the 10/40 movement.

In focusing mission efforts on this swath of the globe, evangelicals have come to believe that two spiritual "forces" exist in the center of the 10/40 Window. Missions researcher George Otis Jr. refers to these powers as "the prince of Persia (Iran)" and the "spirit of Babylon (Iraq)." Otis and others believe that these strongholds must be "penetrated" by the gospel in order to be faithful to the commands of Jesus.

But this geographic and spiritual bull’s eye has captured the imagination of more than just American evangelicals. It is also a region of utmost importance to current foreign policy-makers within the U.S. government, which has waged two wars during the last three-and-a-half years in the heart of the 10/40 Window.

Many evangelical churches are not only launching bases from which missionaries are sent to the far reaches of the globe, but also wellsprings of support for George W. Bush’s foreign policy. It is out of these same communities of Christians that an aggressive political vision has begun to ride shotgun with a pre-existing commitment to reach the nations with the gospel.

Are White House speeches - and, worse, many worshipers in American pews - confusing the advance of God’s kingdom through missions with the advance of American hegemony through the military?

From the White House, President Bush has repeatedly adorned his foreign policy with strong evangelical overtones. Much of the administration’s rhetoric surrounding these two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) has imbued its policies with a sense of spiritual and moral urgency. As a result, wars conducted against nation-states threaten to link seamlessly with the spiritual battles missionaries have been engaged in for centuries.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank influencing much of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, reveals a strikingly similar map to that of the 10/40 Window. This map, however, carries with it a decidedly different agenda: a blueprint for empire. On its Web site, PNAC proposes a return to a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," claiming the need to "accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

According to many in the missions community, PNAC’s map is fundamentally opposed to the one that evangelicals have traditionally placed in their sanctuaries and prayer closets. Yet it is largely from the evangelical community that a great deal of support is fueling this neoconservative vision - a vision that many others feel is harming the cause of missions and exacerbating the extremely volatile context in which many missionaries serve.

From the International Mission Board alone, the missionary-sending agency of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, more than 10,000 people are engaged in domestic and international mission, supported by a volunteer force of more than 25,000. In late 2003, the SBC not only sent missionaries to the field, but they also helped draft a letter to the president actually "urging Bush to attack Iraq," according to the Associated Press, claiming that "such an action is well within the bounds of the ‘just war’ tradition."

Why, if waging war in the 10/40 Window could severely disrupt mission activity, has U.S. foreign policy still received such vehement support from mission-minded evangelicals?

"I think that the media, especially the Christian media, plays a very strong role in confusing Christian mission with the American political agenda," says Eloise Meneses, associate professor of anthropology at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. "Some Christians live in cultural enclaves [that] foster this confusion heavily, and vilify any opposing political opinion as un-Christian."...

... David Johnston, an author and teacher who served for 15 years in Algeria, Egypt, and the West Bank, suggests that many "missionaries living in Muslim countries… have a very nuanced view of current U.S. policies abroad. The problem is that many of these missions are funded by churches that vote solid Republican and that since 9/11 view the world in much the same way as the Bush administration." While Johnston admits that "patriotism is a good thing," he says, "[American Christians] have crossed the line and have fallen into nationalism, which is clearly idolatrous."

The fears of many in the missions community are based on a century rife with cross-cultural ministry distorted by nationalism. It takes little detective work to find national agendas muddled with mission. We have scarcely moved past eras in which French, British, and even apartheid-ravaged South African mission activity was inextricably linked to national interests....

...A year before his death, Adrian Hastings, emeritus professor of theology at the University of Leeds in England, wrote, "None of us anticipated…that the gravest nationalist threat to Christianity by the late 20th century might come from the United States, essentially a rehash of the traditional Christian imperialism of western European countries. It is just the latest example of a self-appointed ‘chosen people’ carrying forth a gospel message reshaped by its own values and bonded to its own political expansion."

American Christians with a "chosen people" complex, brazenly supportive of a controversial war, could be guilty of further calcifying an already severe distrust of Western missionary efforts....


Jesus to the Rescue?
Can a dose of Christianity stiffen the Democrats' spine, win back Kansas and bring people power to the anemic left? In the wake of the 2004 election, quite a few powerful liberals are wondering if they can frame their politics as "faith" the way the right has so effectively done. One of the people the Democrats have invited to tell them how to go about this is the evangelical Protestant activist Jim Wallis, a founder of the antipoverty group Call to Renewal and editor of the magazine Sojourners. Wallis, an early supporter of Bush's faith-based initiative, is on a roll. In late November he appeared with Al Sharpton, Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Richard Land on the notorious all-male "values" debate on Meet the Press. His new book, God's Politics, currently hovers at the top of the Amazon list....

...Wallis draws a sharp line between the God-on-our-side Christianity responsible for countless evils and the social-justice kind he favors. Yet the triumphalism and self-righteousness he condemns in the former crops up throughout God's Politics: "religion" and "faith" are usually synonyms for Christianity, and Christianity mostly means evangelical Protestantism. Evangelicals get most of the credit for everything good in US history, from women's suffrage to the civil rights movement. This would surprise skeptics like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who spent her life battling scriptural arguments for male supremacy, and the secular Jews and leftists who made up so much of the civil rights movement's white base. And what about the opponents of women's rights and racial integration? Weren't a lot of them evangelicals too? At times Wallis seems to be in a kind of denial: If it's wrong, it isn't truly evangelical, therefore evangelicalism is purely good. Today's robust evangelical right is the fault of--wait for it--"secular fundamentalists"! Blame it on the ACLU.

Wallis's God calls on Christians to fight racism, poverty, war and violence--what's wrong with mustering support for these worthy goals by presenting them in the language spoken by so many Americans? The trouble is, the other side does that too. You can find anything you want in the Bible--well, almost anything. Thus, the more insistently people bring Christianity into politics, the more political argument becomes a matter of Christian hermeneutics. Does God say gays should be executed or married? "Spare the rod" or "suffer the little children"? I don't see how we benefit as a society from translating politics into theology. We are left with the same debates, and a diminished range of ways in which to think about them. And, of course, a diminished number of voices--because if you're not a believer, you're out of the discussion. In this sense, Wallis's evangelicalism is as much a power play as Pat Robertson's.

And Wallis is as much a power player. By a remarkable act of providence, God's politics turn out to be curiously tailored to the current crisis of the Democratic Party. God, like many of the black, Hispanic, Catholic and working-class voters who voted for Bush in 2004, is an economic progressive and a family-values conservative. He doesn't like "pornography," divorce, abortion or gay marriage (civil unions are OK). It's interesting that in his earlier book The Soul of Politics Wallis cited numerous women theologians, while God's Politics mentions not one. Perhaps this is because the liberationist theologians he wrote about in The Soul of Politics are mostly very strong feminists who think women are capable of making moral decisions about childbearing and that abortion can be one such decision. Wallis constantly accuses "the left" of resisting "moral" arguments. I would say it is he who resists fully engaging moral arguments that differ from his own. ...


What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah? (Part 1)
Dear Straight Dope:

Genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the Bible. Noah lands the ark, plants a vineyard, gets drunk off its wine, lays around naked in his tent and is seen by his son Ham who reports it to his two brothers. Noah sobers up knowing what Ham did and curses his grandson Canaan who apparently was not even there. What is even stranger is when I started researching this mystery I discovered the story was once used to support slavery. Further there are theories floating around concerning castration and incest. What is the real story? Is there a deeper meaning to this than Noah having a case of misdirected anger while hung over? Or are we only hearing the watered-down version in our modern day Bible?--Steve, Oak Park, Illinois...


Bush changes White House rhetoric about God
In tomorrow's Inaugural address, George W. Bush will invoke God. We guarantee it -- presidents always do so at inaugurations. That he believes in or refers to a supreme power is not what distinguishes Bush from other modern U.S. presidents. What makes Bush notable is how much he talks about God and what he says when he does so.

The president referenced a higher power 10 times in his first Inaugural, including this claim: "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image." In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.

No other president since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933 has mentioned God so often in his Inaugurations or State of the Unions. The closest to Bush's average of six references per each of these addresses is Ronald Reagan, who averaged 4.75 in his comparable speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered as pious as they come among U.S. presidents, had only two mentions of God in four addresses. Other also-rans in total God talk were Roosevelt at 1.69 and Lyndon Johnson at 1.50 references per Inaugurals and State of the Unions.

God talk in these addresses is important because in these ritualized occasions any religious language becomes fused with U.S. identity. This is particularly so since the advent of radio and television, which have facilitated presidents' ability to connect with the U.S. public writ large; indeed, Inaugurals and State of the Unions commonly draw large media audiences.

Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner -- and he did so far less frequently than has Bush. ...

Thursday, January 20, 2005


It is as unprecedented as it is cunning, using all the right words and happiest faces in an attempt to speak directly to the nation’s children about "tolerance and diversity." Once again, of course, those ideas include homosexual advocacy.

On November 10, a video remake of the song, "We Are Family," was created using the voices and images of over 100 beloved children’s TV characters. On March 11, 2005, the video performance will air simultaneously on the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and PBS. A similar video aired on those networks in 2002.

The nation’s children will be all too familiar with the characters on the video, incuding those from Arthur, Barney, Blue’s Clues, Bob the Builder, The Book of Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Dora the Explorer, Jimmy Neutron, Kim Possible, Lilo & Stitch: The Series, Little Mermaid, Madeline, The Magic School Bus, The Muppet Show, Rugrats, Sesame Street and SpongeBob Squarepants.

Also in March, the DVD of the song will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the country. It will be accompanied by a teacher’s guide, designed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, www.adl.org), a group that, among other things, promotes the normalization of homosexuality.

Driving the project is the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF, www.wearefamilyfoundation.org), which states on its Web site that the song was remixed "to speak the message of diversity and tolerance to elementary school children nationwide."

On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences among all Americans. However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality.

WAFF was founded as a non-profit organization in 2002 by Nile Rodgers, who wrote the song "We Are Family" with his late music partner, Bernard Edwards. The WAFF site says that the group "celebrates our common humanity and the vision of a global family …."

The Web site is filled with pro-homosexual materials. A "Tolerance Pledge," for example, created by Tolerance.org, part of the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, encourages signees to pledge respect for homosexuals and work against "ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry."

Most Christians are now aware of what those code words mean, said AFA Chairman Don Wildmon. "If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant," he said. "If you don’t, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."...


Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.

Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.

"The fact that some people may be upset with each other peoples' lifestyles, that is O.K.," Mr. Rodgers said. "We are just talking about respect."

Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need medication."

On Wednesday however, Paul Batura, assistant to Mr. Dobson at Focus on the Family, said the group stood by its accusation. ...

Wednesday, January 19, 2005


Spain's Catholic Church Backs Condom Use to Prevent AIDS
Associated Press
January 19, 2005 10:22 a.m.

MADRID – Spain's Catholic Church said it supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS -- a substantial shift from traditional policy.

The Vatican states that condoms, being a form of artificial birth control, cannot be used to help prevent the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

But "condoms have a place in the global prevention of AIDS," Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, told reporters after a meeting Tuesday with Health Minister Elena Salgado to discuss ways of fighting the disease.

Mr. Martinez Camino said the Spanish Catholic Church's stance is backed by the scientific world. He cited a recent study by experts in the medical magazine Lancet that supported the so-called "ABC" approach of fighting AIDS -- "A" for abstinence, "B" for being faithful to partners, and "C" for condoms.

"The Church is very worried and interested by this problem," he said.

There was no comment from the Vatican to the Spanish statement....


Julia Roberts has a better chance of winning this war
Iraq will surrender its soul to America only when the US army has left

There is growing dissension and dismay in the US armed forces about their prospects of victory in Iraq. The yellow ribbons, lapel pins and yard signs expressing solidarity with the nation's soldiers are still conspicuous around army bases across America. But commanders and soldiers alike are conducting an increasingly anguished debate.

There are four reasons for this. First, many service people are shocked by the incontrovertible evidence that the justifications offered by the Bush administration for invading Iraq - WMD and a link with international terrorism - were false. Second, bitter and painful fighting, notably in the showpiece assault on Falluja, has failed to suppress insurgency. Third, there is deep scepticism about progress in recruiting Iraqis to assume the security burden. Even General David Petraeus, the US airborne general charged with organising Iraq's new forces, is said to be increasingly despondent. And finally, the army and marine corps are acutely aware that they have to sustain the occupation without sufficient troops to control the country effectively.

Having begun the campaign convinced of the justice of their cause and their ability to secure victory, many members of the US military and their families now suspect that the cause may be invalid and the battle unwinnable. ...

...Might not America ultimately prevail in Iraq by means in which armed forces play no part? Consider this proposition from Edward Luttwak, the maverick American strategy guru. In a recent speech to a British audience, he suggested that the US began to win the Vietnam war the day after its envoy was humiliatingly evacuated from the roof of the Saigon embassy in April 1975.

The military conflict was lost - but, argued Luttwak, the US began to achieve victory culturally and economically. Vietnam may still profess a commitment to communism, but in reality capitalism is taking hold at every level. American values, represented by corporatism and schools of management studies, are gaining sway over Vietnam as surely as they are every other nation possessed of education and aspirations to prosperity.

Luttwak describes what is happening as the US acquiring a "virtual empire", founded upon cultural dominance - a convincing proposition, certainly in the eyes of Osama bin Laden, who is attempting to mobilise the Muslim world to resist it. Al-Qaida is seeking to combat through terrorism a cultural invasion more effective than stealth bombers and Bradley fighting vehicles. Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg represent influences much harder to repel than a field army.

Luttwak's remarks raise the fascinating possibility that, while the US might be obliged to abandon its military struggle in Iraq, its values will still triumph. Might Baghdad emulate Saigon in surrendering its soul to the US, in a fashion Bin Laden would find repugnant, long after the last American soldier has gone home?

I am not arguing that military power is redundant. But recent history suggests that America is less skilful in exploiting armed might to fulfil its national purposes than in wielding economic and cultural power, without a soldier in sight.

Last spring in a refugee camp in Gaza, I was quizzing a cluster of children about what they enjoyed watching on television. Without hesitation they cried: "Rambo! Rambo!" It is hard to think of a less appropriate role model.

What seemed significant, however, was not the identity of their icon, but its source. These children's parents had come to fear, mistrust and, often, hate America. Yet Hollywood possesses a power greater than any that President Bush can exercise through the Pentagon. Whatever the political hostility of young Palestinians to the US, they cannot escape its cultural ubiquity. ...


How Americans Were Seduced by War
Americans have been betrayed. Sooner or later Americans will realize that they have been led to defeat in a pointless war by political leaders who they inattentively trusted. They have been misinformed by a sycophantic corporate media too mindful of advertising revenues to risk reporting truths branded unpatriotic by the propagandistic slogan, "you are with us or against us."

What happens when Americans wake up to their betrayal? It is too late to be rescued from catastrophe in Iraq, but perhaps if Americans can understand how such a grand mistake was made they can avoid repeating it. In a forthcoming book from Oxford University Press,

The New American Militarism, Andrew J. Bacevich writes that we can avoid future disasters by understanding how our doctrines went wrong and by returning to the precepts laid down by our Founding Fathers, men of infinitely more wisdom than those currently holding reins of power.

Bacevich, West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and soldier for 23 years, is a true conservative. He is an expert on US military strategy and a professor at Boston University. He describes how civilian strategists – especially Albert Wohlstetter and Andrew Marshall – not military leaders, transformed a strategy of deterrence that regarded war as a last resort into a strategy of naked aggression. The resulting "marriage of a militaristic cast of mind with utopian ends" has "committed the United States to waging an open-ended war on a global scale."

The greatest threat to the US is not terrorists but the neoconservative belief, to which President Bush is firmly committed, that American security and well-being depend on US global hegemony and impressing US values on the rest of the world. This belief resonates with a patriotic public. Bacevich writes, "in the aftermath of a century filled to overflowing with evidence pointing to the limited utility of armed force and the dangers inherent in relying excessively on military power, the American people have persuaded themselves that their best prospect for safety and salvation lies with the sword."

If Americans persist in these misconceptions, America will "share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger our security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize."

Bacevich understands that the problem is not how to deal with terrorism but how to deal with the hubris, laden with catastrophe, that America is God’s instrument for bringing history to its predetermined destination. Being assigned such an exalted role creates the delusion that America’s virtue is unquestionable and its use of preemptive coercion is infallible, delusion that led to the "cakewalk war" that would entrench Democracy in the Middle East and have the troops home in 90 days.

American hubris, which flows so freely from President Bush’s mouth, explains why half the US population yawns over the US slaughter of Iraqi civilians and communist-style torture of Iraqi prisoners. The "cakewalk war" is now almost two years old and has claimed 10 percent of the US occupation force as casualties. Yet, the delusion persists that the US is prevailing in Iraq.

The new American militarism would be inconceivable, Bacevich writes, "were it not for the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals." Books written about "militant Islam" could equally describe militant evangelical Christianity. How did a Christian doctrine of love and peace become an apology for war?

Bacevich explains that evangelicals, aghast at Vietnam era protests of America’s war against "godless communism," turned to the military as the repository of traditional American virtues. For evangelicals, endtimes doctrines converged eschatology with national security. Prophecies merged America’s fate with Israel’s. Islam inherited the role of godless communism and became the target of the war against evil. America emerged with the "same immensely elastic permission to use force previously accorded to Israel."

America’s security and the well-being of the world are threatened by America’s unwarranted belief in the efficacy of force. War is ungovernable: "The shattered reputations of generals and statesmen who presumed to bring it under control litter the twentieth century. On those rare occasions when war has yielded a seemingly decisive outcome, as in 1918 or 1945, it has done so only after exacting a staggering price from victor and vanquished alike. Even then, in resolving one set of problems, ‘good’ wars have fostered resentments or created temptations, leading as often as not to further conflict."...


Bush Upsets Some Supporters
President Is Urged to Press Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said, "I am sure [White House] phone lines are lighting up all over."

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.

Social conservatives who helped stoke record turnout for Bush in the 2004 election expressed concern that he is dropping the issue he passionately touted during the campaign now that he has been reelected. "The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage. The president's leadership is desperately needed." Minnery and Perkins called the White House to complain about Bush's position.

Some conservatives, however, said they trust Bush will still push for the amendment, despite his remarks....


A MAN OF THE SHADOWS
Can Iyad Allawi hold Iraq together?

...Allawi was anointed Iraq’s leader in June, in a formal ceremony with Paul Bremer III, the outgoing administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Since Allawi took office, Iraq has become unmoored by violence, and his efforts to restore security have been the central obsession of his leadership. “I want to see consolidated the rule of law,” he said after we went back outside. “I want to see Iraq unified and strong.” One of his first decisions was to announce a state of emergency, and, in the early weeks of his tenure, Allawi took pains to show that he was a man of decision and courage, habitually rushing—some would say recklessly—to the scenes of car-bomb explosions around Baghdad just after they had occurred. He used these occasions to denounce terrorism and defend the rule of law. (His security advisers eventually dissuaded him from this activity.)

More unnervingly, there have been persistent rumors that, a week or so before he took office, Allawi shot and killed several terrorist suspects being held prisoner at a Baghdad police station. When reporters asked him about the rumors, Allawi denied that he had shot anyone, but added that he would do “everything necessary” to protect Iraqis. I was in Baghdad at the time; although most Iraqis I spoke to believed the rumors, journalists and diplomats speculated that Allawi had spread them himself, in order to bolster his stern reputation.

In late June, however, I sat in on an interview, conducted by Paul McGeough, a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald, of a man who claimed to have witnessed the executions. He described how Allawi had been taken to seven suspects, who were made to stand against a wall in a courtyard of the police station, their faces covered. After being told of their alleged crimes by a police official, Allawi had asked for a pistol, and then shot each prisoner in the head. Afterward, the witness said, Allawi had declared to those present, “This is how we must deal with the terrorists.” The witness said that he approved of Allawi’s act, adding that, in any case, the terrorists were better off dead, for they had been tortured for days.

In the ensuing months, the story has lingered, never having been either fully confirmed or convincingly denied. (Allawi did not address the incident with me.) During my visit to Jordan, a well-known former government minister told me that an American official had confirmed that the killings took place, saying to him, “What a mess we’re in—we got rid of one son of a bitch only to get another.”...


God doesn't need Ole Anthony
Televangelists have called him a cultist, a fraud, and the Antichrist. He says he's just doing what Jesus would want.

Ole Anthony is tall and gaunt, with a shock of white hair and searing blue eyes. He has a high, bony forehead and the pale, scraggy features of his Norwegian ancestors (his first name is pronounced "Oh-lee").

His many enemies, most of them televangelists, sometimes call him Ole Antichrist, and it's true that he has a certain familiarity with apocalypse. When he was an intelligence operative with the Air Force, he witnessed a nuclear blast at close range. A few years later, he was accidentally electrocuted.

Evangelists often claim that they've been "slain in the spirit"—possessed so completely by the love of Jesus that they've died to themselves—but Anthony, who is sixty-six, really looks as if he'd just stepped off a gurney. He looks the way Moses might have looked had he been born in Minnesota.

Anthony is the founder and president of the Trinity Foundation, a religious community in East Dallas that functions variously as a soup kitchen, a rehab center, a Christian publishing house, and a private detective firm.

Trinity's fifty or so active members (supported by some four hundred other donors) live in a row of creaky two-story bungalows with deep, shaded porches, along a dead-end street in a neighborhood known as Little Mexico. They take most of their meals in a communal dining hall and meet three times a week for Bible studies that have been closer in spirit, at times, to barroom brawls.

The problem with the modern church, Anthony believes, is the church itself. So he has patterned Trinity on the underground Christian communities of the first century, before denominations or cathedrals or the strict separation of Christian and Jew: a church before churches existed. ...

..."The televangelist I worked for not only feared Ole—he wanted to do him physical harm," one of Anthony's informants told me. "These guys think he's Satan incarnate." The opinion is not a new one. When Anthony was six years old, the family's Lutheran minister, in St. Peter, Minnesota, asked his mother not to bring him to catechism class anymore.

"He told her I was an evil child," Anthony says. "I was disruptive and asked too many questions."...

...Thirty years ago, Kenneth Copeland was a pilot for Oral Roberts, the godfather of the televangelist industry. When he and his wife began teaching Bible studies in Fort Worth, their small classes quickly blossomed into full-blown revivals, then weeklong assemblies at convention centers. Today, the Copelands preside over a mega-ministry of their own, worth a hundred and fifty million dollars.

Its headquarters sprawl across fifteen hundred acres of short-grass prairie forty miles west of Dallas, and include a television studio and a private airfield. The church has a sizable gift shop in the lobby, where books with titles like "No Deposit, No Return" sit next to pamphlets on "Bible cures" for cancer, ADD, and prostate problems....

...Recently, a call for donations appeared on Copeland's Web site: he and his wife require his-and-her Cessna Citation X jets, valued at twenty million dollars apiece.

"When God tells Kenneth to travel to South Africa and hold a three-day Victory Campaign, he won't have to wait to make commercial travel arrangements," the Web site explains. "He can just climb aboard his Citation X and go!" ...

...Trinity's cynicism is best exemplified, Brewer and other critics say, by its bi-monthly magazine, The Door. First published in 1971, by a Christian youth ministry in California, The Door was named after the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on which Martin Luther posted the ninety-five theses that triggered the Reformation. When Trinity inherited the magazine, nine years ago, it was a favorite among seminarians for its subversive wit and its interviews with theologians. The current editor, Robert Darden, is a Trinity supporter who teaches writing at Baylor. He has tried to preserve the magazine's spirit, but Trinity's investigations sometimes introduce a strident, acerbic tone. Mild satires like "Harry Potter in the Lake of Fire" now alternate with cover stories on Pat Robertson, "Lifetime Loser," or on Charlton Heston as a "Christian Soldier of Fortune," dressed as Moses with a machine gun.

The low point, even Trinity members now say, came when The Door set its sights on W. V. Grant, a local faith healer who presided over a five-thousand-seat church. In 1996, after a two-year investigation by the foundation, Grant was sentenced to sixteen months in prison and ordered to pay three hundred and fifty-three thousand dollars in back taxes, in addition to a fine. Afterward, to celebrate the conviction, Anthony insisted on publishing a Playboy-style centerfold of a picture that a Trinity investigator had found. It showed Grant standing at a window, buck naked and uncommonly hairy. If Darden hadn't objected strenuously, Anthony would have added a caption in large print: "Even the hairs on his ass are numbered." ...

...All the old con men return eventually, he said, and some never really leave. After the wave of televangelist scandals in the early nineties, the Federal Communications Commission considered a truth-in-advertising clause for religious solicitations. If a televangelist declared, on the air, that he had cured a donor's cancer or tripled his bank account, that claim would have to be verifiable. Anthony made three trips to Washington to lobby for the change, and was told that it was certain to pass. Then, in 1994, the Republicans won control of the House, thanks in part to the religious right, and the measure was quietly tabled....


Bush Rewarded by Black Pastors' Faith
MILWAUKEE — Bishop Sedgwick Daniels, one of this city's most prominent black pastors, supported Democrats in past presidential elections, backing Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

This fall, however, the bishop's broad face appeared on Republican Party fliers in the battleground state of Wisconsin, endorsing President Bush as the candidate who "shares our views."

What changed?

After Bush's contested 2000 victory, Daniels felt the pull of a most powerful worldly force: a call from the White House. He conferred with top administration officials and had a visit in 2002 from the president himself. His church later received $1.5 million in federal funds through Bush's initiative to support faith-based social services.

Daniels' political conversion, and similar transformations by black pastors across the nation, form a little-known chapter in the playbook of Bush's 2004 reelection campaign — and may mark the beginning of a political realignment long sought by senior White House advisor Karl Rove and other GOP strategists....

...In the crucial state of Ohio, where the faith-based program was promoted last fall at rallies and ministerial meetings, a rise in black support for Bush created the cushion he needed to win the presidential race without a legal challenge in that state...

...A longtime observer and critic of federal faith-based efforts, Robert Wineburg, a professor of social work at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, says the Bush initiative is as crassly political as any program he has seen.

"Look at where they planned their large-scale meetings," said Wineburg, who has written books on the politics of faith and social service and has worked as a consultant to religious charities. "A grant-writing workshop in St. Louis in September before Missouri was a lock, in Miami in October before Florida was sealed. I wouldn't call it honest technical assistance based on communities that needed that assistance most at that specific time. I'd call it honest American, or maybe old-style Chicago, politics."...


U.S. Military Personnel Growing Critical of the War in Iraq
The war is over, at least as far as Darrell Anderson is concerned. Anderson, a 22-year-old GI from Lexington, Kentucky, deserted a week ago, heading across the US' loosely controlled border with Canada. When his fellow soldiers in the First US Tank Division, stationed in Hessen, Germany, ship out to Iraq for their second tour of duty, he'll be in Canada.

Anderson spent seven months in Iraq last year as a part of a unit assigned the dangerous mission of guarding police stations in Baghdad. He was wounded by grenade shrapnel during an insurgent attack, was awarded the Purple Heart and allowed to spend Christmas at home in the United States. But instead of returning to duty, Anderson fled to Toronto.

Now he's a deserter and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. If apprehended, he faces several years in a US military prison. In justifying his desertion, Anderson says: "I can't go back to this war. I don't want to kill innocent people." He talks about the constant pressure soldiers face to make decisions in the daily grind of war. Once, when a car came too close to their Baghdad checkpoint, his commanding officer ordered him to shoot, even though Anderson could only make out a man and children in the vehicle. The soldier refused. "Next time you shoot," his commanding officer barked.

On another occasion, the safety on his automatic weapon was all that prevented Anderson from losing control. "I was holding a heavily injured comrade in my arms, there was blood all over the place, and Iraqis were cheering all around us," he recalls. "I was so furious that all I wanted to do was kill someone, anyone."

Anderson has now applied for political asylum in Canada. His attorney, Jeffry House, was once one of the 50,000 draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Deserters who are now fleeing to Canada to avoid the Iraq war have reawakened memories of an exodus that took place more than thirty years ago. House says: "Every day I get calls from at least two soldiers looking for a way out."

Revolt no longer Rare

Deserting US recruits -- once a rarity -- are not alone in their search. Three months after being reelected and immediately prior to what is expected to be a triumphant inaugural party to mark the start of his second term, US President George W. Bush will be hard-pressed not to reevaluate the strategy for the deployment of US troops in Iraq. He faces massive doubts among the members of his own military, who are becoming increasingly vocal in their opinion that the US war with Iraqi insurgents is being conducted with insufficient manpower and equipment. Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, warns that his troops in Iraq have "deteriorated into a broken force."

A revolt seems to be taking place within the ranks. Even though daily bomb attacks in Iraq and the latest death toll of 1,361 US soldiers have yet to trigger any significant reversal in US public opinion, and even though President Bush reiterated last week that the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein, Bush's soldiers and officers seem increasingly convinced that the opposite is true. Almost without warning, America's armed forces, superior to any of the world's other militaries but faced with severe personnel shortages, are suddenly encountering almost insurmountable obstacles -- politically, strategically and financially.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld particularly faces growing criticism. In light of the disastrous situation on the ground in Iraq, even fellow Republicans are quietly demanding his removal and calling for a change in strategy. Rumsfeld bears the brunt of the blame for the precarious situation in which the US military now finds itself. The Iraq war has cost US taxpayers more than $150 billion to date, with the Pentagon spending $4.5 billion a month on its campaign in Iraq. ...

Tuesday, January 18, 2005



The Phantom Weapons...
...The United States has ended its physical search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which was cited by the first administration of President George W Bush as the main reason for invading the country, the White House has said.

Why does this not surprise me? Does it surprise anyone? I always had the feeling that the only people who actually believed this war was about weapons of mass destruction were either paranoid Americans or deluded expatriate Iraqis- or a combination of both. I wonder now, after hundreds and hundreds of Americans actually died on Iraqi soil and over a hundred-thousand Iraqis are dead, how Americans view the current situation. I have another question- the article mentions a "Duelfer Report" stating the weapons never existed and all the intelligence was wrong. This report was supposedly published in October 2004. The question is this: was this report made public before the elections? Did Americans actually vote for Bush with this knowledge?

Over here, it's not really "news" in the sense that it's not new. We've been expecting a statement like this for the last two years. While we were aware the whole WMD farce was just a badly produced black comedy, it's still upsetting to hear Bush's declaration that he was wrong. It's upsetting because it just confirms the worst: right-wing Americans don't care about justifying this war. They don't care about right or wrong or innocents dead and more to die. They were somewhat ahead of the game. When they saw their idiotic president wasn't going to find weapons anywhere in Iraq, they decided it would be about mass graves. It wasn't long before the very people who came to 'liberate' a sovereign country soon began burying more Iraqis in mass graves. The smart weapons began to stupidly kill 'possibly innocent' civilians (they are only 'definitely innocent' if they are working with the current Iraqi security forces or American troops). It went once more from protecting poor Iraqis from themselves to protecting Americans from 'terrorists'. Zarqawi very conveniently entered the picture.

Zarqawi is so much better than WMD. He's small, compact and mobile. He can travel from Falloojeh to Baghdad to Najaf to Mosul… whichever province or city really needs to be oppressed. Also, conveniently, he looks like the typical Iraqi male- dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, medium build. I wonder how long it will take the average American to figure out that he's about as substantial as our previously alleged WMD.

Now we're being 'officially' told that the weapons never existed. After Iraq has been devastated, we're told it's a mistake. You look around Baghdad and it is heart-breaking. The streets are ravaged, the sky is a bizarre grayish-bluish color- a combination of smoke from fires and weapons and smog from cars and generators. There is an endless wall that seems to suddenly emerge in certain areas to protect the Green Zoners... There is common look to the people on the streets- under the masks of fear, anger and suspicion, there's also a haunting look of uncertainty and indecision. Where is the country going? How long will it take for things to even have some vague semblance of normality? When will we ever feel safe?

A question poses it self at this point- why don't they let the scientists go if the weapons don't exist? Why do they have Iraqi scientists like Huda Ammash, Rihab Taha and Amir Al Saadi still in prison? Perhaps they are waiting for those scientists to conveniently die in prison? That way- they won't be able to talk about the various torture techniques and interrogation tactics...

I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems… How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia… Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets?

Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper…terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there.

The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America...

Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now.


Religious Right to hold thanksgiving service for Bush
US Christians in Washington are to mark the inauguration of the US President by holding a service giving 'thanks to God' for the re-election of George W. Bush. ...

...The group, which describes itself as a 'Christian mission to elected and appointed officials', presents stone artwork tablets of the Ten Commandments to senators and congressmen.

Faith and Action will host a one-hour prayer service at its Capitol Hill headquarters, just across the street from the US Supreme Court and just down the road from where Mr. Bush will be sworn in for a second term.

"No president is perfect," said Rev. Rob Schenck, president of Faith and Action, "but George Bush has done more than any recent president to champion what is important to serious Christians of every tradition...



New intelligence reports raise questions about U.S. mission in Iraq
WASHINGTON - A series of new U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq paints a grim picture of the road ahead and concludes that there's little likelihood that President Bush's goals can be attained in the near future.

Instead of stabilizing the country, national elections Jan. 30 are likely to be followed by more violence and could provoke a civil war between majority Shiite Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, the CIA and other intelligence agencies predict, according to senior officials who've seen the classified reports. ...

... Two senior intelligence officials with access to classified reporting said Islamic militants allied with or inspired by Osama bin Laden were forging ties to Iraqi nationalists and remnants of former dictator Saddam Hussein's regime. The linkage is similar to the one that so-called "Afghan Arabs" formed with Afghanistan's Taliban regime after the Soviet Union withdrew from that country, they said.

The Bush administration claimed before invading Iraq that Saddam had strong ties to international terrorism, but most counterterrorism experts dispute that and no evidence has been found to support the claim.

"The sad thing is we have created what the administration claimed we were intervening to prevent: an Iraq/al-Qaida linkage," one of the senior intelligence officials said.

The officials who were more pessimistic spoke on condition of anonymity, because the latest intelligence assessments are classified and their views are at odds with public statements from the White House.

Even in their public remarks, top military officers and policy-makers are becoming more cautionary about the road ahead in Iraq.

All major U.S. intelligence agencies share a pessimistic prognosis for Iraq's future, according to a senior administration official. The assessment of the State Department's intelligence bureau is so grim that it's referred to as the "I agree with Scowcroft's analysis" report....

... The public report by the National Intelligence Council appears to contradict the Bush administration's contention that the invasion of Iraq struck a blow against terrorism.

The report by the council, an advisory board of top intelligence analysts that's independent of the CIA, says Iraq has taken the place once held by Afghanistan as a proving ground for terrorist leaders.

"The al-Qaida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," says the unclassified report, "Mapping the Global Future," which is an analysis of trends to the year 2020.

"Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are `professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself," it says.


Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries
Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion.

Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives.

Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease and trauma.

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village....


Religious Liberty
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
-- Gary North


Suckers
...The dirty little secret of the Republican Party is that behind closed doors the establishment has contempt for the religious right. And the GOP illuminati certainly do not leave their homes in the morning with a passion to prevent Jim from marrying John or to save a fetus from an abortionist. For instance, many have loved ones who are gay, or they may be gay themselves. The powers that be in the GOP are far more concerned about eliminating the estate tax for multimillionaires than halting the death of the unborn. Here is a thought experiment - if you really believe that the sacred institution of marriage is in dire jeopardy, would you make private social security accounts your top priority?

The GOP big wigs pay obeisance to the religious right because they provide the foot soldiers for their campaigns. The Republican establishment cynically manipulates the cultural issues because they recognize that a party that is dedicated to redistributing wealth upward has little chance of majority status. Once elected, Republicans reward the religious right with some crumbs while the real goodies are handed out to their wealthy donors and their corporate cronies....

Monday, January 17, 2005


Victory for Freedom From Religion
The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation scored a win this week in its fight against the improper use of government money by faith-based organizations.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Shabaz ordered the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to stop funding a Christian group in Arizona because it was using the money, intended for social services, to promote religion....

...In an 11-page ruling issued Tuesday, Shabaz cited materials that MentorKids USA gave its volunteers, including the pledge that mentors must sign stating that the Bible is "without error." They also received a fact sheet instructing them to "introduce children to the gospel of Jesus Christ" and file monthly reports on how their charges are "progressing in their relationship with God."...


White House Again Backs Amendment on Marriage
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - The White House sought on Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backtracking from remarks Mr. Bush made in an interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Sunday, Mr. Bush said many senators did not see the need for the amendment as long as the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Because many senators are waiting to see if that legislation can withstand a constitutional challenge, "nothing will happen" for now with the proposed amendment, Mr. Bush said....




The myth of a savior
One of the Party's greatest tools for preventing the sheeple from depriving them of power is the myth of a Savior -- a Luke Skywalker, a Neo, a John Connor, who shall come from (where?) and save them from the Mean and Vicious Party.

In reality, there is no savior. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No sooner does a man gain power, but he then turns his hand towards furthering the Party agenda: the gaining of yet more power for himself and his cronies, which is, after all, the entire purpose of the Party. All that changes is which branch of the Party holds power, not the ultimate goal of dominion over others. All of human history since the invention of agriculture (and thus of agricultural surplusses) can be described as an effort to impose and extend the power of the elite over others. The faces change, the methods gain sophistication year by year as the methods change from brute force to those of deception and use of schools and subtle propaganda to control the very basis by which people think, but the Party is eternal.

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

There is no savior who shall take power and save the people. Never....


When the iRod™ isn't enough
Sometimes, even the best conservative Christian families are damned with a bad seed. You know the kind of boy I'm talking about. They appear to be untrainable in the ways of the Lord. They have no fear of The Rod or its hip new cousin, The iRod™. They've purchased a ticket on the Damnation Express, and they're not getting off until they reach the last stop in Hell.

If you have a boy who fits this description, the Bethel Boy's Academy can help. The Academy, operated by the Bethel Baptist Church of Lucedale, Mississippi, employs a Christian approach based on military discipline to turn these boys around. Here's how their website describes it...


A haunting end to hunt for WMD
This week’s news that the Pentagon has officially ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the quiet denouement to one of the most contentious issues in our nation’s recent history.

While the beginning of the hunt for Saddam Hussein’s rumored chemical, biological and nuclear weapons came in like a lion, it went out like a lamb.

The final chapter of a story that has dominated American newspapers’ front pages for more than two years was published deep inside them. The Virginian-Pilot ran the news on Page A6, along with several routine stories and a gutter cleaning ad. ...


‘Uncircumcised’ Hispanics Problem for Dominant Church Culture
When the pope made a papal visit to Miami in 1987, delighting Miami's large Hispanic community, a local enterprising Euro-American shirt-maker decided to capitalize on the event. He made thousands of shirts which in Spanish were suppose to read "I saw the Pope."

Unfortunately, he didn't bother to check his quip with those who knew the language. Rather than using the masculine definitive article "el," the shirt-maker used the feminine definitive article "la." Hence the shirts instead read, "I saw the Potato."

The shirt-maker's mishap is often repeated by churches within the dominant Euro-American culture. Although attempting to reach out to the Hispanics of their community, a lot gets is lost in the translation.

In an age of political correctness, many predominate Anglo churches are scrambling to erase centuries of exclusion by now appearing to be multicultural, making diversity the church buzzword of our time.

Three hundred-year-old German hymns are quickly translated into Spanish and flashed on the overhead screen. Sermons are preached instructing Euroamericans why it is their Christian duty to reach out to their less fortunate Latino/as with the gospel message of salvation. Attempts are made to appear culturally sensitive by offering Taco Bell dinners at the congregational fellowship meal....


Iron Chef - Battle Long Pig
[Rated TV-14 for sexual innuendo and... unusual... culinary ingredients. You have been warned.]..


The Scapegoat
... The occupation authorities have so far grabbed a cumulative total of some 50,000 Iraqis, 70-to-90 percent of whom have committed no crime. War supporters in this country wax indignant over reports that some of the released detainees have joined the Iraqi resistance – but who can blame them if they were subjected to a program of systematized abuse?

The Schlesinger report, the Taguba report, and the testimony at the trial of Graner and his fellow Abu Ghraib prison guards all point to the complicity of higher-ups. The only question is how far up the totem pole it goes. If Joe Ryan is to be believed, it goes all the way up to Condi Rice herself. Will anyone dare ask our presumptive secretary of state about it at her upcoming confirmation hearings – or are the Democrats more beaten down and helpless in the face of their tormentors than the inmates at Abu Ghraib?

Andrew Sullivan opines that the horrors of Abu Ghraib undermined the war: what he doesn't understand is that this is the war. Not the war he wished for – an antiseptic fantasy in which the grateful Iraqis thronged the streets hailing us as their "liberators" – but the war we have and will continue to have so long as Sullivan and others in the War Party demand that we "stay the course." Abu Ghraib had to happen, given the nature of the conflict: a struggle pitting the Iraqis – the overwhelming majority of whom want us out – against their occupiers. It wasn't the implementation of the war plan, or the lack of a war plan – it was the war itself that gave rise to Abu Ghraib and the scandal of widespread torture from Guantanamo to Afghanistan.

A population that resists "liberation" by a foreign army of occupation must be systematically terrorized – there is no other way to exercise control except by continually reminding them who's boss. Torture is a necessary corollary of occupation: it doesn't matter that most of the Iraqis rounded up are innocent. The idea is to strike terror in the hearts of potential resistance fighters and deter them from fighting back.

The idea behind the Abu Ghraib abuse, according to Seymour Hersh, was to let out those detainees who were broken and blackmail them with photos of their humiliation: they would then turn into willing informants who would be able to gather intelligence on the insurgency. Abu Ghraib wasn't an aberration: it was a policy. It wasn't an isolated incident, as subsequent investigations show: it was a tactic consciously applied by top Pentagon officials, with the full knowledge and consent of Condi Rice and others in the White House. Was it a coincidence that the U.S. military was presiding over a sadistic orgy of violence and sexual humiliation just as Justice Department lawyers were writing memos redefining torture to mean the infliction of life-threatening injuries and claiming that the president and his minions are immune from prosecution for war crimes?

I don't think so.

Graner, Lynndie England, and the others already convicted, as well as those slated to go on trial shortly, are but pawns in a game: the war-hawks in the Pentagon, who unleashed their army of torturers on the "liberated" peoples of Iraq, have so far escaped blame, and the whole mess is being swept under the rug. As George W. Bush proclaims the glories of his "global democratic revolution" and cites the upcoming elections in Iraq as evidence of America's commitment to liberty, the War Party is desperate to hide the real face of the American Imperium: the horror of Abu Ghraib....


Report: 70%-90% held in error in Iraq
GENEVA - Some 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake," according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday....

Sunday, January 16, 2005


Iraqi anger at abuser's jail term
Iraqis have reacted angrily to a 10-year sentence imposed on a US soldier for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad.

Many said Spc Charles Graner deserved a harsher punishment for his part in the prison abuse scandal.

Graner was jailed on Saturday and received a dishonourable discharge from the US army.

He said he was only following orders to "soften" detainees for questioning, but prosecutors said Graner was a sadist.

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says with elections only two weeks away, violence wracking many areas and daily life for many people a harsh struggle for survival, most Iraqis have not exactly been following the Abu Ghraib prosecutions with bated breath.

But he says, now that the verdict on Graner is out, most of those who are aware of the case believe the sentence should have been tougher.

One Iraqi who saw pictures of the abuse on the internet said Graner should be sent back to Abu Ghraib to serve his sentence among the prisoners still there, our correspondent says.

Another said that many others of higher rank must have been involved in such systematic abuse and should be prosecuted too, our correspondent adds.

Trader Ali Ahmed, 23, said Graner's sentence was "too little, too late. This isn't justice.

"Even capital punishment isn't enough. But since it's forbidden to torture him the way he tortured the prisoners, I would have settled for the death penalty," he was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying. ...


Where Are the New Recruits?
Critical to the war effort in Iraq, the National Guard and Army Reserve are drawing fewer enlistees. Will the troop shortage worsen?

Even as the Iraq war has dragged on, offering no foreseeable end, top Pentagon officials have maintained that the nation's Army is fit enough and big enough to fight it. But last week the military's taut tendons--at the breaking point for better than a year--could be heard painfully snapping from the Pentagon to the Sunni triangle. First came a warning from the head of the Army Reserve that those troops are "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." Then Army officials, speaking privately, conceded that a long-standing policy limiting deployments of National Guard and Army Reserve forces is likely to be scrapped. That's going to make the already difficult job of recruiting--and retaining--such part-time soldiers even tougher. Finally, they added, the continuing instability in Iraq will probably force the Army to make permanent what was supposed to be a temporary addition of 30,000 troops to the active-duty force.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--who has long opposed a permanent hike in the Army's 500,000-strong active-duty force--made himself scarce as these troubling indicators surfaced. The Defense chief has argued that retooling the Army--turning cooks and accountants into trigger pullers and hiring contractors to perform such civilian tasks, among other steps--should generate efficiencies that would ease the strain on the Army without having to boost its size. But other Pentagon officials doubt that such measures will suffice. "We're growing increasingly concerned about the health of the force," an Army personnel officer says. "These deployments are really beginning to take a toll."

Outside observers agree. "The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months," Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, said last week. "The data are now beginning to come in to support that." McCaffrey said the service needs to add 80,000 troops to ease the strain brought on by the Iraq war. "We are in a period of considerable strategic peril," he said. "And it's because Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I cannot retreat from my position.'"...


THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. ...


Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites) as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq (news - web sites) is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign." ...

Saturday, January 15, 2005


Rising Violence and Fear Drive Iraq Campaigners Underground
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 15 - The threat of death hung so heavily over the election rally, held this week on the fifth floor of the General Factory for Vegetable Oil, that the speakers refused to say whether they were candidates at all.

"Too dangerous," said Hussein Ali, who spoke for the United Iraqi Alliance, a party fielding dozens of candidates for the elections here. "It's a secret."

And then Mr. Ali and his colleagues left, escorted by men with guns.

So goes the election campaign unfolding across Iraq, a country simultaneously set to embark on an American-backed political experiment while writhing under a guerrilla insurgency dead set on disrupting the experiment.

With only two weeks go to before the vote, scheduled for Jan. 30, guerrillas have stepped up their attacks and driven most candidates deep indoors, and on Saturday, the authorities said they would restrict traffic and set up cordons around polling places on election day.

A result, in large swaths of the country, is a campaign in the shadows, where candidates, ordinarily eager to get their messages to the public, are often too terrified to say their names. Instead of holding rallies, they meet voters in secret, if they meet them at all. Instead of canvassing for votes, they fend off death threats....

...Of the 7,471 men and women who have filed to run, only a handful outside the relatively safe Kurdish areas have publicly identified themselves. The locations for the 5,776 polling places have not been announced, lest they become targets for attacks.

The predicament for candidates was spelled out on a flier passed around town by the United Iraqi Alliance. The flier listed the names of 37 candidates for the national assembly. The 188 others, the flier said, could not be published.

"Our apologies for not mentioning the names of all the candidates," the flier said. "But the security situation is bad, and we have to keep them alive."...


Bush’s Grand Plan: Incite Civil War
The Bush Administration is intentionally steering Iraq towards civil war. The elections are merely the catalyst for igniting, what could be, a massive social upheaval. This explains the bizarre insistence on voting when security is nearly nonexistent and where a mere 7% of the people can even identify the candidates. (This figure gleaned from Allawi’s Baghdad newspaper, Al-Sabah) Rumsfeld is using the elections as a springboard for aggravating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites and for diverting attention away from the troops. It’s a foolhardy move that only magnifies the desperation of the present situation. The Pentagon brass expected a “cakewalk” and, instead, they’ve found themselves mired in a guerilla war.

Everyone from Brent Scowcroft to Tom Friedman has speculated on the likelihood of civil war. Their comments are more reflective of the hopes of American elites than they are of realities on the ground. Sure, Friedman would like to see Muslims killing Muslims, but it won’t happen. Tom hasn’t guessed right on the war yet, and that’s not about to change. The same could be said for Rumsfeld. For a Sec-Def who regards “information as power”, Rumsfeld seems woefully blinkered by the true nature of the fighting. He seems incapable of grasping even the most basic elements of the conflict or the psychology that fuels it. Whatever happened to the military mantra, “Know your enemy”?

When you destroy a man’s home and kill and disgrace his friends, he’ll fight back. And, when you rob a man of everything he has, including his dignity, you leave him with one, solitary passion… rage. This rage is now animating the resistance in ways that no one had previously anticipated. The world’s lone superpower is roped to the ground like Gulliver and the Pentagon high-command is getting increasingly agitated.

Civil war can be messy. Inciting religious and sectarian hatreds tends to disrupt the smooth execution of business; like the purging of potential enemies and the extracting of vital resources. Never the less, Rumsfeld is nearly out of options; “divide and conquer” may be all that’s left....



Absolutely?
Sometimes you have to go to the regional newspapers for the punchy editorials. The Pentagon's announcement that the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction officially ended quietly in late December provokes the Virginia Pilot to observe, "And America is left with a seemingly endless war in Iraq, but without a rationale for it."...

..."Walters: But was it worth it if there were no weapons of mass destruction? Now that we know that that was wrong? Was it worth it?

"Bush: Oh, absolutely."


Bush's response contains three elements.

1) The US was not alone in being wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. All the other nations did, too.

2) Saddam was dangerous.

3) Absolutely.

When is someone going to call him on this inanity? The Belgians didn't have intelligence assets inside Iraq that could have given them an independent view of the question. Whatever the world believed, it mostly believed because the United States disseminated the information.

Moreover, it is not true that there were no dissenters. The State Department's own Intelligence and Research Division dissented. French military intelligence dissented. What Bush is saying is either untrue or meaningless.

As I have pointed out before, Saddam without weapons of mass destruction could not have been "dangerous" to the United States. Just parroting "dangerous" doesn't create real danger. Danger has to come from an intent and ability to strike the US. Saddam had neither. He wasn't dangerous to the US. It is absurd that this poor, weak, ramshackle Third World state should have been seen as "dangerous" to a superpower. That is just propaganda.

Calling Saddam "dangerous" as an existential element without regard to the evidence falls under the propaganda techniques of name-calling and stirring irrational fear.

As for "Absolutely," it is a weasel word. It is not an argument. It is a species of hand waving. It is cheap.

Bush has figured out, apparently, that some in the American public respond, rather like the apes to which they deny they are related, to posture, grunting and body language rather than to reason and evidence. When I see him smirking and gesturing, I can't help thinking of the ape General Thade (Tim Roth) in Tim Burton's remake of the Planet of the Apes, which used scientific findings about primate behavior and hierarchy to inform the acting.

"Absolutely" used in this way is a vocalization that actually functions as an intimidating agonistic display meant to close off further dialogue by the silverback....

Friday, January 14, 2005



Unrepentant Sin and Hell
A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail warning that my views on homosexuality could result in an unrepentant homosexual going to hell. (Professor Robert Gagnon, among others, has warned that unrepentant homosexuals are headed for hell.) Methodists don’t believe in “once save, always saved.” Instead, we believe that one may live a life so apart from God and from God’s purposes as to fall from grace and subject the soul to eternal condemnation. We believe that willfully, knowingly and consistently being disobedient to God’s will may place our salvation at risk. So, I take the e-mailer’s comments very seriously.

The question becomes, then, that if a person, through prayer and diligent study of Scripture comes to a sincere conclusion that the conduct they are engaging in isn’t sinful, are they still condemned if they are sincerely wrong? At first glance, I might be inclined to answer that sure, God will not be mocked and that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom. On the other hand, John Wesley spoke of “involuntary sinning” that arises out of our ignorance or that catches us by surprise. While I wouldn’t claim that John Wesley would apply the practice of homosexuality to the concept of “involuntary sinning” since he clearly condemend the practice, I would suggest that Wesley’s concept has relevance today.

Consider all of those Americans, particularly southerners, including a Methodist bishop, who owned slaves. Slavery was and is clearly wrong – an abomination. However, is it necessarily true then that all slaveowners who died believing that slavery was morally acceptable (and thus never repented of their actions) are now condemned to hell? ...


"Fighting for the Work of the Lord"
Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism

Commentators right and left are talking about fascism in the U.S. of A. Libertarian conservative Lew Rockwell, in a recent article entitled "The Reality of Red-State Fascism," declares, "what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism."

Fellow libertarian Justin Raimondo, in a piece called "Today's Conservatives are Fascists," calls the neocons shaping U.S. foreign policy "fascists, pure and simple." United Methodist minister Rev. William E. Alberts accuses some of Bush's followers of upholding a "super religion displaying tendencies similar to Hitler's super race with its fascist ideology of superiority."

Meanwhile the Revolutionary Communist Party circulates in the tens of thousands a statement declaring that "Bush and his people" are "Christian Fascists---dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world." This is quite a wide spectrum of anti-fascist opinion.

I think it's good the f-word is out there, and the issue on the table. Fascism needs to be discussed. I thought so in October 2002, when I wrote an essay posted on CounterPunch, "Talking to Your Kids About Fascism." It was a presented as a quiet talk one might have with preteens, delivered with the simple clarity and sobriety one might assume when talking with one's young about drug use or sex or any serious issue. My point at the time was fascism's not just a phenomenon unique to 1930s and 40s and defeated in 1945 but something that can recrudesce. One should be alert for warning signs.

That was over two years ago, before the criminal invasion of Iraq, based on lies, and the cynical exploitation of racist-based fear. It was before British officers complained that their U.S. counterparts in Iraq were treating the Iraqis like Untermensch (subhumans, a term the Nazis applied to various non-Aryan groups). It was before the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture revelations, and the reorganization of the "intelligence community" to better disseminate disinformation in the service of ongoing war. It was before the Bush campaign to amend the constitution, for the first time to specifically prevent the expansion of liberties. It was before persons in and around the administration defended Japanese-American wartime concentration camps with an eye towards new camps for other groups in the future. The fascist tide has surged in the interim, as I thought, back in 2002, was very likely. ...

...The question in my mind is this: Given that this fascist tide is so related to a post 9-11 foreign policy so shaped by non-Christians, can we indeed call the movement "Christian fascist"? If one does so, one acknowledges the obvious: that Bush's social base is largely a Christian fundamentalist one, committed to what it perversely terms a "family values" agenda. But Christian fundamentalists, who have been agitating for years for prayer in the schools, textbook censorship, public display of the 10 Commandments, etc., haven't from the grass roots been demanding U.S. military action to achieve regime change in the Middle East. The movement to achieve that central aspect of the fascist program comes from the elite, with the neocons in and out of government playing key roles. Their plans for the Middle East do happen to dovetail with the fundamentalists' "End Times" hopes and expectations for that region, such that even the collapse of the original justifications for the Iraq War doesn't daunt the latter in their support for what they see as God's plan. The neocons in power, in concert with their fundamentalist colleagues (Bush and Cheney among them) have played the Christian fascists at the grass roots like a harp....


Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons
THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says...


DENIAL, AGAIN: NRO's Denis Bowles says that the entire substance of the hundreds of cases of abuse and torture can be summarized thus:

Is there any substance to [Human Rights Watch's] complaints? Well, yes — you should not make terrorists stay up late listening to Ratt and you should not make Iraqi convicts get naked and then laugh at them. If you're an American soldier doing these kinds of things, you'll be punished, even as others also try to punish your fellow soldiers and your country.

The only word for this is denial. Please, Denis, read the reports. At least thirty inmates have died after "coercive techniques" in U.S. custody. The government itself has conceded that the U.S. has tortured five inmates to death. Hundreds more have been hospitalized or permanently physically scarred. Even if you radically restrict your analysis to the night shift in Abu Ghraib, the abuses far outstrip forcing people to listen to music or laughing at nakedness. What has happened to American conservatism when it is reduced to ridiculing genuine and important issues of human rights?


Progressive message revitalizes Baptist church
...At a time when conservative evangelical churches are on the rise, a number of main-line Protestant churches are struggling with falling numbers and aging membership. But one of Seattle's oldest churches has found that an outspoken, socially progressive message is helping buck the trend by appealing to liberal Christians.

"I think the reason why mainline churches are declining is they've lost their nerve," said the Rev. Stephen Jones, the church's coordinating pastor. "We haven't."

While the church lost members after the departure in 2000 of a longtime and charismatic pastor, membership since has stabilized and is bouncing back, said Jones.

The church's progressive tradition stretches back decades. A pacifist pastor from the church protested the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The church in the mid-1990s tangled with a regional Baptist organization over the church's policy of welcoming gay and lesbian pastors and church members....


A bit of bingeing can be good for you
Binge-drinking goes against every uptight principle of our therapeutic society.

...What is it about getting drunk that today's society finds so hard to handle? It isn't as though we live in a nation of feckless alcoholics, too sodden to pour themselves out of bed and into work in the morning. For all the government's dire warnings about rising rates of liver cirrhosis and general alcohol-related health calamities, we should remember (again) that in reality, we are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

And Britain 2005 is hardly a hotbed of inebriated violence. On 11 January, a judge grabbed the headlines by attacking legalised 24-hour drinking on the grounds that easy access to alcohol is breeding 'urban savages' and turning town centres into no-go areas (2). The basis for his claim? That he was sentencing three men convicted of vicious assaults while out drinking and drug-taking after the European Championships, which left one of their victims in a coma. Maybe this judge knows more about town centres and urban savagery than the rest of us - even so, he surely must believe that behaviour like that above is the exception rather than the rule.

What we do have is a society in which sometimes, and for a variety of reasons, people like to drink to get drunk. Not because they think that wine goes better with dinner than Ribena; not because they want to relax a little after a hard day's white-collar work; not because they believe the studies about a glass of red being good for their hearts (but two pints of lager being very bad indeed); but because they want to get off the plane of existence that is normal, humdrum, everyday life, and into that parallel universe of inebriation. What's wrong with doing that once in a while? Nothing. Indeed, there is a good deal that is very right about it....

...It is not the consequences of drunkenness that make it a modern bogeyman, but its simple out-of-controlness. For a political class hell-bent on micro-management of all aspects of everyday life, in thrall to etiquette, suspicious of spontaneity, and living by the code of 'everything in moderation', the image of the carefree drunk is one that it cannot comprehend, still less empathise with. For the rest of us, for whom the odd bender is not a political statement but a welcome fact of life, we should resist the temptation to buy into the cult of 'responsible drinking' and remember what we are doing in the pub in the first place.

Already, there are too many twentysomething women on broken detox diets crying into their alcopops about how they know they drink too much. There are too many single men staying 'just for the one' before driving home to their X-box and pizza-and-Pepsi meal deal. There is too much consensus that we need to change the licensing laws because we have a cultural 'drinking problem' (rather than simply changing the law to allow us to have a drink when we want it). There is too much no smoking at the bar, no swearing at the bar, no standing at the bar and no going to the bar too many times.

We know that, every now and then, one very important reason to drink is to get drunk. We know that people with lost inhibitions generally don't get raped, beaten up or bankrupt, but generally do become sexier, funnier, more honest and more sociable (even if they appeal only to other drunk people). And we know that humdrum everyday life is often better escaped from in a pub with colleagues, friends and strangers than obsessed upon over a nice bottle of wine with a therapist or mentor.

So let's leave the official preoccupations with when we drink, how much we drink and why we drink to the medics, judges, politicians and policemen, and carry on drinking as we choose.



Powell gives bleak assessment of Iraq security problems

Colin Powell, outgoing secretary of state, says he would like to see US troops leave Iraq "as quickly as possible" but that the strength of the insurgency does not allow the Bush administration to set a timeframe for a withdrawal this year.

Mr Powell told National Public Radio yesterday the US leadership had been "in almost non-stop meetings for the last couple of days" reviewing the security problem while coalition forces were adjusting their "tactics and strategy and deployments".

"It's not possible right now to say that by the end of 2005, we'll be down to such and such a number. It really is dependent upon the situation," he said, referring to the training of the new Iraqi army and police.

Mr Powell's bleak assessment, less than three weeks before Iraqis are due to elect a parliament, reflects what advisers close to the administration and former officials describe as an understanding in the State Department and Pentagon of the depth of the crisis.

But, they say, this is not a view accepted by President George W. Bush.

One counterinsurgency expert said Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, had a "brutally accurate" picture of the situation and the potential dangers.

But a member of an influential neoconservative policy group said that such warnings "stop well short of the president".

He said Mr Rumsfeld, criticised for the conduct of the war, had an interest in hiding the true picture from the president.

According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently asked Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. "We're losing," Mr Powell was quoted as saying. Mr Freeman said Mr Bush then asked the secretary of state to leave....


Evangelical tracts tell tsunami survivors to 'prepare for death'
A major evangelistic organisation in the US has given a relief agency leaflets to distribute to tsunami survivors which tell them to prepare for death.

The tracts, which describe in detail famous disasters and tragedies from around the world, suggest that people can be 'saved' if they confess their sins.

The American Tract Society has released the new tracts entitled "When Disaster Strikes" for donation to Victims Relief Ministries who are sending more than 200 workers to Sri Lanka.

The leaflet begins by listing "Killer tsunamis, devastating earthquakes, massive hurricanes and floods."

"Nature has dealt staggering blows to the earth and its people over the years. Many of them come without warning" the tract continues.

The publication then goes on to describe in detail some of the worst disasters in history including other tsunamis, the Galveston hurricane - "the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history", the 1990 landslide in Iran that killed 50,000 people, and the earthquake that struck Tiajin, China, in 1976.

"The official casualty figure released by the Chinese government was 255,000...but unofficial estimates put the number as high as 655,000" the tract says. The section ends with a description of the flooding of the Yangtze River in China in 1931, which "caused more than 3 million deaths from flooding and starvation."

In text that will be considered by many particularly insensitive, the tract continues; "Natural disasters are part of the way the Earth operates...but there is hope. Although we can't prevent disasters from happening (many times we can't even issue warnings in time) there are some things coming that we can prepare for now. For instance, we will all die someday. That's a natural event God has given us plenty of warning about."

Two bible verses are then quoted; "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) and "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; (and) The wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23; 6:23)

The tract goes on to suggest; "God loves you, and when you die He wants you to be with Him in heaven for all eternity. Although He knows we may not heed His warning, God offers us all the way to safety." ...


Christian school principal convicted of sex charges in Sarasota
SARASOTA, Fla. - The principal of a small Christian school was convicted of sexually molesting a female student.

The Rev. Jerry Lee Pitts, 38, was found guilty Thursday of lewd and lascivious battery and molestation. He faces up to 15 years in prison when sentenced later.

Pitts, of North Port, sat stunned as the clerk read the verdict.

Pitts started a sexual relationship with a former Living Water Academy student who was 15 at the time. The girl is now 17....


A global gulag to hide the war on terror's dirty secrets
Bush is now thinking of building jails abroad to hold suspects for life

The promise of imminent release for four British detainees held at the notorious US prison at Guantánamo Bay is obviously welcome, but it is only a tiny exception in the surge of bad news from the Bush team on the human rights front. The first few days of the new year have produced two shocking exposures already.

One is the revelation that the administration sees the US not just as a self-appointed global policeman, but also as the world's prison warder. It is thinking of building jails in foreign countries, mainly ones with grim human rights records, to which it can secretly transfer detainees (unconvicted by any court) for the rest of their lives - a kind of global gulag beyond the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or any other independent observers or lawyers. ...

...The Guantánamo prisoners are held by the department of defence, but under the new scheme most foreign detainees are expected to be in the hands of the CIA, which submits to less congressional scrutiny and offers the Red Cross no access. They include hundreds of people who have been arrested in recent weeks in Falluja and other Iraqi cities.

According to the Washington Post, which broke the story last week, one proposal is to have the US build new prisons in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Officials of those countries would run the prisons, and would have to allow the state department to "monitor human rights compliance".

It is a laughable proposition, since the whole purpose of the exercise is to minimise scrutiny. CIA agents would have the right to question the detainees, with or without the aid of foreign interrogators, as they already do at other off-limits prisons at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, on ships at sea, in Jordan and Egypt, and at Diego Garcia.

The US policy of lending detainees to other countries' jailers and torturers, known as "rendition", began during the "war on drugs" as a way of arresting alleged Latin American narco-barons and softening them up for trial in the US. It has expanded enormously under the "war on terror". As one CIA officer told the Washington Post, "the whole idea has become a corruption of renditions. It's not rendering to justice. It's kidnapping." ...


Baker advises administration to consider a phased withdrawal of troops
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq in 1991, is advising the Bush administration to consider a phased withdrawal of some of the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Otherwise, Baker says, the United States risks being suspected of having an "imperial design" in the region.

A protracted U.S. military presence in Iraq is probably unavoidable since attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces and on Iraqi security forces are likely to continue, Baker said Tuesday in a speech at Rice University in Houston.

"Even under the best of circumstances, the new Iraqi government will remain extremely vulnerable to internal divisions and external meddling," he said.

Still, former President George H.W. Bush's secretary of state said, "any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle East who -- however wrongly -- suspect us of imperial design." ...


A Nation of Faith and Religious Illiterates
The sociologist Peter Berger once remarked that if India is the most religious country in the world and Sweden the least, then the United States is a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. Not anymore. With a Jesus lover in the Oval Office and a faith-based party in control of both houses of Congress, the United States is undeniably a nation of believers ruled by the same.

Things are different in Europe, and not just in Sweden. The Dutch are four times less likely than Americans to believe in miracles, hell and biblical inerrancy. The euro does not trust in God. But here is the paradox: Although Americans are far more religious than Europeans, they know far less about religion.

In Europe, religious education is the rule from the elementary grades on. So Austrians, Norwegians and the Irish can tell you about the Seven Deadly Sins or the Five Pillars of Islam. But, according to a 1997 poll, only one out of three U.S. citizens is able to name the most basic of Christian texts, the four Gospels, and 12% think Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. That paints a picture of a nation that believes God speaks in Scripture but that can't be bothered to read what he has to say....

...How did one of the most religious countries in the world become a nation of religious illiterates? Religious congregations are surely at fault. Churches and synagogues that once inculcated the "fourth R" are now telling the faithful stories "ripped from the headlines" rather than teaching them the Ten Commandments or parsing the Sermon on the Mount (which was delivered, as only one in three Americans can tell you, by Jesus). But most of the fault lies in our elementary and secondary schools.

In a majority opinion in a 1963 church-state case (Abington vs. Schempp), Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark wrote, "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion … and its relationship to the advance of civilization." If so, the education of nearly every public school student in the nation is woefully inadequate.

Because of misunderstandings about the 1st Amendment, religious studies are seldom taught in public schools. When they are, instruction typically begins only in high school and with teachers not trained in the subtle distinction between teaching religion (unconstitutional) and teaching about religion (essential)....


Stay No More
They're already preparing the exits in Iraq

Writing about the press' efforts to comment on the death of Stalin—an event about which no journalist had any actual information—A.J. Liebling described three types of journalists: the reporter, "who writes about what he sees"; the interpretive reporter who "writes what he sees and what he construes to be its meaning"; and, in Liebling's most venomous description, the "expert, who writes what he construes to be the meaning of what he hasn't seen."

A denizen of the latter category, I can yet sympathize with Liebling as a growing number of experts, journalists and others grapple with the latest theme emerging from Iraq—namely how the United States should withdraw from what has become an "unwinnable" conflict. In the New York Times earlier this week, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt caught the ambient mood by observing: "Three weeks before the Iraqi election, conversation has started bubbling up on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House about when and how U.S. forces might begin to disengage in Iraq."

What is remarkable in the affair is not that such a debate is taking place—the U.S. presidential election was no less extraordinary in its failure to address the subtleties of America's Iraqi involvement—but rather the suddenness of its onset: Iraq has abruptly become a losing proposition, when it wasn't necessarily one among the public and in policy circles (at least openly) prior to the November presidential election. There seems to be a pervasive mood, shared by many with no direct experience of Iraq, that it's very obviously time to get out. ...


Popular ‘Bible Bobbleheads’ Prompt New Ones
The success of three “Bible bobbleheads” has led to the release of three more bobbers based on biblical characters....


THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR OUTRAGE - The Shame of Prisoner Torture
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on slavery

When it’s all said and done, the most shameful legacy of our post-9/11 conduct will be the official sanctioning of the torture of other human beings in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention – which, like the Constitution, represents one of humanity’s most noble milestones. Of all my gripes with this administration, this one is the hardest to tolerate. To me, Bush is undermining the foundation of one mankind’s greatest achievements, not to mention endangering our troops and future generations of troops. Phil Carter has the roundup of articles (and his own posts), and they pretty much speak for themselves:...

...Perhaps part of the problem is that conservatives are seeing this scandal through the “tinted lens” of partisanship. That’s why I want to try to make them understand that the scandal is more than a left vs. right dispute. In fact, it violates their own most valued principles – and threatens their most strongly desired goals. In short, I want to make the conservative case for outrage....

...If the prisoner torture should piss off anyone, it should piss off Iraq hawks the most. Although my views of the war are well-known, I know that there were many good-faith supporters of the war who believed strongly in the cause and who believe strongly in democracy promotion. But there is nothing – and I mean nothing – that undermines our efforts and our mission more than the torture of Muslims, especially when that torture is coldly calculated to exploit Arabs’ religious views. The whole thing has a level of sophistication far beyond what nineteen-year old reservists from West Virginia could devise. And to those we most need to persaude, it vindicates bin Laden’s claims that we are hostile to Islam.

You can’t defeat an insurgency – whether in Iraq or in the war on terror, which is essentially a global insurgency – by military force alone. That’s because an insurgency isn’t finite. Its numbers and resources expand and contract with public opinion. (This is the main reason why the whole "so-we-don't-fight-them-at-home" line doesn't make much sense, logically speaking. Our efforts have increased the ranks of those that hate us.) We can raze every city in the Sunni Triangle (and we’re well on our way), but we will never defeat an elastic insurgency if we can’t win the hearts and minds of the local population. If you care about the success of this mission, both in Iraq and more globally, logic demands outrage. I mean, imagine if an Islamic army conquered America. Then imagine if you watched your countrymen get raped, tortured, and murdered by a foreign army who you didn’t really like anyway. Do you think you’d sign up for the Iraq 2.0 police squad or would you join the local insurgency with your family and childhood friends?

When the administration authorized torture, it threatened our troops and it threatened our mission, most likely fatally and beyond any hope of recovery. It is hard to underestimate the damage caused by the ripples of Abu Ghraib....


Detainee Says U.S. Handed Him Over for Torture
CAIRO — The burly men who Mamdouh Habib says bundled him onto a small jet in Pakistan bound for a grisly torture cell in Egypt didn't give their names. But their nationality seemed clear.

"They … spoke American English with no foreign accent," Habib's lawyer later told a U.S. court. Several of the men sported large tattoos, including one who bore "a tattoo of an American flag on or near his wrist."

Habib had already been interrogated in Pakistani jails by three other Americans — two women and a man. Now, according to court papers, they watched silently as one of the tattooed men forced the handcuffed prisoner to the ground, placed a foot on his neck and posed for pictures. The tattooed "Americans … sat at the front of the plane" as he was flown to Cairo in October 2001.

Habib, a 48-year-old Australian citizen who grew up in Egypt, was about to disappear for six months into an Egyptian prison. There, he says, his Egyptian captors shocked him with high-voltage wires, hung him from metal hooks on the wall, nearly drowned him and mercilessly beat and kicked him. ...

...News accounts, congressional testimony and independent investigations suggest the spy agency has covertly delivered at least 18 terrorism suspects since 1998 to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Middle Eastern nations where, according to State Department reports, torture has been widely used on prisoners.

The actual number of CIA-run renditions, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, is believed to be far higher. Officials say the CIA's role has varied widely, from providing electronic and other covert surveillance before raids to flying blindfolded terrorism suspects from one country to another on a Gulfstream jet the agency uses.

"It's a growth industry," said a recently retired CIA clandestine officer who worked on several "renditions" in the Arab world. "We rendered a lot of people to Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis in particular…. Ultimately, the agency just wants these people to disappear forever."

The first foreign renditions took place during the Reagan administration, officials said, as joint CIA-FBI teams in about 1987 began capturing alleged terrorists, drug traffickers and other high-profile suspects and bringing them to the United States for prosecution.

About 15 suspects, including two men eventually convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were brought to the United States between 1987 and 1998, according to testimony by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. Because the suspects were going before U.S. courts, they were read the Miranda rights, given lawyers and otherwise afforded legal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts upheld the renditions.

But behind the scenes, the CIA also began delivering suspects to countries that provided few such rights — a practice that became known as extraordinary renditions. The agency helped foreign governments seize suspected terrorists at least five times between 1994 and 1996, then-CIA Director John M. Deutch said in September 1996.

The agency transferred many of the suspects to Egypt, which is annually cited for torture of prisoners and other human rights abuses by the U.S. State Department....

...Habib's lawyers insist the evidence against him wouldn't stand up in court, particularly given the torture they say was used to extract the confessions. And for that, they place the blame squarely on the United States.

"They outsource torture," said Stephen Hopper, Habib's Australian lawyer. "You get your friends and allies to do your dirty work for you."

A former senior U.S. intelligence official said the CIA had soured on relying on Egypt, at least when the goal was useful intelligence.

"The information the Egyptians were providing was not that reliable," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The Egyptians, they'll just cut off finger by finger. They get a lot of confessions. But people will say anything then."

News of Habib's impending release, which is expected within several weeks, was met with muted joy by his family Wednesday.

"What has been happening is too much, too much," said Habib's father, reached in Alexandria on Wednesday. "I'm so sick about what happened to my son that I hate living."


Army sergeant refuses 2nd Iraq deployment
Seeks conscientious objector status

SAVANNAH, Georgia (AP) -- A mechanic with nine years in the Army, including a role in the assault on Baghdad, has refused to return to Iraq, claiming "you just don't know how bad it is."...


My Internet love is a corpse-hoarding granny
Trevor Tasker's online romance went from steamy to chilly when he flew to the States to marry his love, only to discover that she was an old age pensioner with a corpse in her freezer....


No Semblance of Accountability
Perhaps the most striking thing about the official acknowledgment that the two-year hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is over is the fact that it was greeted by most with a collective shrug of the shoulders and an almost cheerful defense of what many of us view as utterly indefensible. "Based on what we know today," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters, "the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people."

Sorry, Scott, but what we know today suggests all too strongly that invading Iraq was not about protecting the American people. Not even close. Even if Saddam Hussein, vile as he was and is, had possessed weapons of mass destruction, his third-rate tinpot regime, weakened by an eight-year war with Iran, by defeat in the first Gulf War, and by a decade of economic sanctions, would have posed little or no threat to the American people. Americans were put in harm's way and more than 1,300 have died as a result of a deliberate decision to invade a country whose neighbors did not especially fear it, and whose chances of delivering even a glancing blow to the world's sole remaining superpower were close to zero....

...Then there's the president himself, who bears the ultimate responsibility for a decision based on a tissue of misinformation and outright deception. In an interview with Barbara Walters scheduled to air tonight, he seems incapable of taking the kind of full responsibility a genuinely strong leader would take. He's got to spread it around to others. "I felt [felt??!!]," he is reported to say, "like we'd find weapons of mass destruction – like many others here in the United States, many around the world. ... We need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. ... Saddam was dangerous, and the world is safer without him in power."

At least he stays on message. But this is not a political campaign in which he is trolling for votes and hanging on the next poll results. It is a war in which Americans have been killed and wounded. A responsible, accountable leader wouldn't whine that others seem to have been mistaken, too (especially when his administration did so much of the exaggerated and politically shaded reporting that led so many to believe that if a president was so darned certain it was likely there was something to it). He would acknowledge that the rationale for war was at least in part mistaken, accept full responsibility (and maybe fire a few people), and resolve to move on toward a constructive result despite the difficulties into which his mistaken decision-making had plunged the country....

...Not only has there been no accountability demanded of those who committed such errors of judgment, there seems to be no sense of embarrassment as the major prewar justifications for invading Iraq have crumbled one by one. There was no operational link to al-Qaeda? There turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction? Never mind. Saddam was a really, really bad ruler and we've found mass graves that documented the fact. We're building democracy and transforming the Middle East – even as the White House purposely lowers expectations about just how democratic and representative the elections scheduled for the end of the month are likely to be.

This is a far cry from any remotely sensible understanding of how a free society operates. In a truly free society, the essence of freedom is responsibility. You make your choices without outright coercion, and you live with the consequences of your choices without blaming others or assuming that others have some kind of obligation to bail you out when things go badly.

This refusal to demand anything resembling accountability used to be anathema to conservatives. But conservatives don't seem to have any clear principles these days, or they place their faith in leaders rather than principles. So the general conservative response to the absence of WMD has been a resounding "So what?" Admit that a leader might have made a mistake? Hold a leader accountable? This is modern America, where state power assures that if it is not quite possible to repeal reality, it is at least possible to make sure that no leader ever pays a real price for a blunder....


Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity." ...


Bush Regrets Language That Hurt U.S. Diplomacy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said he regretted sending the wrong impression of the United States when he used phrases like "Bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" in his first term and pledged to be more diplomatic.

In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters to be broadcast on Friday, Bush said some of his past remarks were too blunt.

"'Bring it on,' was a little blunt," the president said in a transcript of the interview released on Thursday.

"I remember when I talked about Osama bin Laden, I said we're going to get him dead or alive. I guess it's not the most diplomatic of language," Bush said. ...

... Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted to catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," a phrase that reinforced the U.S. president's international image as a cowboy.

Bush said his wife, Laura, disapproved and "chewed me out right after that."

"So I do have to be cautious about, you know, conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn't send wrong impressions about our country," he said.

Asked about bin Laden, who remains at large, Bush reiterated his vow to "bring him to justice."

Bush's expressions of regret over his use of language contrasted with his comments at a news conference in April 2004, when he struggled for an answer to a reporter who asked him to name his biggest mistake since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In another mea culpa, the president said he felt his administration had done a poor job bolstering its image in the Muslim world.

"Our public diplomacy efforts aren't ... very robust, and aren't very good, compared to the public diplomacy efforts of those who would like to spread hatred and ... and vilify the United States," Bush said. ...


The Ugly Mutation of American Conservatism
...In the 1990’s, most conservative were (correctly) outraged at the numerous incidents of government bullying and abuse that seemed to be occurring with increasing frequency. I was appalled by the deaths at Ruby Ridge. I was outraged by the military-style assault at Waco. I was sickened by Hillary’s FBI file scandal and her frequent use of sleazy tactics against her political enemies. I prayed for a Republican victory to restore respect for individual liberty and limited government.

Again, things haven’t exactly worked out the way I’d expected.

We now have a government that actively engages in the systematic use of torture against its enemies. We have an administration that advocates the lifetime detention of suspected terrorists without trial…even when the state lacks conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. The government even denies that it must inform anyone that they are holding a particular suspect. People can now just "disappear" in America, with no recourse to lawyers or judges. We have new laws that allow government agents to engage in searches and seizures without warrants. We have seen the creation of a secret gulag around the globe in which detainees are held without due process of any sort. There have been numerous stories appearing which claim American security forces have "wink and nod" agreements with foreign secret police agencies in which various abusive tactics are essentially "out-sourced" to nations which have no constitutional restraints on the treatment of prisoners. We have a government that has written numerous briefs on the "out-dated" nature of the Geneva Conventions.

Many conservatives have rationalized these facts by claiming that these extraordinary measures will only be used against terrorists.

That is bunk. The entire history of government teaches us that it always attempts to accumulate power and always tries to undermine limitations on its authority.

As night follows day, these new powers granted to law enforcement agencies under the various anti-terrorism laws will be used against American citizens in situations with no connection to terrorism. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, a story broke in which a man in New Jersey was arrested for shining a laser at airplane cockpits. He is being charged under anti-terrorism laws, even though the government admits that his actions had no connection to terrorism and that he is not a terrorist.

I fully expect that this trend will eventually include the torture of American citizens...

...One of the traditional bedrock beliefs of conservatism has been a respect and admiration for the US Military. Throughout my days as a young conservative, I frequently heard accusations hurled at liberals that they were "anti-military," usually in concert with stories of the mistreatment of soldiers returning from Vietnam.

But how well have things been going for servicemen since the advent of conservative control of the presidency and congress?

From my perspective, things have not gone well at all. This administration launched vitriolic attacks against retired military officers who questioned the decision to invade Iraq. The neocons also attacked individuals in the military and government who questioned their tactics for prosecuting the war. Some were even sacked for suggesting that the predictions of a "cake walk" were inaccurate and that we would need more soldiers than the existing plans predicted.

Does this constitute respect?

Clearly, the administration did not have enough soldiers to occupy Iraq after the fall of Saddam’s government. Plans were not made to stabilize the country in the immediate aftermath of the war. The administration also refused to recognize that the burgeoning insurgency even existed until it was too large to contain.

As a result of these failures, our military is now buckling under numerous stresses. Just last week, the Lt. General in command of the Army Reserve declared that the Reserve force is now "broken" and is unable to complete its mission. Reservists and National Guardsmen are being sent back to Iraq for their 2nd or 3rd tours of duty, and their active duty responsibilities are being continually increased. The administration is engaged in a back-door draft by issuing "stop-loss" policies which prevent soldiers from returning to civilian life after completing their agreed time of service. The manpower shortage is so bad that the Pentagon is considering collocating women into front-line combat units for the first time in our history, thus eliminating a long-standing policy of keeping women out of direct ground combat.

Even worse is the woeful lack of proper equipment available for our soldiers in Iraq. Stories abound of families who are forced to purchase vests for their loved ones because of the lack of body armor available for front line troops. Soldiers are even scrounging through dumps in Kuwait trying to find armor fragments to weld onto their unprotected Humvees before making the trip into Iraq.

Adding insult to injury, we were also forced to endure Donald Rumsfeld’s "pithy" reply to these accusations ("You go to war with the army you have").

Does any of this constitute respect for the military?

Not in my book. ...

Thursday, January 13, 2005


US deserters flee to Canada to avoid service in Iraq
American Army soldiers are deserting and fleeing to Canada rather than fight in Iraq, rekindling memories of the thousands of draft-dodgers who flooded north to avoid service in Vietnam.

An estimated 5,500 men and women have deserted since the invasion of Iraq, reflecting Washington's growing problems with troop morale....

...He said: "At that point a light went off in my head. I was told in basic training that if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do.''

Pte Brandon Hughey, 19, who deserted from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, said that he had volunteered because the army offered to pay his college fees. He began training soon after the invasion of Iraq but became disillusioned when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

"I had been willing to die to make America safe," he said. "I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction and the claim that they made about ties to al-Qaeda was coming up short. It made me angry. I felt our lives as soldiers were being thrown away."...


Into Iraq With 'Generation Kill': An Interview with Evan Wright
Evan Wright spent two months living with twenty-three marines from First Recon, the elite unit who spearheaded the invasion of Iraq. In magazine articles and his book ‘Generation Kill’, Wright chronicled the triumphs and horrors—physical, moral, emotional, and spiritual—that these marines endured. We talked to him about his experience of the Iraq War, and the human costs of ‘just wars.’...

...Based on reports in the religious press it seems that many soldiers come from traditional families, what with pictures of soldiers praying, etc. I have a tough time reconciling that with the porn and the language presented in the book.

It’s an interesting thing; I think with my group if I met them on the street outside the Marine Corps I would have thought, “My God, these guys are the salt-of-the-earth, small-town, religious America.” But get with them in the platoon tent, like a day before the invasion, and they’re the most foul-mouthed, atheist bastards on earth. I actually think it’s the opposite of the saying, you know, how there are no atheists in fox holes. I think there’s an opposite force at work, that they’re trained to kill and violate all these taboos. For that moment they’re the most irreverent… Look at Sgt. Espera. He felt he couldn’t be a Catholic and a Marine. These guys from small town America, what they’re being told to do—they didn’t learn that in Sunday school. They’ve got to throw all that out....

GENERATION KILL: DEVIL DOGS, ICEMAN, CAPTAIN AMERICA, AND THE NEW FACE OF AMERICAN WAR
While spearheading the American invasion of Iraq, the marines of the elite First Recon—-nicknamed ‘First Suicide Battalion’—often operated deep behind enemy lines and far beyond anything they had trained for. They faced death every day—and above all, they killed a lot of people. From America's first generation of disposable children, more than half of these young men come from broken homes and were raised by absentee, single, working parents. Evan Wright was embedded with them for two months, and in this excerpt from his book, ‘Generation Kill,’ gives a first-hand account of the new face of American war, and the human costs that almost never enter into sterile debates about ‘just wars.’...

...Trombley is beside himself. "I was just thinking one thing when we drove into that ambush," he enthuses. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I felt like I was living it when I seen the flames coming out of windows, the blown-up car in the street, guys crawling around shooting at us. It was fucking cool."

Culturally, these Marines would be virtually unrecognizable to their forebears in the "Greatest Generation." They are kids raised on hip-hop, Marilyn Manson and Jerry Springer. For them, "motherfucker" is a term of endearment. For some, slain rapper Tupac is an American patriot whose writings are better known than the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. There are tough guys among them who pray to Buddha and quote Eastern philosophies and New Age precepts gleaned from watching Oprah and old kung fu movies. There are former gangbangers, a sprinkling of born-again Christians and quite a few guys who before entering the Corps were daily dope smokers; many of them dream of the day when they get out and are once again united with their beloved bud.

These young men represent what is more or less America's first generation of disposable children. More than half of the guys in the platoon come from broken homes and were raised by absentee, single, working parents. Many are on more intimate terms with video games, reality TV shows and Internet porn than they are with their own parents. Before the "War on Terrorism" began, not a whole lot was expected of this generation other than the hope that those in it would squeak through high school without pulling too many more mass shootings in the manner of Columbine....

...They are the first generation of young Americans since Vietnam to be sent into an open-ended conflict. Yet if the dominant mythology that war turns on a generation's loss of innocence—young men reared on Davy Crockett waking up to their government's deceits while fighting in Southeast Asian jungles; the nation falling from the grace of Camelot to the shame of Watergate—these young men entered Iraq predisposed toward the idea that the Big Lie is as central to American governance as taxation. This is, after all, the generation that first learned of the significance of the presidency not through an inspiring speech at the Berlin Wall but through a national obsession with semen stains and a White House blow job. Even though their Commander in Chief tells them they are fighting today in Iraq to protect American freedom, few would be shaken to discover that they might actually be leading a grab for oil. In a way, they almost expect to be lied to....

...There’s a scene in the book where you describe how deserting Iraqi soldiers had to be sent back—to possible death—because the Marines couldn’t handle them. And you were prescient in saying that they’d probably become insurgents as a result. Can you talk about how anger of this kind, along with anger at having friends and family killed, has affected the situation in Iraq?

If you look back at the first Gulf War we captured and imprisoned large numbers of Iraqis, and the interesting thing is that most of them had fairly positive experiences. When we got into Baghdad there were a number of older residents—in their thirties—who I talked to who really liked us because they remembered being treated well when they were captured in the Gulf War.

In this war, in regard to enemy combatants, we didn’t apprehend them and process them. We lost two opportunities. One was to find out who these people were, and whether there were leaders among them. And two, the opportunity to indoctrinate them about the good intentions of the U.S. occupiers. We let the army melt away, and we let them float around ready to pick up the insurgency, especially after Bremer fired the army and the soldiers realized that that they weren’t employed any more.

Another thing is the bombing and shooting of towns. But people were not as outraged as you would expect when, say, the Marines killed civilians by accident. There was this moment of good will on the Iraqis’ part. What really started the insurgency and turned the populace against us was our inability to provide security. ...


Plastic Sinners, Plastic Sins
From King David to St. Augustine, Christian tradition affirms the value of bold, strong sins. But the culture of porn has given us the simpering, self-justifying, and machine-like sins of Bill Bennett and Bill Clinton.

Last year, following the revelation that William Bennett—America's Jiminy Cricket—had squandered millions of dollars gambling in casinos, there was a renewed wave of hand-wringing over the state of public virtue. First Clinton's peccadilloes and now Bennett. Some on the right despaired while many on the left gleefully recorded further proof of their theory that "everybody does it." Both sides seemed to concede the underlying fact: we just can't be good.

To me, this is an unremarkable truth, something we have known about ourselves for a very long time. Instead of being surprised to learn from these public failures that we haven't yet figured out how to be good, we ought to ask ourselves why it is we so easily forget this fact. This forgetting, after all, is the more recent development, not the fact of vice. A closer look at the manner in which both Bennett and Clinton acted can, I think, provide an answer to this more important question.

Plastic Sinners

The virtuous vices are virtuous because they carry within them the seed of redemption.
More troubling to me than the fact that the author of The Book of Virtues participated heavily in an industry that exploits a lack of virtue was the way Bennett pursued his habit. Somehow, the image of a robotic Bennett dropping $500 chips into a slot machine at 3 a.m. seemed far less forgivable than the image I would have preferred: that of Bennett, cigar planted firmly in the corner of his mouth, sweating under the dim lights of a high-stakes poker game, or indulging in the glitz of a high-rolling craps game, or holding onto his hat while he urged his horse on at the racetrack. Similarly, why does the image of John F. Kennedy seducing Marilyn Monroe into a full-fledged affair conducted in exotic locations bother me so much less than that of President Clinton convincing his intern to service him in a hallway outside the Oval Office?

Most commentators have made the mistake of wondering whether the Bennett and Clinton (and other) episodes mark the disappearance of virtue. Rather, we ought to wonder whether we are losing something just as important to a healthy society: the existence of "virtuous vice." The practitioners of virtuous vice are more forgivable because their sins are human sins, pursued with human passions. They approach life with the attitude of "real vice or no vice at all." As such, their vices remain on a human scale. Retaining a high level of skill and daring, these sinners celebrate their humanity by consciously risking annihilation. The virtuous vices are virtuous because they carry within them the seed of redemption: a recognition of the truth that human beings are not merely materialistic beings, not just a collection of elements, but spiritual beings capable of a meaningful annihilation. In George Santayana's memorable phrase, those who practice virtuous vice are "moral, though fugitive." As G.K. Chesterton put it, "they accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly."

Bennett at his slots and Clinton in his hallway leave us cold precisely because by pursuing the pay-off with nothing but mechanical efficiency, they have dehumanized vice. The real lesson to be learned here is that playing slot machines is the gambling equivalent of receiving oral sex from an office intern. Both of these acts represent within our culture the corrosive effect of modernity; both acts bear the unmistakable marks of pornography....

...Both Bennett and Clinton have demonstrated publicly where we are at in the process of pornifying sin. Clinton pursued oral sex in a hallway to avoid the risk of annihilation inherent in actually "having sex" with his "lover." Bennett stayed away from the card tables because he didn't like to be recognized when gambling. Both men sought the material benefit of vice while at the same time calculating and measuring its cost in ways that denied the virtue of the vice. As a result, both men reduced themselves in some measure to the level of machines. Both were being "serviced" in mechanical ways. They are just two more in a long line of people victimized and self-victimized by pornography's tendency to reduce human passion to its most consumable, mechanistic parts and then offer up those parts as efficiently, ubiquitously, and cheaply as possible. Slot machines and furtive oral sex leave the human scale behind in preference for a mechanical scale. And importantly, these sins are less forgivable because they are less human....

...There is a long Christian tradition affirming the value to society of bold, strong sins. From King David to Saint Augustine, our knowledge of grace has been fortified by our knowledge of depravity. Martin Luther understood this when he wrote in a letter to Philip Melanchthon, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly." Luther spoke in contrast to those who disgusted him by finding "excuses for their sins" and by "justify[ing] themselves."

We need virtuous vice and bold sinners. Such vice affirms our humanity and tends to either burn a person up, or burn him into a saint. Outbreaks are violent and ugly, but can usually be contained. The culture of porn, on the other hand, operates like a deadly but patient virus: it lurks in the blood and succeeds by maintaining in its host the illusion of health. It creates simpering, self-justifying, and machine-like sins; outbreaks are prettified, and devastation seeps into society like a water into a sponge, mostly unnoticed.

Vice will always be with us. It is a fact those concerned with the future of virtue ought to remember. But better that it be rare, exotic, and expensive than common, pedestrian, and cheap. We need sins that affirm us as spiritual beings in all of our fallenness. Therefore sinner, sin boldly, but, as Luther also admonished, pray boldly too. For you are human after all.


The Late Show
Why Duke Ellington's late work deserves our attention.

Like most artists of heroic proportion, Duke Ellington's sweep is difficult to comprehend. His output of original compositions and co-compositions is estimated to number between 1,000 and 3,000 works, ranging from starkly simple pieces to complex adventures in long composition, from the lowest low-down blues (the swamp water virtually runs off the notes) to the most urbane renditions of the big city (its people, its architecture, its pulse, and its dreamy, private situations). His grand aesthetic vision was to bring work songs, spirituals, blues, and ragtime together with jazz, that aesthetic idiom of great latitude. Ellington combined his sources with more blistering force, imagination, and understatement than anyone had before him, inventing variations and grooves along the way. He produced music that would not only extend the reaches of jazz but would become one of the largest and most original bodies of American music ever created. Ellington's early classics, produced between 1927 and 1940, have been often and rightly praised; his late work has been largely neglected. But the late work offers plenty of masterworks for the listener of sufficiently refined taste, or the one willing to sophisticate his or her taste. Put simply, Ellington's late work is largely a secret treasure. Anyone purporting to be civilized, or who desires to be, should have as many late Ellington recordings as possible in his or her audio collection....


NO WEAPONS. You may have heard that the Great Iraq WMD Hunt has been officially abandoned. But what can one really say about this? Let me just reiterate for about the millionth time that, contrary to the ex post rationalizations from the right, it's simply not the case that "everyone" -- or even almost everyone -- thought Saddam Hussein had WMD at the time the war started. That was a period when this really was the consensus judgment of the international intelligence community, and that's one of the reasons it was possible to gain UN support for a resolution demanding the re-introduction of inspectors.

Then the inspectors came back to Iraq and went searching around. They didn't find any WMD stockpiles or evidence of advanced WMD programs. They did find some banned missiles with ranges beyond what was permitted by the Gulf War cease-fire. Those missiles were duly destroyed. At that point, rational people began to think that the intelligence consensus was, perhaps, mistaken. It already became clear that several of the specific charges the Bush administration had raised were false, and that despite repeated statements from administration officials that they were sure Saddam had WMD, they couldn't provide the inspectors with any useful clues to their whereabouts. But the United States wasn't being governered by rational people, so they, along with their cheerleaders in the press, proclaimed that if inspections weren't finding the weapons, that wasn't because the weapons weren't there but because the inspectors were corrupt, incompetent, or something like that. Therefore, an invasion was necessary. ...


Iraq Poll Fears Deepen as 2 Sistani Aides Killed
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Two aides to Iraq (news - web sites)'s top Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have been killed in separate attacks apparently aimed at inflaming sectarian conflict among Iraqis already divided on whether Jan. 30 polls should go ahead.

A Sistani representative said on Thursday gunmen killed cleric Mahmoud al-Madaen along with his son and four bodyguards. Madaen, Sistani's representative in the ancient town of Salman Pak south of Baghdad, was killed on Wednesday.

Another aide, Halim al-Mohaqeq, a cleric working in Sistani's office in Najaf, was also found dead on Wednesday.

"Sheikh Halim was found drowned in his own blood. Investigations are under way," leading Sistani representative Hamed al-Khafaf said.

Iraqi officials say attacks on Shi'ite targets in Iraq show Sunni Muslim insurgents want to inflame sectarian distrust, which divisions over the elections have already stoked....


For The Record, Here's What They Said
Yes, we've all heard the search for WMDs is over. What really amazes me is how little our lazy ass media or "pundits" and the willfully ignorant American public remembers about the full court press leading up to the war selling a bill of goods that we are under imminent threat. Thanks to this old post from Billmon, and for the record here's a fairly complete record of what they said...


I'm Not Sure How Many More Corners We Can Stand To Turn
[H]ere's a brief history of estimates of the size of the insurgency:

Summer 2003 - There's no insurgency! Just some bandits.
Winter 2004 - A few hundred to a couple thousand dead-enders.
Summer 2004 - As many as 5,000.
Fall 2004 - Up to 20,000.
Winter 2005 - About 40,000 dedicated, up to 160,000 kibitzers.
Summer 2005 - ?...

...Appreciate this. Understand that the people killing us in Iraq aren't motivated by Gore Vidal or inspired by Susan Sontag or organized by Michael Moore or in cahoots in any way with any of the right's celebrity piñatas - not literally, not metaphorically, not if you look at it in a certain way, not to any infinitesimal degree, not in any sense, not in any way at all. They do not lead a clandestine international conspiracy of Evil which has corrupted everything in every foreign country plus everything in America not owned by loyal Bush Republican apparatchiks; nor are they members of such a conspiracy; nor does a conspiracy remotely matching that description exist. To think otherwise is, literally and to a very great degree, insanity. It is insane.

And if you really want to help the American war effort, you can join the fucking armed forces and go to Iraq like thousands of others have, and then you can do the best job you can to show them that Americans care about them and want, above all else, for all of our futures to be better and more peaceful than the past, and get paid shit. You will then be my personal hero, really, and I hope you don't get killed or maimed or see or do something that makes you hate everything for the rest of your life, which is a very real possibility. If you, like me, are too much of a coward to risk your life and health on a mission like that, then you can donate to charities which help soldiers (although it is worth looking into where and what kind of help is needed – some places don’t need it as much as others). But the easiest thing you can do is influence the politicians who create the policies – and in some cases the military strategies - which are being carried out in Iraq, but to do this in a useful way you first have to make some contact with reality. Reality is that the situation in Iraq is horrible, the outlook for any lasting peace is grim, and that this has nothing to do with a nebulous, malignant, all-powerful “Left”, and everything to do with the people in power who make bad and stupid policies. You can pull your head out of your ass, stop dreaming up stupid conspiracy theories about how everyone around the world you don’t like is working together to destroy Freedom, and tell them that they need to do a better job. And if they won’t do a better job, the solution is not to get upset at people who aren’t waving their pom-poms or denouncing Saddam single-mindedly enough for you, it is to fire the fuck-ups so we can maybe have some chance at salvaging something from this fiasco.

…And, before you ask: no, I have no clue about how we can improve things in Iraq. I don’t have a single idea for how we can un-shit the bed, and I don’t hold out much hope that this whole bed-shitting episode is ever going to be brought to a lemony-fresh conclusion. I do, however, know who shit the bed, and have some sense of how frequently he shits there. Let’s stop shitting for a start.


Group Says It Relocated 300 Orphans
Va. Missionaries Talk of Raising Muslim Tsunami Victims in Christian Home

A Virginia-based missionary group said this week that it has airlifted 300 "tsunami orphans" from the Muslim province of Banda Aceh to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, where it plans to raise them in a Christian children's home.

The missionary group, WorldHelp, is one of dozens of Christian, Muslim and Jewish charities providing humanitarian relief to victims of the Dec. 26 earthquake and tsunami that devastated countries around the Indian Ocean, taking more than 150,000 lives.

Most of the religious charities do not attach any conditions to their aid, and many of the larger ones -- such as WorldVision, Catholic Relief Services and Church World Service -- have policies against proselytizing. But a few of the smaller groups have been raising money among evangelical Christians by presenting the tsunami emergency effort as a rare opportunity to make converts in hard-to-reach areas.

"Normally, Banda Aceh is closed to foreigners and closed to the gospel. But, because of this catastrophe, our partners there are earning the right to be heard and providing entrance for the gospel," WorldHelp said in an appeal for funds on its Web site this week.

The appeal said WorldHelp was working with native-born Christians in Indonesia who want to "plant Christian principles as early as possible" in the 300 Muslim children, all younger than 12, who lost their parents in the tsunami.

"These children are homeless, destitute, traumatized, orphaned, with nowhere to go, nowhere to sleep and nothing to eat. If we can place them in a Christian children's home, their faith in Christ could become the foothold to reach the Aceh people," it said.

The Web site was changed, and the appeal was removed yesterday after The Washington Post called to inquire about it....


Atrocities in Plain Sight
In scandals, chronology can be everything. The facts you find out first, the images that are initially imprinted on your consciousness, the details that then follow: these make the difference between a culture-changing tipping point and a weatherable media flurry. With the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the photographs, which have become iconic, created the context and the meaning of what took place. We think we know the contours of that story: a few soldiers on the night shift violated established military rules and subjected prisoners to humiliating abuse and terror. Chaos in the line of command, an overstretched military, a bewildering insurgency: all contributed to incidents that were alien to the values of the United States and its military. The scandal was an aberration. It was appalling. Responsibility was taken. Reports were issued. Hearings continue.

But the photographs lied. They told us a shard of the truth. In retrospect, they deflected us away from what was really going on, and what is still going on. The problem is not a co-ordinated cover-up. Nor is it a lack of information. The official government and Red Cross reports on prisoner torture and abuse, compiled in two separate volumes, ''The Abu Ghraib Investigations,'' by a former Newsweek editor, Steven Strasser, and ''Torture and Terror,'' by a New York Review of Books contributor, Mark Danner, are almost numbingly exhaustive in their cataloging of specific mistakes, incidents and responsibilities. Danner's document-dump runs to almost 600 pages of print, the bulk of it in small type. The American Civil Liberties Union has also successfully engineered the release of what may eventually amount to hundreds of thousands of internal government documents detailing the events....

...Who was responsible? There are various levels of accountability. But it seems unmistakable from these documents that decisions made by the president himself and the secretary of defense contributed to confusion, vagueness and disarray, which, in turn, led directly to abuse and torture. The president bears sole responsibility for ignoring Colin Powell's noble warnings. The esoteric differences between legal ''abuse'' and illegal ''torture'' and the distinction between ''prisoners of war'' and ''unlawful combatants'' were and are so vague as to make the abuse of innocents almost inevitable. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that ''the government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals'' as enemy combatants. It is one thing to make a distinction in theory between Geneva-protected combatants and unprotected Qaeda operatives. But in the chaos of a situation like Iraq, how can you practically know the difference? When one group is designated as unworthy of humane treatment, and that group is impossible to distinguish from others, it is unsurprising that exceptions quickly become rules. The best you can say is that in an administration with a reputation for clear lines of command and clear rules of engagement, the vagueness and incompetence are the most striking features.

Worse, the president has never acknowledged the scope or the real gravity of what has taken place. His first instinct was to minimize the issue; later, his main references to it were a couple of sentences claiming that the abuses were the work of a handful of miscreants, rather than a consequence of his own decisions. But the impact of these events on domestic morale, on the morale of the vast majority of honorable soldiers in a very tough place and on the reputation of the United States in the Middle East is incalculable. The war on terror is both military and political. The president's great contribution has been to recognize that a solution is impossible without political reform in the Middle East. And yet the prevalence of brutality and inhumanity among American interrogators has robbed the United States of the high ground it desperately needs to maintain in order to win. What better weapon for Al Qaeda than the news that an inmate at Guantánamo was wrapped in the Israeli flag or that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were raped? There is no escaping the fact that, whether he intended to or not, this president handed Al Qaeda that weapon. Sometimes a brazen declaration of toughness is actually a form of weakness. In a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere, it's simply self-defeating.

And the damage done was intensified by President Bush's refusal to discipline those who helped make this happen. A president who truly recognized the moral and strategic calamity of this failure would have fired everyone responsible. But the vice president's response to criticism of the defense secretary in the wake of Abu Ghraib was to say, ''Get off his back.'' In fact, those with real responsibility for the disaster were rewarded. Rumsfeld was kept on for the second term, while the man who warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell, was seemingly nudged out. The man who wrote a legal opinion maximizing the kind of brutal treatment that the United States could legally defend, Jay S. Bybee, was subsequently rewarded with a nomination to a federal Court of Appeals. General Sanchez and Gen. John P. Abizaid remain in their posts. Alberto R. Gonzales, who wrote memos that validated the decision to grant Geneva status to inmates solely at the president's discretion, is now nominated to the highest law enforcement job in the country: attorney general. The man who paved the way for the torture of prisoners is to be entrusted with safeguarding the civil rights of Americans. It is astonishing he has been nominated, and even more astonishing that he will almost certainly be confirmed.

But in a democracy, the responsibility is also wider. Did those of us who fought so passionately for a ruthless war against terrorists give an unwitting green light to these abuses? Were we naïve in believing that characterizing complex conflicts from Afghanistan to Iraq as a single simple war against ''evil'' might not filter down and lead to decisions that could dehumanize the enemy and lead to abuse? Did our conviction of our own rightness in this struggle make it hard for us to acknowledge when that good cause had become endangered? I fear the answer to each of these questions is yes....


Augusto Pinochet and the Conservative Threat to America
While some people might believe that those on the Left wing of the political spectrum pose the bigger threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people, nothing could be further from the truth. Today, the much bigger threat (Read here and here) comes instead from the Right wing or conservative side of the political spectrum, for it is the conservatives who are either indifferent to — or squarely in favor of — military rule, torture, and suspension of habeas corpus and civil liberties for suspected terrorists. And those things constitute a much more ominous threat to our freedom and well-being than anything leftists endorse. (Of course, in fairness to the truth, there are leftists who endorse violations of civil liberties — or simply look the other way — when such violations are committed by leftist officials, two notable examples being Janet Reno and Fidel Castro.)

A good example of the conservative mindset — and the threat that it currently poses to the American people — lies with the brutal military regime of Chilean strongman Gen. Augusto Pinochet, an army general who, with the support of the U.S. CIA, ousted the democratically elected president of Chile and took power in a coup d’etat in 1973. While the Bush administration often suggests that the U.S. “war on terrorism” is something new, the fact is that the “war on terrorism” was the central element of General Pinochet’s 17 years of brutal military rule in Chile.

Pinochet’s “war on terrorism” entailed all the features of the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” — torture, murder, sex abuse, denial of civil liberties, indefinite detentions, “renditions,” and disappearances of suspected terrorists. ...

...U.S. conservatives have long justified the Pinochet regime on the ground that Allende’s socialist economic policies (and, conservatives claimed, Allende’s communist aims) were anti-freedom and threatened the economic well-being of the Chilean people. Therefore, to avoid a socialist president and possibly another communist regime in this hemisphere (Cuba, of course, being the other), conservatives claimed that it was entirely proper for the Chilean military (and the U.S. government) to disregard the democratic electoral results and violently oust Allende from office, installing a military regime that might even bring “free enterprise” policies to Chile.

Yet, for the past several decades, the American people have democratically elected people to public office who believe in the same socialist policies that Allende believed in: Social Security (which originated among pre-Hitler German socialists), Medicare, Medicaid, public (i.e., government) schooling, welfare, public works, income taxation, coercive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, business subsidies, foreign aid, and the like. For that matter, all these U.S. socialist programs (which U.S. conservatives today embrace) are also primary features of Fidel Castro’s socialist and communist system.

Was Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal any different in principle from Allende’s economic platform? How about Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society? Roosevelt, you’ll recall, had even confiscated and nationalized the gold holdings of the American people. As a socialist, Allende believed in the Marxian principle of coercive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. So did Johnson — that’s what his “war on poverty” was all about.

Would the election of Roosevelt and Johnson and the adoption of their socialist policies have morally justified a military takeover of America to restore free enterprise to our country? Or would we prefer that such ideological changes be accomplished through the normal democratic processes?

As harmful and destructive as socialist economic policies are, they pale in comparison to the omnipotent power to kill, torture, and disappear people that come with military rule. Seeing your wealth taxed and given to others is bad. Seeing your economic activities regulated is bad. But when military officials have the unfettered power to take you into custody, torture you, and execute you, it’s the end of the story for freedom in that society. As Chileans under Pinochet discovered — indeed as Russians under Stalin and Germans under Hitler discovered — there is no peaceful way to change the system once you’re dead. ...

...“But I don’t need to worry about Bush, the CIA, and the Pentagon,” one might say. “I’m an American and therefore I have nothing to worry about.”

Oh? Not only is the morality of that position questionable, try telling it to Jose Padilla, an American citizen whom the Pentagon arrested on American soil and accused of terrorism. He’s been denied due process of law and trial by jury, and the U.S. military is saying that it has the unfettered military power to punish, even execute, him as a “terrorist” who was captured on the “battlefield” of the world, which includes the Chicago, Illinois, airport, where he was taken into custody. It is the same position that Pinochet took when he sent DINA agents to kill Orlando Letelier on the streets of Washington, D.C.

“But it’s only one American, and he’s some Hispanic named Jose Padilla. They’re not going to come after any of us Anglo-Americans.”

The people in the CIA and the Pentagon are not stupid. They know that if they begin rounding up hundreds or thousands of domestic “terrorists,” as Pinochet did, before having secured a favorable judicial ruling authorizing them to do so, large numbers of detainees, tortures, and executions would prejudice their chances in the courts. Thus, even while they’ve rounding up untold numbers of foreigners, they’ve limited their domestic roundups so far to one unsympathetic American arrested here in the United States — Jose Padilla.

But they know what every lawyer knows — if they can secure one favorable and definitive ruling that keeps the federal courts from interfering with their arrest and incarceration of Jose Padilla, there will then be no further obstacles to their expanding their Gulag operations at Guantanamo to include American “terrorists.” After all, the reason that the Pentagon has not sent Americans to Guantanamo is not based in law but rather in discretion — they’re being nice until they secure that favorable judicial ruling in the Padilla case. ...

...In other words, if the Pentagon secures a favorable ruling in the Padilla case, there will be nothing — repeat nothing — to prevent the Pentagon from indiscriminately arresting Americans, transporting them to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, torturing them, detaining them indefinitely, and executing them. Just as under Pinochet....

Wednesday, January 12, 2005


Hide the beer, the pastor's here
"It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; [Islam], not Christianity, is the teetotal religion." -- C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity

In this intriguing article in New York magazine, Craig Horowitz explores the strange alliance between pro-Israel Jewish groups and conservative American evangelicals.

Without realizing it, Horowitz relates one howling faux pas from Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews:

"More and more Jews see the Evangelical community as a strategic ally for Israel. ... In fact, the Evangelicals may now be seen as even more important allies than the American Jewish community itself. But are Jews willing to have a beer with them? I'm not so sure."

A beer!?! Eckstein has spent more than 20 years working with evangelical Christians in America and he still doesn't realize that evangelicals don't drink beer?

This is a religious subculture that -- despite its claims of a strictly "literal" hermeneutic -- believes that Jesus and his disciples drank non-alcoholic grape juice at the Last Supper. They believe Christ's first miracle was turning water into Welch's at the wedding in Cana....


A man-made tsunami
Why are there no fundraisers for the Iraqi dead?

I am bewildered by the world reaction to the tsunami tragedy. Why are newspapers, television and politicians making such a fuss? Why has the British public forked out more than £100m to help the survivors, and why is Tony Blair now promising "hundreds of millions of pounds"? Why has Australia pledged £435m and Germany £360m? And why has Mr Bush pledged £187m?

Of course it's wonderful to see the human race rallying to the aid of disaster victims, but it's the inconsistency that has me foxed. Nobody is making this sort of fuss about all the people killed in Iraq, and yet it's a human catastrophe of comparable dimensions.

According to the only scientific estimate attempted, Iraqi deaths since the war began number more than 100,000. The tsunami death toll is in the region of 150,000. Yet in the case of Iraq, the media seems reluctant to impress on the public the scale of the carnage.

I haven't seen many TV reporters standing in the ruins of Falluja, breathlessly describing how, in 30 years of reporting, they've never seen a human tragedy on this scale. The Pope hasn't appealed for everyone to remember the Iraqi dead in their prayers, and MTV hasn't gone silent in their memory. ...


Iraqi Victim Says U.S. Torture Worse Than Saddam
FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A former inmate at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison forced by U.S. guards to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men said Tuesday even Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not do such things.

The inmate testified at the court martial of reservist soldier Charles Graner, accused ringleader of guards who engaged in the abuse, which prompted outrage when pictures of the sexual humiliation were published around the world.

"I couldn't believe in the beginning that this could happen, but I wished I could kill myself because no one was there to stop it," Hussein Mutar, who was sent to Abu Ghraib accused of car theft, said in videotaped testimony.

"They were torturing us as though it was theater for them," he said, as the prosecution wound up its case against Graner on assault, dereliction of duty and other charges that could bring him up to 17 1/2 years in prison...


Christian Groups Mix Missionary Work With Aid
Some Christians view sending disaster relief to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia as an opportunity to preach the gospel. The notion doesn’t sit well in some places....

...But the widely circulated text message illustrates the tension that exists in some of the hardest-hit area over proselytizing by Christian missionaries.

India’s state of Tamil Nadu, for example is significant for many Hindus, because of its 2002 Anti-Conversion Bill, meant to prevent poor Hindus from being converted to Christianity by financial inducements. Christian leaders deny using forced conversions, but several organizations distributing relief cite spiritual as well as physical needs.

“In times like these, we know that God opens the hearts of those who suffer, and we pray that as our workers demonstrate God's love to them, many of them will come to know for the first time that real security comes only through Him,” K.P. Yohannan, president of Gospel for Asia, said on Crosswalk.com.

Ajith Fernando of Youth for Christ was quoted as saying: “We have prayed and wept for our nation for many years. The most urgent of my prayers has always been that my people would turn to Jesus. I pray that this terrible, terrible tragedy might be used by God to break through into the lives of many of our people.”

Baptist Press carried comments by an International Mission Board worker using a pseudonym because of security concerns noting that relief efforts in parts of Indonesia that have been closed to Westerners for 18 months represent a “phenomenal opportunity for the rest of the world--and for the body of Christ--to step up and make an impact.”

“It’s an opportunity to [show them] there are people that love them and want to care for them through this difficult time,” the worker said. “This will be a phenomenal time for the people of Aceh to understand who Christ is.”

Vince Isner of FaithfulAmerica.org, reported in a blog from Sri Lanka that some groups are providing aid followed by an altar call. Such activities cause all American aid agencies—even those that avoid proselytizing—to be viewed with suspicion, he said.

Sri Lanka has a long history of British colonialism, which includes both exploitation and zealous Christian missionary activity, Isner explained. The nation gained independence in 1948, but a number of mission groups from the U.S. have re-entered for aggressive evangelization in recent years. Some Buddhists accuse the groups of using unethical practices to win converts.

Even some evangelical aid groups say the midst of a disaster is the wrong time to evangelize. Steve Levitt of World Vision told the Associated Press that the organization does not evangelize or proselytize but tries to “demonstrate God’s love” through its relief and development work.


Why Bush Will Blow Social Security Reform...
If yesterday's press event is any indication, the president and his team have a tin ear on the issue.

In The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's account, Bush appeared with 42-year-old father of two Scott Ballard as one of his main props. Not only is Ballard atypical since he owns his own business (an ambulance service), he's the son of the legendary GOP leader of the state legislature in Washington state.

Jesus, come on already! I am not a raving fan of Social Security "privatization" for a number of reasons. Among them: I don't like the idea of forced savings, period; to the extent that SS taxes go into the general fund and subsidize guaranteed state pensions/minimum incomes, they should be named as such; the amount of money under any plan that will be given back to the payer is minimal (likely 1 or 2 percent in my estimation) and possibly not worth the hassles; there's the possibility of socializing equities markets; etc.

The one powerful selling point to me about private accounts is that they might keep some money within families, to be passed down to kids or grandkids as an inheritance. I know from personal experience (or, rather, lack of personal experience) that an inheritance of even $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 at the right time in a young person's life can make a huge difference in all sorts of ways, from clearing out debt to providing a car (and hence employment opportunities) to a down payment on a house, and more....


City of ghosts
On November 8, the American army launched its biggest ever assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, considered a stronghold for rebel fighters. The US said the raid had been a huge success, killing 1,200 insurgents. Most of the city's 300,000 residents, meanwhile, had fled for their lives. What really happened in the siege of Falluja? In a joint investigation for the Guardian and Channel 4 News, Iraqi doctor Ali Fadhil compiled the first independent reports from the devastated city, where he found scores of unburied corpses, rabid dogs - and a dangerously embittered population...

...One 50-year-old man, a major in the Iraqi Republican Guards under the former regime, took us in. There were four families squeezed into one apartment, all of them once wealthy. The major, like the others, was sacked after the liberation when the US disbanded the army and police. Now jobless, his house in Falluja was wrecked and he was a refugee with his five children and wife near the town where he used to spend his holidays. He was angry with the Americans, but also with the Iraqi rebels, whom he blamed, alongside the clerics in the mosques, for causing Falluja to be wrecked.

"The mujahideen and the clerics are responsible for the destruction that happened to our city; no one will forgive them for that," he said with bitterness.

"Why are you blaming them - why don't you blame the Americans and Allawi?" said Omar, the owner of the apartment.

"We told the mujahideen to leave it to us ordinary Fallujans, but those bloody bastards, the sheikhs and the clerics, are busy painting some bloody mad picture of heaven and martyrs and the victory of the mujahideen," said Ali, another refugee. "And, of course, the kids believe every word those clerics say. They're young and naive, and they forget that this is a war against the might of the machine of the American army. So they let those kids die like this and our city gets blown up with the wind."

I wanted to ask the tough old Republican guard why they had let these young muj have the run of the city, but I actually didn't have to. I remember being in Falluja just before the fighting started and seeing a crowd gathered around a sack that was leaking blood. A piece of white A4 paper was stuck on to the sack, which read: "Here is the body of the traitor. He has confessed to acting as a spotter for American planes and was paid $100 a day."

At the same time as we were standing looking at the sack, I knew I would be able to buy a CD of the man in this sack making his confession before he was beheaded in any CD shop in Falluja. These were the people who controlled Falluja now - not old majors from Saddam's army. ...

...In the morning, I went back to find the cemetery and look for evidence of the fighters who had been killed. It was about 4pm before I got inside the martyrs' cemetery; people kept waylaying me, wanting to show me their destroyed houses and asking why the journalists didn't come and show what the Americans had done to Falluja. They were also angry at the interim President Allawi for sending in the mainly Shia National Guard to help the Americans.

At the entrance to the fighters' graveyard a sign read: "This cemetery is being given by the people of Falluja to the heroic martyrs of the battle against the Americans and to the martyrs of the jihadi operations against the Americans, assigned and approved by the Mujahideen Shura council in Falluja."

As I went into the graveyard, the bodies of two young men were arriving. The faces were rotting. The ambulance driver lifted the bones of one of the hands; the skin had rotted away. "God is the greatest. What kind of times are we living through that we are holding the bones and hands of our brothers?"

Then he began cursing the National Guard, calling them even worse things than the Americans: "Those bastards, those sons of dogs." It wasn't the first time I had heard this. It was the National Guard the Americans used to search the houses; they were seen by the Fallujans as brutal stooges. Most of the volunteers for the National Guard are poor Shias from the south. They are jobless and desperate enough to volunteer for a job that makes them assassination targets. "National infidels", they were also called. ...

...It was late afternoon when I drove out of Falluja and back to Baghdad, feeling that I had just scratched the surface of what really happened there. But it is clear that by completely destroying this Sunni city, with the help of a mostly Shia National Guard, the US military has fanned the seeds of a civil war that is definitely coming. If there are elections now and the Shia win, that war is certain. The people I spoke to had no plans to vote. No one I met in those five days had a ballot paper....

...But one thing stood out for me that explained the empty graveyard and the lack of bodies. He said that most of the fighters had been given orders to abandon the city by November 17, nine days after the assault began. "The withdrawal of the fighters was carried out following an order by our senior leadership. We did not pull out because we did not want to fight. We needed to regroup; it was a tactical move. The fighters decided to redeploy to Amiriya and some went to Abu Ghraib," he said.

The US military destroyed Falluja, but simply spread the fighters out around the country. They also increased the chance of civil war in Iraq by using their new national guard of Shias to suppress Sunnis. Once, when a foreign journalist, an Irish guy, asked me whether I was Shia or Sunni - the way the Irish do because they have that thing about the IRA - I said I was Sushi. My father is Sunni and my mother is Shia. I never cared about these things. Now, after Falluja, it matters.


Paid Enough to Buy the Product
In the past several years, a virtual industry has been created in bashing Wal-Mart. From leftist church groups to the AFL-CIO to the Chronicles, Wal-Mart has been the favorite whipping boy of people on all sides of the political spectrum. Thus, it was no surprise when I recently received an emailed article from the quasi-Marxist Sojourners magazine not only attacking Wal-Mart for the usual set of "sins" that the critics claim, but also a new transgression: Wal-Mart's business practices, on net, make our economy worse off and leave us poorer.

In its latest example of Wal-Mart bashing (Sojourners gives its readers the links to anti-Wal-Mart websites and pathologically publishes attacks on the retail giant), David Batstone and David Chandler compare the company unfavorably with another giant, Ford Motor Company, or at least the Ford of the early 20th Century. Before going into detail about the contrasts that Batstone and Chandler make, however, let me say that their choice of comparison is odd, considering that Ford was the premier target of leftists of his day and socialists considered him to be the worst "reactionary" on the industrial scene in that era....

...Here is the problem with their economic argument: it makes no sense. It is based upon the assumption that Wal-Mart faces no competition from other employers and can cut pay at will with no resultant loss of employees. Furthermore, if they are correct about Ford, it would seem self-contradictory that other employers would not have "discovered" the passageway to the "virtuous circle," given that such actions would make their businesses more profitable. That other employers do not follow what the authors claim was the Ford path can be due only to evil motives on behalf of employers or gross ignorance of history....

...Indeed, Ford's ideas were revolutionary, but not in the way that Batstone and Chandler might think. Ford was able to apply new production techniques and relentless cost-cutting approaches to manufacturing. The result was twofold: his workers were able to be paid more than workers in other industries, and individuals across the economy were able to purchase high-quality automobiles.

Ford's triumph was due to his following the standard approach of cutting costs and boosting production. Ironically, Ford's approach was no different than what Wal-Mart has been doing. Yes, as the authors claim, Wal-Mart's success does result in less efficient producers going out of business. However, think of all the carriage makers and buggy whip manufacturers that disappeared in the cloud of dust left by the Model T.


Nowhere is safe
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, recently returned from his second fact-finding mission to Iraq, this latest with a small group of fellow members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including committee chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican; ranking member Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; and Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat.

It was during a private meeting at the offices of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that Mr. Allawi told the senators to move their chairs away from the window -- for fear an insurgent sniper might take aim at the American scalps. ...


Inmate Says Graner Laughed During Abuse
FORT HOOD, Texas Jan 11, 2005 — A Syrian inmate at Abu Ghraib said Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was the Baghdad prison's primary torturer who laughed while physically abusing him and threatened to kill him more than once.

Amin al-Sheikh, testifying via videotaped deposition shown in court Tuesday, said Graner also made him eat pork and drink alcohol, in violation of his Muslim faith, and that he listened through his cell wall while Graner and other Americans forced a Yemeni prisoner eat from a toilet. ...


New Gallup Poll Finds 50% of Public Saying Invasion of Iraq a Mistake
NEW YORK A new Gallup poll released this morning finds Americans tilting against the war in Iraq, with 50% now saying it was a mistake to send U.S. troops into Iraq, while 48% say it was not. ...


Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
Critical September Report to Be Final Word

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring....

Tuesday, January 11, 2005


The Iraq CliffNotes
# Former dictator-of-choice and Rumsfeld photo-op buddy, Saddam Hussein, had untold stashes of WMD and was an imminent threat to the United States and its allies. The US and its Coaliton partners would rid Saddam of his WMD and would be greeted as liberators with flowers and fruit roll-ups.

# The regime of Saddam Hussein was dispatched in quick order but somehow, the fighting continued. There was no insurgency, the Administration avowed, just some pesky throwbacks who couldn't accept the obvious goodness of the American invasion. They'd be rounded up soon enough.

# George W. Bush put on a cod piece and landed on the set of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Kate O'Beirne fainted. Ann Coulter orgasmed. Mission accomplished.

# Still, despite the brilliance and sheer manliness of the President's performance, some Iraqi frowns refused to be turned upside down. Looting was rife. But this was just what happens when you have freedom, Secretary Rumsfeld said with a wave of the hand. Expect peace and democracy any second now.

# Fighting increased. Terrorists from around the world joined in. The death toll mounted.

# All part of the plan, said the flypaper theorists. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, intoned a triumphant president.

# Saddam's sons were captured. Now everything will calm down, the peanut gallery averred. Mysterously, the fighting continued, and neither the flowers, the fruit roll-ups nor the WMD were anywhere to be seen.

# Such a mystery.

# The American Administrator sacked all those in the Iraqi police and army, to flush out the latent Baathist influence. Good plan. That'd fix everything.

# Still no sign of the WMD, but haven't you seen the memo? This wasn't really about the WMD anyway.

# An interim constitution was drawn up, and certainly that would fix everything as Iraqis began to take control.

# The insurgency, now acknowledged by the administration but downplayed, grew. It was foreign terrorists; it was opportunists; it was hardliners. They would be dealt with in quick order....


The Retail Church
As American churches become more like chain stores, they’re ruining communities and distorting the Gospel.

Modern suburban American churches are based on what might be called the “department store” model. Like retail stores, churches cut costs and expand their facilities by moving out of neighborhoods and drawing on a larger “customer base.” Also like department stores, each church has its own “distinctives” (denominational, musical, racial, or political) that appeal to a particular “market.”

It is common throughout America to have three or four large churches sitting right next to each other, forming a kind of spiritual shopping mall. Instead of Sears, Foley’s, and Merwyn’s, we have Central Baptist, Faith Bible, and Grace Assembly, all within walking distance. On Saturdays, the mall parking lots are filled with customers’ cars from miles around; and on Sundays, the very same vehicles crowd the church parking lots. ...


Robertson Predicts ‘Triumph’ in Second Bush Term
Pat Robertson, who began last year with a prediction that President Bush would win re-election in “a blowout,” says he has another word from the Lord.

On the Jan. 3 broadcast of Christian Broadcasting Network’s “The 700 Club,” Robertson made predictions he said were based on what God told him during a recent prayer retreat. His forecast includes a second term of “triumph” for President Bush, whom Robertson predicted will get Social Security and tax reform passed and will put conservative judges on federal courts.

Spiritually speaking, Robertson said to look for “a tremendous incidence of miracles” in America and for revival in the Muslim world.

“I’m always reluctant to say, ‘God said this,’” Robertson predicated his remarks. “There’s some times it’s unmistakable; the voice like shakes you. Otherwise you believe you’re hearing [God’s voice.] So I put that out with great trepidation, but I have some very encouraging news.”

On the economy, Robertson said, “Again, 2005 is going to be a year of extraordinary prosperity for this nation and for CBN.”

“And I think the American stock market is going to surge upward, if I heard from the Lord.”

“Don’t go out and buy stock on my recommendation,” he said, “but that’s what I feel in my heart. The Lord was saying it’s going to be a super good year.”

Robertson went on to say the Lord “has some very encouraging news for George Bush.”

“What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory, and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff.”...

...Concerning the Supreme Court, Robertson predicted: “The vendetta against religion in America is about to end…. [God] will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.”...


Minister charged with sex crimes involving young girls
The minister of a Wetumpka church is in jail today charged with sexually abusing two young girls. Elmore County Sheriff Bill Franklin said 38-year-old Garett Albert Dykes, also of Wetumpka, is charged with three counts of sexual abuse, three counts of production of obscene matter of someone under 17 and one count of sodomy.

Franklin said Dykes admitted he had inappropriate contact with the two girls under the age of ten....

Monday, January 10, 2005


Religious groups' motives questioned
Some groups see tsunami relief as way to promote Christianity

Philadelphia — As Western humanitarian organizations unleash an armada of relief supplies and workers into Asia's crisis zone, some evangelical Christian groups aim to bring the Gospel to the victims, as well....

...But some evangelical groups active in Asia, including the Southern Baptists' International Mission Board, Gospel for Asia, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance, say the Bible always impels them to create converts to the faith.

"This (disaster) is one of the greatest opportunities God has given us to share his love with people," said K.P. Yohannan, president of the Texas-based Gospel for Asia. In an interview, Yohannan said his 14,500 "native missionaries" in India, Sri Lanka and the Andaman Islands are giving survivors Bibles and booklets about "how to find hope in this time through the word of God."

In Krabi, Thailand, a Southern Baptist church had been "praying for a way to make inroads" with a particular ethnic group of fishermen, according to Southern Baptist relief coordinator Pat Julian. Then came the tsunami, "a phenomenal opportunity" to provide ministry and care, Julian told the Baptist Press news service.

In Andhra Pradesh, India, a plan is developing to build "Christian communities" to replace destroyed seashore villages. In a dispatch that the evangelical group Focus on the Family posted on its Family.org Web site, James Rebbavarapu of India Christian Ministries said a team of U.S. engineers had agreed to help design villages of up to 400 homes each, "with a church building in the center of them."...

From the January 6 edition of Scarborough Country:
William A. Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:
What he was saying was this: There is no greater suffering than what Christ did. He died on the cross, but that's a source of optimism. That`s a source of redemption. So, I think we have to look at this in a positive sense. In one strange sense, then, what's happening to these poor Asian people is their gift to the world. It makes us think about our mortality and about salvation and about redemption. That's what we should be thinking about....

Sunday, January 09, 2005


Must Christianity Be Violent? Reflections on History, Practice, and Theology
Religion may be killing us. The good news is that in our post-9/11 world there is a widespread concern about religion and violence. A December 2003 Minnesota poll, for example, showed that 77 percent of respondents attributed a fair amount of the cause of the world’s wars and conflicts to religion. The bad news is that religious violence is almost always seen as a problem for other traditions, not one’s own.

In the poll just cited, for example, 34 percent of the mostly Christian respondents said that Islam is more likely than Christianity to encourage its believers to be violent. Though our “Christian nation” was waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time, few Christians saw a relationship between Christianity and violence. How could a country in which 84 percent of adults claim to follow Jesus, who taught love of enemies and embodied nonviolence, be the most militarized nation in the history of the world—a nation whose military spending exceeds that of all other countries combined?

Though religiously justified violence is common to many religions, people rarely kill each other over religious differences alone. They use God, religion and sacred texts to justify violence and killing when conflicts over land, resources, oppression, discrimination or other historical grievances escalate. Though one is Muslim and the other Christian, there are eerie similarities between the violence-justifying rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and that of President Bush. Each poses the conflict with the other as a struggle between good and evil. Each justifies the death of civilians by citing the depth of evil to be countered. Each believes that the grave depravity of the other can be met only with lethal violence. Each invokes God’s name and his religion’s respective sacred texts to justify violence against the other. Each uses religious language to mobilize supporters. ...


Review: 'Hotel Rwanda' amazing, gripping
Standout acting performances in important film

(CNN) -- During 100 terrifying days in 1994, nearly 1 million people died in a horrific genocide in the African country of Rwanda, as the ruling members of the Hutu tribe began a calculated effort to wipe out the Tutsi minority.

This unholy act of inhumanity was compounded by the fact that the world stood silently by and did nothing to intervene.

The film "Hotel Rwanda" is based on an actual event that occurred during that terrible time, the attempt of one man -- a hotel manager named Paul Rusesabagina -- to save as many people as possible. The film is not only one of the best movies of the year; it is also probably the most important movie of the year.

Rusesabagina, played magnificently by Don Cheadle, managed to save the lives of 1,268 people as he risked everything in an uncommon act of courage. (The hotelier, who's still alive, served as a consultant to the movie.)...


More Religion, but Not the Old-Time Kind
... The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity. While Christian fundamentalists are focused on doctrine and the inerrancy of Scripture, , what is most important for Pentecostals is what they call "spirit-filled" worship, including speaking in tongues and miracle healing. Brazil, where American missionaries planted Pentecostalism in the early 20th century, now has a congregation with its owns TV station, soccer team and political party.

Most scholars of Christianity believe that the world's largest church is a Pentecostal one - the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea, which was founded in 1958 by a converted Buddhist who held a prayer meeting in a tent he set up in a slum. More than 250,000 people show up for worship on a typical Sunday.

"If I were to buy stock in global Christianity, I would buy it in Pentecostalism," said Martin E. Marty, professor emeritus of the history of Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a coauthor of a study of fundamentalist movements. "I would not buy it in fundamentalism."...


In the beginning was America, and America was with God, and America was God
Civil religion occurs when a significant number of a nation's inhabitants identify the interests of their nation with the interests of their deity. This situation is mutually beneficial for both government and religion. The government, wrapped in religious garb, achieves divine legitimation of its activities, and so critics of governmental policies can be cast in the most extreme negative light: as anti-god. The religious practitioners likewise acquire a sense of legitimacy. Governmental support for the religion and the prevalence of public religious symbolism lends a sense of plausibility to the religion. The religious practitioners avoid a situation in which the plausibility of their beliefs would rely upon the logic and practices of the religion itself. The practitioners' psychological security is buttressed through the public institutionalization of their religion.

We must bear in mind these dynamics of civil religion when we consider the ongoing battles in the US over prayer in school, "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, political debates over homosexual marriage, and the public display of Christian symbols. One of the most important features of the current US political situation is the manner in which civil religion has coopted Christianity. Many Christians are unable to distinguish between the US and the church as the primary agent of god's activity in the world.

Civil religion inevitably leads to idolatry, as the nation-state acquires quasi-divine status. Civil religion also fosters confusion and coercion, as an attempt is made to apply ethical and spiritual principles that should properly apply to Christians to the entire populace. (And that's granting for the sake of argument that Christians have gotten their own ethical and spiritual principles right.)...


It's disturbing to hear the axis of Kristol, Krauthammer and Hume (who's a "journalist", although he's always replaced by a conservative when he's not on the panel, for some reason) talk about torture, because they really, really want to stick something scalding hot up someone's clenched something, and they're just trying to get all these morally facile "anti-torture" idiots to come to the conclusion that there is a situation in which torture might be okay...which, for some reason, will devolve downwards into the conclusion that torture is okay when used in other situations. It's an inane argument - I could, for instance, come up with an utterly contrived thriller-esque situation wherein I must expose myself to a room full of children in order to save lives, but if I'm seriously pushing it, the underlying argument isn't about saving lives. It's about wanting kids to see my naughty bits....


‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.) ...

Saturday, January 08, 2005


The Problem with Programs (or Bigger is No Longer Better) by Bob Hyatt
...For years, in addition to buying the specious "bigger is better," we have been addicted to a one-size-fits-all mentality in the church. It’s called "programs." The problem is, people aren't "one size fits all"... and that's why programs are so awful. They assume just that. Here's the way to enter our community. Here's the way to work into leadership and grow in yourrelationship with God here. Whether I am a young suburban/middle class, well-educated female, or a Vietnam vet from inner city Detroit, most churches tend to assume that my spiritual needs and progress will be strikingly similar.

And what other way is there to do it? When you are shuffling 3,000 or 10,000 or (good Lord!) 25,000 people (darn that Joel Osteen!) around the bases, you have to standardize. Everyone gets pretty much the same thing, regardless of whether that's what they need or not....

...But if pastors are ever to be able to abandon the role of CEO, programmer, manager, game developer, party planner, ad nauseam and get back to the business of being shepherds... of being spiritual directors... it's going to mean some hard choices and the slaying of certain sacred cows.

The first (and biggest) is the sacred cow of size. If 100 people in your church are good, then 1,000 must be great, and 10,000 must surely be a sign that God is blessing.

Well, that may or not be true (I know cults that have had churches in the thousands), but if the biblical principle/example Christ set for us is that a shepherd knows his sheep and calls them by name, how in the world can that happen when our community gets over a certain size? I'm still haunted by a phrase I heard a pastor say once: "You look familiar... am I your pastor?"

No--- I can't share intimate space with everyone in my congregation. I can't even relate personally to all of them....


Faith meets science
...While we see a horrible tragedy in the Christmas weekend tsunami, the vast majority sees the cataclysm as distinctly of this world.

We now know that the shifting of tectonic plates causes earthquakes -- and the notion that God uses natural disasters to punish sinners seems hopelessly antique to most of us. To profess that sort of belief is to betray oneself as a captive to a fundamentalist mind-set that has elevated faith above reason in apprehending natural phenomena.

Yet because we don't see God's hand at work in natural disasters, neither do tragedies that shock the mind strike us as a compelling argument against God's existence.

Now, one can argue that that's because the faith-eroding questions that would be raised are simply too disquieting to confront. Or that we don't have our own Voltaire to frame them for us.

Yet the larger reason is surely this: Science has so succeeded in separating the physical from the spiritual world that if we don't see the tsunami as God's wrath, neither do we realistically consider that divine intervention might have stayed the massive wave that claimed so many lives. Indeed, even as we pray for the afflicted, we neither fault God for the misery nor expect that he might have forestalled it.

Thus have faith and science come to exist in their own realms, a construct that largely sidesteps the great debate that followed the earthquake of Lisbon. By separating faith from the natural processes of the world, we have also removed it from the path of calamity. And made it possible to maintain our belief in the face of such a mystifying tragedy.


Every year, The Chronicle Wine section staff and our weekly panel of tasters -- mostly wine retailers and sommeliers -- select our favorite 100 wines sampled during the previous 12 months. In 2004, we threw our crew a curveball by asking them to consider wines produced in Oregon, Idaho and Washington state. In doing so, we made an already difficult (though pleasantly so) decision more difficult, by introducing new candidates for spots on The Chronicle's "Top 100 Wines of 2004" list and reducing the opportunities for California bottlings....


Fire and Brimstone
A letter from a Pastor to the President

Dear President Bush,

When you were running for office, you stated that Jesus Christ was your favorite philosopher. You have made a point of proclaiming your Christian faith. You have put time and energy in an attempt to link the church's mission with state social security. You have, particularly since September 11, continually preached GOD BLESS AMERICA on almost every public occasion.

As a Pastor and fellow United Methodist, I need to ask you: Do you know what the values and vision of Jesus are?

I ask the question because I am baffled and confused by your behavior. You claim Christ but act like Caesar. ...


Evangelism and the Hope of a Better World
...We could get into the fine points of evangelical calculus by asking if God calls everyone continuously or only at certain times, but that is really of no consequence. The fact is many evangelicals today have given up on both God and free choice. A new evangelical mindset has emerged that intends to force people to live a version of the Christian life whether they want to or not.

We see it everywhere. For instance, apparently frustrated by their failure to convert the world to their worldview, evangelicals use political pressure to try to force public schools to hold prayer meetings. Never mind that prayer is best taught at home and church. Evangelicals want folks to pray and are willing to force it on them whether they want it or not.

Of course they say that godless secular humanism is forced on their children against their will. But the way to avoid secular humanism is to build private Christian schools, not semi-Christianize public schools.

The most egregious example, however, is taking place in our political life. James Dobson, a leading evangelical figure, wants conservative judges appointed that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage—two hot button evangelical moral concerns. He recently wrote his Focus on the Family constituents that any senator who fails to endorse President Bush’s judicial nominees “will be in the ‘bulls-eye.’”

So much for gentle persuasion.

Many Christians are celebrating this get tough approach to spreading the faith, but they should not be too excited. This is not how faith spreads--this is how faith dies. History is littered with the debris of faith communities that have tried to force their way on others.

In fact, it was just such a evangelistic group that nailed Jesus to the cross.


Is Bush the Antichrist?
The Christian right and the Christian left are engaged in a debate over who 'owns' Jesus—and whether Dubya is a force for good or evil.

When President George W. Bush was appointed by five Supreme Court justices in 2000, right-wing Christians sang hosannas for the triumph of God's will over the electorate's. "President Bush is God's man at this hour," said Tim Goeglein, Bush's liaison to evangelicals. Though the Methodist president dishonestly conceals the whole truth about his apocalyptic religious beliefs, he has acted as an evangelist in office. As Esther Kaplan demonstrates in With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House, he's doled out millions to far-right Christian groups, systematically crushed secular left and nonright mainstream organizations from Head Start to the Audubon Society, and replaced policy and scientific experts with comically ignorant yet politically cunning fanatic provocateurs. Out with the American Medical Association, in with the American Family Association. Before Bush, the Internal Revenue Service hounded the Christian Coalition; now that Bush is, in extremist Gary Bauer's opinion, the de facto leader of the Christian Coalition, the government selectively harasses non-Christian groups, and a rightist apparatchik tried to sneak through Congress a bill legitimizing the kinds of politically targeted IRS abuses that would have made Richard M. Nixon proud.

Televangelist and onetime presidential candidate Pat Robertson once rallied millions to lobby God for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court justices, recommending prayers for coronaries and cancer. "We ask for miracles!" preached Robertson. Today, the judiciary's Clinton-era moderates haven't even a prayer against the Reagan/Bush rightists. Author Tim LaHaye, whose Left Behind thrillers based on the Bible's "end times" stories are America's best-selling books for adults, once helped destroy the Jack Kemp presidential campaign he co-chaired by demanding 25 percent of government jobs for the Christian right's 25 percent of the population. Today, no way does Bush's "Evangetaliban"—which claims responsibility for winning Bush a second term in 2004—intend to settle for less than 100 percent.

But not every follower of the Prince of Peace is shouting amen to Bush/Robertson/Falwell's Killer Christians. Granted, the fastest-growing churches are either evangelical—Bible believers out to win your soul—or fundamentalists, out to bend your soul to their bluenose will and so literal when it comes to the Bible that some insist Christ's parables refer to actual people and events....

..."Kids growing up in Church of Law families nowadays think that the only two sins, or at least the only two really, really important ones, are having an abortion and having gay sex," Bawer told Seattle Weekly. "The notion that love, tolerance, and inclusiveness are moral values has been dropped down the memory hole."

A soldier in the U.S. Army e-mailed Seattle Weekly, "I'm just a citizen who was raised in a Christian community and is tired of having my values hijacked by a conservative movement that only applies them selectively at home and hardly at all overseas." The soldier asks to remain anonymous.

Perversion of Christian Faith?

"Bush is one of the key figures leading the church away from Jesus," says Christian author Don Miller, who wrote the nonbluenose Christian best seller Blue Like Jazz. Miller is no pantywaist—he had the balls to run a ministry at Reed College in Portland, Ore., which is so godless that its soccer team is said in campus legend to have once staged a halftime crucifixion in a game against a Christian school. But he couldn't stomach it when, for instance, Texas Gov. Bush not only allowed the execution of his fellow born-again Christian, the penitent ax murderer Karla Faye Tucker, but made vicious fun of her ("Please don't kill me!" Bush said, mocking her prayerful plea for God's mercy). Miller classifies Bush Christians as modern Pharisees—the allegedly proud, rigid, legalistic hypocrites John the Baptist called "a generation of vipers." "The worst condemnation that Jesus has for anybody, I mean the worst, is for Pharisees," says Miller. "If you asked Jerry Falwell who the Pharisees are in our society, they can't point anybody out." There are no mirrors in Bush's church....

...In this sense, the Bush church is Antichristlike indeed. It is institutionalized deception, anti-American ugliness with a beguiling face, a neocon job. Only when necessary does it employ the perilous bald-faced lie, the outrageously transparent duplicity—the political equivalent of Robertson arguing that "Do unto others" indicates Christ's support of capitalist selfishness. More often, a smoothly dissembling surface is preferred. Rove notoriously emulates Machiavelli; the Christian right is a stealth movement, infiltrating school boards and mainstream churches and every institution of democracy like a thief in the night—in order to undermine, overthrow, and replace democracy with theocracy. Bush is the father of lies. The Union of Concerned Scientists proclaims Bush's lies about science "unprecedented." In With God on Their Side, Kaplan concludes, on mountainous evidence, "The goal is not to engage your opponents in the public square, but to kneecap them, or send them into exile."...

Friday, January 07, 2005



Understanding the Christian roots of my political depression
The Republican mix of piety, patriotism and fear works, but is lethal for America and Christianity.
by John Shelby Spong

THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION in New York City forced me to face the fact that my feelings about the Bush Administration have reached a visceral negativity, the intensity of which surprises even me. So I decided to search introspectively to identify its source. Is it simply runaway partisanship? That is certainly how it sounds to many who make that charge publicly, but that has not been my history. I did not react this way to other Republican presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or Reagan. My feelings are quite specifically Bush related....

...Only when I touched these wells of resentment, did I discover how deeply personal my feelings are about the Bushes. I grew up in the southern, religious world they seek to exploit. I went to a church that combined piety with segregation, quoted the Bible to keep women in secondary positions, and encouraged me to hate both my enemies and other religions, especially Jews. It taught me that homosexual people choose their lifestyle because they are either mentally sick or morally depraved. I hear these same definitions echoed in the pious phrases of those who want to "defend marriage against the gay onslaught." Are the leaders of this party the only educated people who seem not to know that their attitudes about homosexuality are uninformed? People no more choose their sexual orientation than they choose to be left-handed! To play on both ignorance and fear for political gain is a page lifted right out of the racial struggle that shaped my region. Racism simply hides today under new pseudonyms.

I lived in Lynchburg , Virginia , before Jerry Falwell rose to national prominence. He was a race baiting segregationist to his core. Liberty Baptist College began as a segregation academy. Super patriot Falwell condemned Nelson Mandela as a 'communist' and praised the apartheid regime in South Africa as a 'bulwark for Christian civilization.' I have heard Pat Robertson attack the movement to give equality to women by referring to feminists as Lesbians who want to destroy the family, while quoting the Bible to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The homophobic rhetoric that spews so frequently out of the mouths of these "Jesus preaching" right-wingers has been mentioned time and again as factors that encourage hate crimes.

I am aware that the former Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama , famous for his attempt to place a three-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in his Montgomery courthouse to the delight of southern preachers, is on record as saying that "homosexuality is inherently evil."

I lived through the brutality that greeted the civil rights movement in the South during its early days. Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta can tell you what it means to be beaten into unconsciousness on a "freedom ride." I remember the names of Southerners who covered their hate-filled racism with the blanket of religion to enable them to win the governors' mansions in the deep South: John Patterson and George Wallace in Alabama , Ross Barnett in Mississippi , Orville Faubus in Arkansas, Mills Godwin in Virginia and Strom Thurmond in South Carolina . I know the religious dimensions of North Carolina that kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for five terms. Now we have learned that Strom Thurmond, who protected segregation in the Senate when he could not impose it by winning the presidency in 1948, also fathered a daughter by an underage black girl. I know that Congressman Robert Barr of Georgia , who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1988, has been married three times. ! I know that Pat Robertson's Congressman in Norfolk , Ed Schrock, courted religious votes while condemning homosexual people until he was outed as a gay man and was forced to resign his seat.

I know that the bulk of the voters from the Religious Right today are the George Wallace voters of yesterday, who simply transformed their racial prejudices and called them "family values." That mentality is now present in this administration. It starts with the President, embraces the Attorney General John Ashcroft and spreads out in every direction.

I have known Southern mobs that have acted in violence against black people while couching that violence in the sweetness of Evangelical Christianity. I abhor that kind of religion. I resent more than I can express the fact that my Christ has been employed in the service of this mentality. My Christ, who refused to condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery; my Christ who embraced the lepers, the most feared social outcasts of his day; my Christ who implored us to see the face of God in the faces of "the least of these our brothers and sisters;" my Christ who opposed the prejudice being expressed against the racially impure Samaritans, is today being used politically to dehumanize others by those who play on base instincts....


Headin' for the big roundup
Having made two post-election jaunts to the red state hinterlands of Idaho and Montana, I'm back to report that, well, things are getting ugly out there. In some cases, really ugly.

I've been talking for some time about the course that eliminationist rhetoric on the right would eventually take by the force of its own nature: pretty soon we'd go from talking about liberals as traitors to overtly wishing for violence to be visited upon them and discussing locking them up, followed in due course by such violence and incarceration becoming a reality.

Well, it is now becoming a commonly spoken sentiment on the right to wish for violence against liberals and to simultaneously suggest they and all "traitors" (including Muslim Americans) should be locked away. We're firmly into Phase II now.

Now, you won't hear this talk on the upper levels of the conservative movement. People like William Bennett will call for a "national renewal" aimed at enforcing a new moral code, while Ann Coulter will explain to her readership, a la the title of her most recent "bestseller", that the "preferable" way to address a liberal is with "a baseball bat." [Ha ha. Whatsa matter, you don't think that's funny? Someone should beat you up.]

And if you talk to supposedly "reasonable" conservatives, who will claim that talk like this remains relegated to the fringes and is just so much "hot talk." I've been hearing this for a long time, but I keep hearing more and more of the eliminationist talk....


Apocalypse now: Dispatch from Iraq
Let me tell you about Nadia, a friend and colleague in Iraq. From May 2003 until last April she worked for a newspaper in Baghdad. Then two of its reporters were killed and its editor, after receiving repeated threats, fled the country. So Nadia was out of a job. She tried to keep busy doing translation work for various foreigners, but one was assassinated and two were kidnapped. Almost all the others left the country or were afraid to leave their homes.

Nadia’s family is Christian—members of the Chaldean Catholic Church, one of the oldest churches in the world. In that they are a bit atypical, since most Iraqis are Muslims. But in many ways their story is representative of families in Iraq’s middle class. They knew better than anyone the evils of Saddam Hussein. They thought that things could only get better after he was removed from power—that the greatest superpower in the history of the world would leave behind a new Iraq.

But then they saw American soldiers stand by as Iraq was looted. They watched as Iraq become infested with criminal gangs, made up of prisoners released by Saddam and newly unemployed soldiers. Garbage collectors began looking through the trash to see who was rich enough to rob. Baghdad, like all great Middle Eastern cities, had been a night city. People ate lunch at 4 p.m., supper at midnight, and shopped and visited friends and family till early morning. Now they stay home and watch TV or play dominoes and backgammon.

“When is the future?” Nadia asked me. “Thirty-five years of Saddam waiting for the future. And they say the Iraqis must be patient. We were patient as our husbands and brothers and sons went to three wars. Our patience has expired.”...

... The U.S. started this lawless, anarchic, slow-burn civil war. It didn’t have to invade. When it did, the soldiers didn’t have to stand around watching as Iraq was looted in May and June. They did, and the looting caused the initial hopes to be replaced by fear. Insurgents soon capitalized on and extended the fear, looting public buildings, libraries, universities, schools, hospitals, museums, and taking everything, right down to the copper pipes and the electric wire.

The U.S. didn’t have to disband the Iraqi army, leaving 350,000 well-trained, well-armed young men unemployed, but when it did, it created an instant enemy class and security threat. The U.S. had no plan for repairing the electrical, water and sanitation systems. (Actually, the State Department had a plan. In one Senate office, an aide showed me 15 fat volumes called the “Future of Iraq” project, representing months of work done by a State Department team led by Thomas Warrick. Two months before the war, however, responsibility was transferred from the Department of State to the Pentagon. Warrick was fired by Donald Rumsfeld on orders from Dick Cheney.)

Iraqis don’t know if the disaster is due to American malice or American incompetence. An official at the State Department said, in all earnestness, “What do we have to do to convince Iraqis that we aren’t malicious? We’re just stupid.” I am not sure if that is true. The people behind this war are not stupid. In a similar situation during the Vietnam war, David Halberstam said of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his colleagues: “They were brilliant, but they were fools.”

Wednesday, January 05, 2005


What are you watching on TV?
As we all know by now, Fox television is the home of traditional
family values, unimpeachable morality and conservative politics. We
know that because we've been told often enough by Fox's on-camera
personalities, including accused sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly. And
Fox's viewers -- many of whom are moral-values Bush voters --
obviously agree.

So perhaps there is something emotionally uplifting and morally
invigorating about the new unscripted Fox show, "Who's Your Daddy?",
scheduled to debut on Jan. 3. But for the life of me, I can't figure
out what it could be.

The premiere episode pits a woman who was adopted as an infant
against eight men, each of whom tries to persuade her that he is the
biological father she has never met. If she correctly picks her
biological father from among the imposters, she wins $100,000. If
she guesses incorrectly, the man who was able to deceive her gets
the $100,000. It's a new low in the exploitation of sensitive and
emotionally charged private matters for prurient viewing.

But then Fox pioneered the fine art of matching the basest human
emotions (greed, thirst for celebrity, the insatiable desire to view
public humiliation) with the most super-charged of human desires
(the longing for romance, the desire for beauty, the need for
familial acceptance) in so-called reality shows. Fox, after all,
gave American culture the appalling "Who Wants to Marry a
Multimillionaire?," a miasma of greed and deception that made a
mockery of marriage.

Fox has also been socked with a record-setting federal government
fine -- $1.2 million -- for violating decency standards on a show
called "Married by America." Last season, Fox introduced an
unscripted show about wife-swapping.

Those shows, like so many others of their ilk, were lapped up by the
red-state voters who claim to despise such cultural degradation.
Indeed, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. -- which owns both Fox News and
Fox Broadcasting Co. -- has created a stable of morally repugnant
programming because viewers flock to it. (Murdoch, an
ultraconservative who contributes heavily to GOP causes, worships
money above all else.)

An enduring paradox of our times is that the very people who enjoy
watching trashy television heap so much opprobrium on the machinery
that produces it....


Robertson: God "will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly"
On the January 3 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Reverend Pat Robertson, host and Christian Coalition of America founder, made predictions for the New Year based on what he said God told him during a recent prayer retreat. Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith." Robertson also said that he "heard it from the Lord" that President Bush will have Social Security and tax reform passed and that Muslims will turn to Jesus Christ....


Taking the Fight To Where They Live
The Rude Pundit has been on a weeklong visit to the deepest, darkest nether regions of Red State America. When he first arrived, he was greeted by car after car on the highway near the airport still sporting "George Bush for President" bumper stickers. The Rude Pundit is a listener, an eavesdropper. In plate lunch joints and bars, he heard the same things over and over: about how great it was that the President was tough enough to fight the terrorists in Iraq. Hell, the fuckin' newspaper here, in an end of 2004 story on the soldiers from this region, directly stated that the war in Iraq was about avenging 9/11. How do you counter that kind of localized propaganda? But, you know, there's something interesting that happens whenever you engage anyone who believes these things in a conversation: they get really, really defensive about Bush. And not in a coherent way. And not even in the knee-jerk-"I-support-my-President" kind of way. No, it's more of an "I don't wanna talk about it - shutupshutupshutup" kind of way, with ears covered and eyes clenched shut. In other words, they know. They know it's all been a huge failure. But they don't wanna know. And it's just easier to pretend that everything's fantabulous than face that horror, that abyss, of mistrust, of awareness of one's own complicity in the voting booth....

Christ Weary, Part 1
Christ Weary, Part 2
Christ Weary, Part 2 Cont'd
Christ Weary, Part 3
Christ Weary, Part 4
More Tales of the Christ Weary
Further Tales of the Christ Weary
Even More Tales of the Christ Weary
More and More Tales of the Christ Weary


Priorities
This is very telling. Throughout the last week, everybody from schoolkids to major newspapers have been collecting money for the victims of the tsunami or at least publicizing where people should send it.

Except for one group. The Christian Right. This article by Bill Berkowitz from December 30th showed that none of the major Christian Right groups such as Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition had mentioned anything on their web sites. I just checked all the links and as of January 3rd, 8:25 PST there is still nothing....

...It took President Bush three days to ready himself to go before the television cameras and make a public statement about Sunday's devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck southern Asia. Even though he was late, and much more money will be needed, the president pledged at least $35 million in aid to the victims of the disaster. But, as of December 30, some of the president's major family-values constituents have yet to be heard from: It's business as usual at the web sites of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and the Coral Ridge Ministries.

These powerful and well-funded political Christian fundamentalist organizations appear to be suffering from a compassion deficit. Organizations which are amazingly quick to organize to fight against same-sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, and embryonic stem cell research are missing in action when it comes to responding to the disaster in southern Asia. None of their web sites are actively soliciting aid for the victims of the earthquake/tsunami.

In fact, there is no mention of the giant earthquake and tsunami that devastated southern Asia. There are no headlines about the dead, injured or the tremendous damage; there are no urgent appeals for donations; there are no phone numbers to call; there are no links to organizations collecting money and providing aid for the victims....


Ugly Truths About Guantanamo
Somewhere in the U.S. government is the person who came up with the idea of fusing the wail of an infant with an incessant meow from a cat food commercial to torment detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees were also subjected to popular songs by the likes of Eminem and Rage Against the Machine. What Liberace would have done to an observant Muslim, I can only imagine, but it is a mad genius who realized that ordinary American culture can, with repeated exposure, be nearly lethal. God help us all.

In George Orwell's novel "1984," it was rats, as I recall, that were used to torture Winston Smith. It was not that the rats could do real physical damage; rather it was that Smith was phobic about them -- "his greatest fear, his worst nightmare" -- and so he succumbed, denounced his beliefs and even his girlfriend, and went back to his pub where he wasted his days drinking gin. This was Orwell's future, our present. ...


Dobson Distorts Faith, Threatens Democrats
Fundamentalist leader James Dobson reads from a small Bible, having shrunken the Christian moral agenda to the anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality issues.

Puffed up from President Bush’s election, Dobson now threatens to put six Democratic senators in “red states” in his “bull’s-eye” for defeat if they filibuster against conservative judicial nominees.

According to the New York Times, Dobson’s threatening letter listed Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, all of whom are up for re-election in 2006.

Both mainstream clergy and Democrats of faith need to push back against Dobson’s intimidation, albeit for different reasons.

For clergy, the driving reason to oppose Dobson is theological integrity. Dobson corrupts authentic Christian faith when he cuts down the Bible’s moral agenda to a few issues and then prioritizes those issues as the only ones by which to judge a public servant.

Based on the quantity of passages, the big Bible actually prioritizes different issues than Dobson does, such as caring for the poor, practicing integrity in the marketplace, treating strangers with hospitality, observing the Sabbath and telling the truth.

In addition to distorting the biblical witness, Dobson leads the nation into idolatry, making god-like something that is thoroughly secular. Dobson does this when he targets members of one political party, implying that GOP means God’s Only Party. Such idolatry represents the polar opposite of authentic faith....


1st court-martial begins in Tigris River death
Army sergeant faces charges in Iraqi's drowning

FORT HOOD - The first of seven courts-martial of Army troops accused of abusing Iraqi civilians and detainees got under way Monday with allegations that a soldier conspired to punish a curfew violator by forcing him to jump to his death into the Tigris River....


Total of U.S. wounded in Iraq tops 10,000
WASHINGTON — The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003 has surpassed 10,000, the Pentagon said today in a delayed update of its casualty data....


War Prospects for 2005
It's official, says the Weekly Standard, leading voice of America's brigades of pundit warriors (and, says The New York Times, "arguably the most influential opinion journal at the White House"): What America needs is more war. Never mind Mr. and Mrs. America (or Mr. and Mrs. Soldier), who may be tired of the seemingly endless bog down in Iraq, the over 1,300 dead and nearly 10,000 wounded Americans (and more almost every day).

We need more than just one more war—Americans love variety and choice, so the Rupert Murdoch-owned political mag has lately laid out a buffet of belligerence that should keep us satisfied all through the new year a-borning. In their Dec. 20, 2004, issue neocon strongman William Kristol himself calls for a smackdown on Syria, including aerial bombing and city-occupying. This comes on the heels of Nicholas Eberstadt's call for war on North Korea as a live option in Bush's second term in the magazine's November 29 issue. And, of course, Iran is still out there, and as a Nov. 28 report on the Standard's Web site reported, still needs to be dissuaded of its nuke ambitions by main force.

Whole lot-a warrin' going on in 2005 in the Standard's America....


Evangelical Elitists
The exclusive church where Washington's conservative power brokers pray very consciously aims its ministry at the ruling class

...There are no overhead projectors or Good News Bibles at The Falls Church. And that liquid in the communion chalice is Taylor's Vintage Port, not the grape juice they serve down the street at the Baptist church. "This isn't a watered-down mega church," observes Joseph Loconte, a Heritage Foundation fellow who has attended the church. "Theologically and aesthetically, it draws a certain kind of believer." One parishioner told me that, before discovering The Falls Church, "I had been to a number of evangelical churches, but frankly, I didn't relate to the people." Another confided that evangelical churches can be "kind of wacky," but that The Falls Church stands out because "the faith is more intellectually grounded."...

...The stress, however, is often on the power. While liberal churches preach about the dispossessed and evangelical churches focus on the unsaved, The Falls Church very consciously aims its ministry at the ruling class. Among other things, the church sponsors a fellowship program for recent college graduates that combines theological coursework with internships at lobbying firms and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. On the Sunday after the election, the rector, Rev. John Yates, gave a sermon on the idea that Christians are called to live their faith not only in private, but in their professional roles as well. The theme is central to the church's theology, if not the entire Christian conservative movement. "[Congregants] have a broader view of calling and vocation," says Loconte. "The committed Christian person is not necessarily called to work as a missionary or as a pastor, but perhaps is putting in 70-hour weeks at the White House."...


The Compassion of the Christ
Look a little closer at the “Jesus didn’t turn people away” ad and you see the central religious conflict of our time: literal versus metaphorical understanding....


Fighting the Right
Dr. Bruce Prescott, a leader in the fight against the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention:

We need to dispel the myth that Ch