Veterans Day on CNN

Let me go back for a moment.

On Veterans Day, on CNN, this smiley face came up with one of these sentences that seem to make sense as long as we don't stop to think too hard. It was along the lines of No matter where you stand on the Iraq War debate, you appreciate the sacrifice these soldiers are making to protect our freedom abroad.

And it's so easy to simply move on with our lives; to tell ourselves we oppose the war but support what the troops are doing for us, without ever asking what it is they are doing for us in Iraq. And who is this Us, anyway?

So allow me to make one side of this debate a bit clearer: No matter where we stand on the Iraq War debate, we all appreciate the fact that a lot of people are risking their lives for what they initially thought would help protect their country. And no matter where we stand, we all wish they come back home with no physical or mental scars. But as sad as it may be to admit this fact, we have to face reality: The soldiers in Iraq are not protecting freedom in the US, they're not making my life better and they're not making your lives better. And as long as they stay in Iraq, they sacrifice their lives in vain.

And the least we can do as we continue our struggle to end the madness is to keep them in our thoughts when they return and fight for their welfare here, so fewer of them will have to suffer over there.

Read Jon Town's story. As if it's not enough that their President and Congress betrayed them, the soldiers are now being betrayed by the military.

And let's put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

About Those Damn Mexicans

So there's this buzz going on right now on the left. Bush has made a political mistake and turned his so-called base against him. Some on Free Republic call for his impeachment. And I say, if only someone on Free Republic could spell impeachment...

Now's our chance. Finally we can get the higher ground by getting tough on immigration. We can take the Democratic Party away from the Move Ons and into victory by building this high wall and kicking immigrants back home. It's not just our right, it's our duty, now more than ever.

But why is that? We get our opinions or at least our water-cooler topics of conversation from the media. Why are we talking about immigration now and not four years ago? Simple. Four years ago we were busy debating the sanctity of marriage. Why haven't we talked about illegal immigration twenty years ago? Because we were talking about crack cocaine. Why haven't we been talking about damn Mexicans until now? Because we were talking about AIDS. And about hunger in Ethiopia. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Iran and Lybia and Vietnam and inner-city violence and drugs and the morality of euthanasia.

And now? We have endless wars all over this crumbling planet, inner-city violence rises and wage decreases, people still go hungry due to economic policy dictated by the greed of the few, and people still die of AIDS. Yet somehow we dare talk about illegal immigration.

They're destroying our culture and our way of life - What culture are you talking about? I don't like to watch cars driving around in circles. I don't like backyard fireworks. I don't like wrestling. But it doesn't destroy my culture, just like my activities don't destroy your culture. When they cancel a Nascar race for an emergency discussion about Nabokov we'll talk. Meanwhile, drink your beer and shut up.

Security!!! Now more than ever!!! - It's been said before and I hate to repeat the obvious here, but the 9/11 attack wasn't done by illegal immigrants. This country was relatively safe without a wall, and it will continue to be relatively safe. People die from preventable car accidents, from an ill-conceived war on drugs, from poverty and hunger and even from boredom-driven suicide. People die. It's a fact of life.

They're stealing our jobs - Spend more time looking for a job rather than going online. Go to school and learn a trade. Become a philosopher. And what's so wrong about having people driven to work and succeed in a country that has lost its sense of self-pride? Democrats love to put their heads in the sand and hope for the best. They apologize to people in other countries, saying "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him." But they're just as guilty as the Free Republican ignorant xenophobes, because one day they woke up, and not knowing why, they said, "Maybe he does have those weapons." The next morning they woke up and said, "I'm all for equal rights, but why do they have to call it marriage?" And yesterday they woke up, after five hundred years of illegal immigrants coming to this country, and they said,

They don't even speak English - Then teach them. Help them. You'll feel better about yourself in the morning.

Tony Blair's Legacy - A PostGlobal Comment

Wrote a comment on PostGlobal. It's on the main page for now, which is pretty cool, I suppose:

I was living in London when Blair became Prime Minister. I remember the May Day celebrations that year. Finally, we all thought, finally we have one of us in charge. He was a man of the people, talking about labor rights, and about prosperity for all, and about education, education, education--meaning a reform of the public school system to ensure England would be again a world-leader. This was not to be achieved through colonialism and violent control over other countries' resources, but by looking after England's own resources: the future generation of scientists and thinkers, brought up by the public school system.

Then he put his son in a private school, and his moment was gone. He was no longer a man of the people, but one of the "Them" young people hated so much and overwhelmingly voted off power. He smiled his way into power, courting us all with the image of reform, but in the end we didn't matter at all.

His son went to a private school and England's children went to Iraq. That will be Blair's legacy. He rose up to power due to hatred of corrupt government only to redefine corruption. He gave us hope that our children were special, and then he sent them to die.

Hey, Everyone Else is Doing the Imus Thing

Alec Baldwin wants to know why, even though we're in the middle of a war in Iraq and a struggle against the Bush crooks at home people still obsess about Imus. In his words:

[T]his Imus crap is just another distraction from what really matters. The Attorney General may be a corrupt, lying hitman for the Bush-Cheney junta. The war is a disaster that is being prolonged in order to potentially embarrass Democrats in 2008. Global warming is now recognized as a major and looming emergency by literally everyone on Earth but the White House

Yet African American people continue to talk about "the Imus crap." So, what's going on here? Are they so easily distracted? Don't THEY know there's a war on?

Or maybe they're just so sick of this momentary spotlight on our inherent social problems that they wish maybe this time it will last for more than a week; maybe this time we'll talk about black men's treatment of black women, about elitist media that rather than face its own race problem spends its time--now more than ever--condemning hip hop music, about the problem that will not go away until we deal with it.

But It won't happen. Not yet. Not as long as for every Imus in the Morning we have a hundred Glenn Becks in the evening. And for every racist comment made in public, we have a million racist comments made in private.

Eric Cantor!!! You Eagle Nose Douchebag!!!

Following a link from Eschaton, I visited a Think Progress post about Eric Cantor's partisan and ridiculous attack on Nancy Pelosi, where he asks his supporters to call House Democrats and let them know how angry they are about Pelosi.

I couldn't help posting a comment on Cantor's site:

Mr. Cantor, how's the "Stop Pelosi" thing going for you so far?

Don't listen to all these Liberals who are angry at you for not mentioning the Republican traitors. Stick to truthiness.

And one more thing, I tried calling the numbers above to let them know what I think but everyone on the other line speaks Arabic now. NANCY!!! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!

Problem is, comments are moderated on Cantor's site, which means that now the comment above has been changed to this:

Don’t listen to all these Liberals. Stick it to them.

Is that even legal?



Update: Five hours later, the altered comment has now been taken completely off the site. However, Argonaut's altered comment is still there, changed from this:

Dear Eric; I just called my congressmen like you wanted me to. I told him that I completely support everything Ms. Pelosi has done since January 20th. I did not tell him what a wanker you are, so your secret is safe for now.

To this:

I just called my congressman like you wanted me to. I told him that I want ms. pelosi to stop everything she has done since Jan 20th.

On the Israel-Lebanon War and the Possible US Escalation in Iraq (or, Just Say No)

A short while ago I wrote a post about my army service in the West Bank. This wasn't simply a redemption piece but also an attempt to reflect on the situation American soldiers face in Iraq. Like them, I was certain I was doing the right thing, and like them, I thought everything I was doing was done in the (self-)defense of my country. Similarly, the implications of the recent Israeli war in Lebanon should be considered with Iraq in mind.

Like the US, the Israeli army was undoubtedly going in with superior military force for what was supposed to be a short offensive, and like in Iraq, it was immediately shown to be a mistake. Many Israeli soldiers died, attacks on Israeli civilians increased, and radical Islamic forces legitimized their relative control. A month into the conflict, the Israeli government was forced to choose what many considered the best of two evils: a retreat or an escalation.

Now, as Americans are divided about the future in Iraq, and as Democratic hopefuls are still afraid of saying the US should leave immediately, it is important to see what happened after the Israeli army left Lebanon. First, and most importantly, the number of casualties on both sides, including civilians, was about 2000 for the one month of conflict (between mid-July and mid-August of 2006). There is no reason to think this trend would have decreased if the fighting had continued at the same pace, and an escalation would have undoubtedly only increased the number of fatalities.

Second, as one of the reasons for remaining in Iraq is a flawed domino theory that scares us into thinking a retreat would destroy American prestige and, more importantly, its power of deterrence, we can first look at the current situation, where the war has created a diminishing American military might, encouraging other nations to rise up, at least rhetorically, against US hegemony. And second, we need to look again at Israel. Retreating after one month from the Lebanon mistake did not diminish Israeli hegemony in the region. If anything, Israel has since regained the power it had lost during the war. Moreover, while the war helped legitimize the Hezbollah, its victory did not create the nightmare scenario the Israeli government was advancing before the war to convince the public this was a no-choice war. Neither Hezbollah nor Syria have any more control over the Lebanese government then they did before, and the risk of Israeli destruction or of future attacks has not grown.

When Democratic hopefuls are asked about their solution for the war, they often either avoid the question by stating the obvious (It's Bush's mess), or endorse a phased, "dignified" withdrawal. This is not enough, not anymore. When the Republican keyboard warriors come with catchy, meaningless slogans like Cut-and-Run, the answer should be Study the Israel-Lebanon War. Sure, it's not as catchy, but it happens to be the truth. When the Israeli government chose retreat over escalation, it put the safety of its citizens first and political prestige second. The future leaders of America should have the courage to do the same.

Should prostitution be legal anywhere?

Gave my two cents again:

Who are we kidding? In our hypocritical war for the preservation of perceived values we don't dare legalize prostitution (or drugs, for that matter). After all, why risk the wrath of the blind conservatives who are unable to see themselves as "the other" when we can let people do what they want while keeping the right to take them into custody whenever we choose and hide them in our leper-colony-like prisons.

How does a prostitute view the system? How does she view us who go online to debate the legality of her life like the Gods in Acropolis, high and mighty with our borrowed opinions based on borrowed world-views? Where were we when her father abused her? Where were we when she failed her exams? Where were we when advertisements promised her a life she would never have? Where were we when she lost her life opportunities? Where were we when she made a beautiful drawing above a beautifully written journal entry? Where were we when she wanted to learn to play an instrument? Where were we when she had a chance to be somebody? Where were we when she grew up to face a choice between making an easy five hundred a day or making $6.50 an hour in McDonald's?

Should prostitution be legal? I have a better question: How come prostitution is illegal while giving people $6.50 an hour is legal? And how long can we keep pretending we all have choices in this world?

Character Assassination

Following a story published by Greg Garland in the Baltimore Sun and picked up by various papers in the DC/Baltimore area, it looks as though Kenneth Montague has finally been defeated. The latest smear piece in Garland's personal vendetta implies Montague has used his position as the Secretary of Juvenile Services in Maryland for a coast to coast dream vacation.

There are no outright lies in Garland's character assassination. This is merely an insinuation of corruption, nothing more. Nothing libelous in here.

So what do we have here? Actually, it's easier to see what we don't have in this story. There are no lobbyist-sponsored golf trips and no private jets. There are no brown envelopes and no Jacuzzis overflowing with champagne. What we do have is the story of a Democrat appointed by a Republican for the nearly impossible job of revamping a huge bureaucracy while fending off political punches from Democrats and Republicans on the one hand, and trying his best to do a job while a reporter builds a career out of smear pieces on the other hand.

At some point, after repeated, politically motivated attacks, Ehrlich had made a decision to ignore The Sun. Determined to concentrate on the job at hand, Montague also refused to speak to the Sun. Then the attacks begun.

There were stories of overcrowding and fights in juvenile detention facilities. Some were true, most occurred before Ehrlich and O'Malley took over, all were sensationalized by Garland while any attempt to reform a broken system was ignored. There were other stories involving courageous whistle blowing inspectors who told Garland about the terrible conditions they found. Small details such as Ehrlich and Montague ordering these reports were ignored. That findings did not take later reforms into consideration was also ignored.

Ehrlich lost the elections, but Montague was still a candidate to continue to be the Secretary under O'Malley. Garland and the editors of The Sun could not see that happen. So they dug deep into the files, searching for a hidden Abramoff or a Duke Cunningham, or at least a small vacation on a cruise ship to the Bahamas. Surely they could get something.

To their disappointment, The Sun's researchers could only find learning trips, each with its itinerary and learning points well documented in neat folders. Still, what the hell, The Sun went with the piece. After all, if there wasn't a scandal, they were going to create one. It didn't matter that other Maryland State Secretaries joined Montague in these conferences, and it didn't matter that other states' Juvenile Services Secretaries were there. All the Sun needed to finish Montague's career was a non-story; a hint of corruption which never existed was enough. While Montague was busy traveling from one city to another, bringing ideas and solutions back to Maryland, The Sun was busy destroying him. Finally, it looks like they may have succeeded.

Kenneth Montague resigned today.

On Faith: Is the Iraq war "just"?

President Bush is preparing this week to send more troops to Baghdad. Do you believe there is such a thing as a "just war"? Is the Iraq war "just"?

Interesting that you pose a question about Bush's plans in a column about faith, because only those who think of Bush as a god believe this plan will work. Those who have faith in peace, those who have faith in justice, and those who have faith in truth never wanted this war.

As to the issue of a just war, we should only base our judgments on specific acts, not on vague words. The war on drugs turns otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and creates a lucrative but deadly underground business, but the war on poverty wishes to elevate people in accordance with humane standards.

The problem, of course, appears when we discuss WWII. But again, we must review what WWII was that the Iraq war isn't. If WWII was about saving a nation, three continents, and the conscience of the US, the war in Iraq is the exact opposite: The nation we were supposed to help is now suffering even more, the continent we were supposed to stabilize is in total chaos, and the American people who see the way events unfold in their name and with their money find it hard to stare at their collective reflection.

Tali Fahima is Free

“You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.” -- Yitzhak Rabin


In a holy land far away, 30 year-old Tali Fahima is free again, after spending more than two years in jail for "meeting enemy agents and passing information to them." Although Fahima admitted to this charge in a plea deal, this was quite a reduction from the initial charge of planning a terrorist attack in Israel. If anything, the reduction in charges and the relatively quick release of a person initially branded a first-rate traitor make Fahima's side of the story seem very plausible. She admits to meeting the Islamic Jihad member, Zakaria Zubeidi, because she had been curious to learn about her supposed enemy, but denies involvement in terrorist attacks. She also denies the Israeli Secret Service portrayal of her as a "terrorist's whore" who was, according to Israeli media reports pregnant with Zubeidi's child.

After the deliberate propaganda attacks on Fahima's character, done with the aim of delegitimizing all attempts for grass-roots conversations with perceived enemies. In a place with relatively justified fear, fueled by suicide bombings, Hezbollah rockets, and in part by a long history of persecution, it's no wonder many in Israel still see Fahima as a back-stabbing traitor. But in a place with so much propaganda, where in fact, so much is determined upon public opinion and public support for a military draft to get soldiers to maintain the Palestinian territories, it's refreshing to find many supporters of Fahima's attempt to understand for herself what the hell is really going on around her, and what is being done to others in her name.

Here are some translated comments from the Maariv newspaper website. This is just a selection to show both sides. In reality most comments were written against Fahima, but as you'll see, there's not much content in these comments. A Right-Wing nutcase is the same everywhere in the world:

Not only she's a traitor, she's also ugly and stupid.

A real hero who has paid dearly for her struggle against the occupation.

Only an Arab will touch this ugly monkey.

An amazing woman. A true idealist.

If you care so much about Palestinians why don't you just become a Muslim?

Tali is a special woman with real principals and a true wish to reach a peaceful solution.

No Jew wanted her so she went to an Arab.

Well done for the courage to walk this difficult path for what her beliefs. From the beginning it was clear she was didn't do anything wrong. She was never a threat to Israeli security, only to the way Israelis think.

Just looking at her makes me sick.

Tali, well done for your courage to take on yourself the obvious consequences of walking tall against the grain, the courage of declaring the emperor has no clothes and the entire history of Israeli security is nothing but a deliberate crime, the courage to ignore the right-wing, militant, blind public, the courage to try to understand the motives behind those being occupied sacrificing their doomed lives, the courage to stand against the Israeli Secret Service and their media partners, the courage to expose the Israeli Secret Service torture mechanism, the courage to pay the price alone. You deserve all the praise you get.

Anyone who opposes the policy of air rockets on Palestinian militants is risking the life of my family and my own life. We should have killed the traitor terrorist Fahima.

My Weekend Round Up - Wesley Snipes Included

A quick recap after getting a new job, a visit to New Orleans, and a Christmas parade. Finally time to look at the news:

• Hastert has been negligent, but apparently not criminally negligent. You can't be responsible for stuff when you turn your head the other way, can you?

• Bush does an impersonation of the three monkeys by putting his hands on his eyes, his ears, and his mouth when the Iraq Study Group Report comes up.

• Conservative bloggers leave their mouths open. They don't like the report; it seems to contradict the idea that God put Bush in the White House. It contradicts the idea that the US is invincible.

• Speaking of USA Number One: The U.S. has the most prisoners in the world.

"The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow citizens," said Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, which supports alternatives in the war on drugs.

• Wesley Snipes?

• Fiji, anyone?

• As part of his final farewell world tour, Rumsfeld says a victory depends on staying power. Immediately after his speech, he gets the hell out.

Wish me luck on my new job. In return, I will wish you luck. One hand washes another. Reciprocity is what this world is all about.

Global Power -- A PostGlobal Response

Here's my answer to the PostGlobal Blog question:



From where you write, who's gaining power, who's losing it, and who is coming in fast from the outside?

China has been the big winner in international politics, silently making its way as a global power in an emerging new cold war. The signs are all here, with second and third-world countries allying themselves with China in direct opposition to the US.

Meanwhile, while President Bush is losing the American popular vote, the US is losing the popular vote abroad. It used to be that in the American continent only Cuba dared to form alliances against the US, but now it's the popular thing to do. North Korea and Iran, strengthened since Bush's Axis-of-Evil speech, flaunt their defiance at the US and at the ever-weakening UN.

And who can blame them?

But there is hope for a peaceful existence for the citizens of the US, Venezuela, China, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and Iraq. That hope lies in bold leadership in all of these countries, and an active effort to reform the UN. Right now, though, all we have is opportunistic power-grabbers on all sides and a UN stuck with creating empty resolutions used cynically to bring forth an agenda of destruction instead of the promotion of peace.

The US veto power must be checked, as well as that of countries actively involved in supporting militant organizations. Otherwise, the cycle of violence will continue forever, and the real losers in the global arena will continue to be--as they've always been--the people.

The Soul of the Democratic Party

It's been a while without much writing. I wish I could say I've been working on the final touches of my NaNoWriMo but it's been more like post-election fatigue. Here we were, pushing and pushing as hard as we could, arguing our points online and during family dinners, hoping America was tired of war and corruption, and here we are now, the winners, like Dustin Hoffman at the end of The Graduate, asking ourselves "What now?"

So it's not easy, the sinking feeling that even if things change they will take their sweet time doing so. After all, we're dealing with huge bureaucracies filled with constant power struggles and tailored for a system that protects a status quo many of us don't believe in, no matter who is in the majority.

They will tell us things take time, and they will threaten us with insignificance when we get impatient. "Remember Lamont," they will say. They will point their fingers at us and say we sit on the margins of public opinion; the flip-side of the far Right.

But in spite of it all, we must continue our work to pull the Democratic Party away from the so-called middle and into a defined position on issues we care about.

After three years of membership in Democratic Underground, I had to get away after a comment I made was deleted. I dared to criticize a Democratic candidate who is an opportunistic career politician. This man, who destroyed his Democratic opponent and used corrupt and racist policies to fight his Republican opponent didn't deserve our votes. I called for people to stay home. My comment wasn't simply argued against; it was deleted. Apparently, no one needed to hear this kind of argument, or as Skinner, the founder of DU wrote me, "Our policies are clear about telling people not to vote for the Democratic candidate."

This is what we should fight against, first within ourselves and later in public: We do not support the Democratic Party's agenda because we support the Party; we support the Party because its values closely resemble our own. We must fight for the soul of the Democratic Party to keep it from moving to the Right. We must stay away from Tony Blair's "Third Way Labor Party," an empty political entity with no values and no backbone. We must reject Democratic leaders who will vote to ban gay marriage and abortions, we must reject those supporting an increase for defense spending for endless, pointless wars. Now that the Democratic Party has won the election it's time we won back the Democratic Party.

Only by standing up for our values rather than blindly following our Party leaders do we stand a chance of influencing the way the Democratic Party looks in the future; only by singling out and kicking out Democrats by-name-only do we stand a chance of the Democratic Party not becoming a party of Liebermans. Only by keeping our struggle do we have a chance of making history.

Advice for Leaders

Another Washington Post blog question:

What one recommendation would you make to the members of the U.S. House and Senate who will be elected Tuesday?

Now, being a busy man, I'm afraid I didn't have time to write recommendations for Tuesday's election, so instead, I cut-and-paste the recommendations I made in the previous elections. I hope that's okay:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been a great pleasure to see you in your hour of victory.

Now listen: I know it's hard to be a part of a system; a giant bureaucracy. I also know you may have to make some hard choices, at times vote against the immediate needs of the people. That's understandable. I will also look the other way when you support or oppose legislation along party lines if you believe that in the long run it will benefit the state, the country, and even the world. Go ahead, take a golf trip with a lobbyist; if you're going to talk business, you might as well do it in style, that's what I say. If you oppose the war but feel that going public with your opinions might be bad for your Party, rethink your opinions. Anyway, your opinion about the war is just an opinion, and nobody cares what you think--you represent the people, not your own personal ideology, and pollsters say your voters support the war, so you may as well be silent. It's not like you know anyone serving in Iraq, so what do you care anyway?

The next advice is not for all of you, so if you're straight feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Now, all you closeted lawmakers, nobody will ever know. This is the same advice I give Evangelical leaders, so you know it's a good one. Feel free to shout in public that gay people ruin America and that marriage is a holy institution given to us by God for some reason. Take a megaphone and drive around town calling homosexuals depraved sinners. It's for the good of the country. Trust me.

Now, about immigration... I know a large society is built on the sweat of cheap labor. The biggest open secret no one cares about. And I know you know about all that and I know you don't care. Still, for the sake of your party make an effort. Call for a fence. An electronic fence, what the hell. Don't worry, it's impossible to stop illegal immigration, so spreading xenophobia must be a victimless crime.

Sell your office to the highest bidder, lie your way to leadership posts, ride on the backs of people with dying family members and give them false hopes, support an endless war, look the other way when civil rights are taken away to be replaced by propaganda and media consolidation, let the eagle soar. If Bush and Chaney say it's good, that's good enough for me and should be good enough for you. No one ever achieved anything by being contrarian. Look what happened to Jesus, for Christ's sake.

And most importantly, have fun. After all, this won't last forever.

Ted Haggard's Letters from Home

I know it's a terrible sin to kick a man when he's down, especially someone with so much inner torment and self-delusion, but this guy, who calls Bush the great liberator of the Islamic world, well... it's still inexcusable. Sorry.


Ted Haggard quotes from Letters from Home, a collection of letters to his teenage children:

Actually, you two are already a source of strength. I can see it in your friends when they come over to our home. They see you as stable, consistent people. They trust you. When they have no idea what their own parents are doing, they know that our home is a safe place. They can depend on the fact that there is security and love here. They can tell that no one is nervous or deceptive.

Some of your friends will be in sexual trouble. . . . Others will forfeit their lives because of their lack of self-control and may lose themselves in drugs and alcohol.

Here is the basic idea: Everything in your life is public. There are no secrets. Everything you say, everything you do, everyplace you go, every thought you think is going to be known by all. So if you want to do something that you'll have to keep secret, don't do it. If you want to say something that you'll have to ask people to keep secret, don't say it. Don't believe the lie that you can ever say something, do something, go somewhere or think things that others won't know about. People who believe in secrets are people who ultimately fail.

Every time you hear that thought in your head or have someone tell you, "Let's do it-no one will ever find out," you can be sure that whatever you're considering is not worth doing.

One lie, one drink, one rendezvous, one pill, one joint, one look, one time. Yeah! Sure! Really? I don't think so.

Most of the things that happen to us are a result of the seeds that we have sown. Sometimes these seeds sprout quickly; other times they take years before producing a harvest. But they always produce.

Haggard has just stepped down from the Presidency of The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). If he trusts his own faith, he shouldn't worry too much, as the NAE states:

We further call upon pastors and theologians, along with medical and sociological specialists with the Christian community to expand research on the factors which give rise to homosexuality and to develop therapy, pastoral care and congregational support leading to complete restoration.

Good luck, Ted.

Should Homosexuals be Allowed to Marry?

Here's a copy of my response to the Washington Post blog question, "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?"

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Actually, the word Allowed implies a power issue that should not be there in the first place. Who are the we that allow or forbid another group of people from marrying? Are we the majority? Does our power to allow or forbid come from the fact there are simply more of us out there?

And even if the power to allow comes from numerical superiority, isn't it our greatest task as a Democracy to maintain the rights of minorities, as Tocqueville maintained nearly 200 years ago, warning us to avoid a dictatorship of the majority?

The only question is, then, what exactly is the threat? The children, of course.

However, the same people that avoid one scientific proof after another for global warming will wave in your face a study by a social scientist claiming a child needs a mom and a dad.

The same people that cry over the number of unwanted, out-of-wedlock babies will tell you that a baby raised by a married gay couple, which clearly worked harder than heterosexual couples to have that baby, will be neglected and mentally abused.

They will tell you the child will have a better chance of growing up gay. Well, even if we take that into consideration, there is only one remaining question in this debate: Is growing up gay a bad thing? They will tell you that Yes, the life of a gay person is difficult, mainly because he or she will not have the same rights heterosexual people have.

And here the paradox is complete. By taking away the rights of homosexuals we give reason to this denial of rights. The majority in Europe denied Jews land ownership and then complained when Jews turned to money lending. The majority denied African slaves an education and then treated them like animals with no learning capacity. Similarly, the majority now wants to deny homosexuals the right to marry in order to protect children from growing up as an underclass. The solution seems very simple. Now can we concentrate on getting out of Iraq?

On the Republican Base

There is a slight fear; a slight deja vu feeling to it all. Here we are, two years later, and events seem to be repeating themselves:

Most people are against the war and critical about the way it has been run by Rumsfeld, and even a seemingly good economy doesn't mean a thing to most struggling Americans.

Yet, just like two years ago, with gay marriage in the news, is the topic of conversation about to be changed again?

You can bet Rove was celebrating the New Jersey Court decision of last week. Here was finally what the Republicans have been hoping for since Bush's "I have a mandate" speech backfired and started the downfall of the Republican Party. Here was, finally, a hope of restoring the faith of the Republican base.

But much has changed in the last two years, which makes the New Jersey decision meaningless for Republicans, and this is clearly evident in debates and Republican talking points: While in 2004 the GOP was successful in creating an illusion of positive All-American values, the topics of conversation are different now.

They try to scare voters with threats of taxes, trying to paint themselves again as the party of laissez-faire small government, but ask any Republican who had invested money and time on gambling websites and it's evident that the GOP is now considered by a majority of Americans the Big Brother party. Billions of Dollars in deficit is not something they can hide with threats of taxes or with speeches about trickle-down theories. The more they mention taxes the more people think about what the last six years have done to the country's economy and the more hypocritical they all seem.

Speaking of hypocrisy: between a book detailing the contempt Republican leaders feel for religious leaders and daily scandals involving Republicans, it is clear the religious "base" is not motivated anymore. "If we mobilize all our voters, we'll do well on Election Day," says John Boehner. Well Mr. Boehner, you should have thought about that before you gave away the government to lobbyists and mobsters, before you let pedophiles ruin the lives of children, before you let incompetent fools run FEMA and the Pentagon, before you gave the Vice President a gun permit, before you claimed a brain-dead woman smiled at her birthday as you let thousands drown in New Orleans.

John Boehner and Carl Rove want to mobilize the base, and they hope a threat of gay marriage will do that, but when people who actually feel threatened by the prospect of gay marriages have two parties to chose from, they cannot vote for the party of scandals and world-wide destruction. The days of the Republican Party base are over.

The Vietnamization of Iraq - On Today's Press Conference

They still call it "the liberation of Iraq" and "the defining challenge of our era."

They used to say timetable was a dirty word but now they say "Success in Iraq is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable."

They call the corrupt government "a beacon for the entire Middle East."

They use euphemisms like adapt and adjust, as well as assess and alter.

Then they tap each other's back and say, "we have continuously adapted to stay ahead of the enemy and to ensure that our service men and women have the proper tools and support they need to accomplish their missions."

They talk about 12 to 18 months.

But we all know what's really going on here, don't we?

For a moment, we can at least be content knowing we were right all along: that the Iraq war was a terrible idea and that maybe humanity has learned that wars in general cannot be won in this age. But two points need to be clear:

1. Iran is mentioned five times and Syria seven times. Our generals have learned nothing, and they seem to be eager to continue their crusade.
2. People are still dying for nothing, and will continue to die for nothing while the US is in Iraq. We can't wait 12-18 months. Like Kerry said before he became a politician and had to be more careful not to upset anyone,

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

And finally, many people are torn. Is Bush an idiot or a madman? Are we experiencing another Vietnam-era tactic resurgence, namely, the Madman Theory?

A School Opens in the USA, Yet the Media Focuses on Republican Scandals. Typical.

Weekend Edition

Foley's excuse, Rev. Macaca, admits he'd done something wrong, but he's not quite sure what it was. He was just a little bit too high. Damn.

The Great-Centrist-Hope threatens to kill himself if Democrats win the election, yet fails to support a Republican, leaving him hanging with a sign and an empty promise... Just because he's involved with the Foley cover-up.

We were about to settle down and reflect on the Republican Scandal of the Week, involving a corrupt family in a Republican stronghold, a whistle-blowing campaign staffer, Serbians, the Russian mob, Kuwaiti businessmen, money laundering, and real estate.

But then, of course, another day, another October surprise: the FBI searches the office of a California Republican congressional candidate to find the source of a letter threatening immigrants with possible deportation if they try to vote. The letter was written in Spanish, which is very considerate.

But the FBI can't leave those poor Republicans alone for a second. Here's another investigation. This time the man received classified information, put it in an ad, and then denied knowing it was illegally obtained, saying "he did not know how the information was obtained, but that if it was done illegally, whoever did it should be held responsible." Yea...

With all these FBI investigations and cover-ups and scandals and the terrible month in Iraq, one has to ask oneself, why doesn't the media report on the good things that happened last week? I'm sure somewhere in the US there was a school opening, right? And what about the pseudo punk winning Project Runway? And the Baltimore Flugtag? IE7? Keith Urban is in rehab, shouldn't that be at the top of the news? Isn't it time for Janet Jackson to expose another nipple?

Another View From the Right

Ten soldiers were killed today in Iraq and the Right is not afraid to talk about it!

Michelle Malkin attacks Angelina Jolie while giving us the real reason behind the war:

You want to talk about wasted resources? That $10 billion Saddam Hussein siphoned off in the U.N. Oil-for-Food debacle could have fed a lot of hungry people...

Malkin brings up the Oil-for-Food scandal. I guess that makes the war worth it. Here we have the new justification for war: not WMDs, 9/11 connection, or reverse domino theory, no. We went to war in Iraq because Saddam reportedly stole $10 billion Dollars.

What else?
LGF talks about Iraq, especially about the great work the government (sorry, the anonymous Iraqi exiles' group) is doing in the war against terror, specifically targeting suicide bombers. An ad, produced by an LA company and filmed with American actors, shows the effect of suicide bombings Matrix style. That's a step in the right direction for winning hearts and minds in the Middle East. Now, if only we can rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, all while putting an end to the civil war, ridding the country of US-installed corrupt officials, ressurecting 655,000 people, and oh, getting the hell out of there.

And of course you can always count on Free Republic to bring out the irony lover in you. Discussing a speech by Rumsfeld:

You can not help but come away positive and upbeat to know that such a man is at the top of the military under a President who knows what the military is for and how well it does what its mission is...whatever that may be.