"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
Sound familiar?
Which of the following made the above quote: President George W. Bush, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge, or Secretary of State Colin Powell?
The correct answer is none of the above. It was Adolph Hitler in 1922, writing about the creation of the German Gestapo.
This piece of trivia [hardly!] was sent to me by my wonderful niece-in-law, Amanda. She's a psych student at USC with a talented sideline as the photographer for USC's Daily Trojan [and also a damn fine photographic artist in her own right]. Love you, Amanda, and thanks!
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Unleashing the Patriotic Church
Wow! These few excerpts were taken from a Progressive Blog Alliance article, HITLER’S POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY. The writer, Douglas William Krieger, is quite verbose and could use a good editor, but he makes a mean case for a meaner America. Check these excerpts out.
...Ultimately, a lie told long enough, and amplified to the uttermost, resounds with familiarity—YE SHALL BE AS GODS, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL! This original deceit confounded our original forebears. This is no ordinary lie—it is THE LIE...
...In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi terminology) adopted a twenty-five-point program with the clear intent to persuade the German people that "positive Christianity" was in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Party—i.e., the Party fully embraced the morality of Christianity and that Christianity was viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants were considered as the foundation of German Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraced both as one)....
[READ: In the 2000s, Bush's Republican Party (pre dictatorship terminology) has adopted a program with the clear intent to persuade the American people that "positive Christianity" is in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Republican Party—i.e., the Republican Party fully embraces the morality of Christianity and that Christianity is viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants are considered as the foundation of American Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraces both as one). -- my input]
...Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of blending "faith with politics." ...
...Note that Hitler claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Jews who harass his people, like Jesus did. The German people, according to Hitler, were being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Hitler's identification as a Christian was one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he under girded the German people in their predisposition to anti-Semitism, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Solution."...
[READ: Note that Bush [et al.] claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Unbelievers who harass his people, like Jesus did. The American people, according to Bush, are being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Bush's identification as a Christian is one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he undergirds the American people in their predisposition to anti-everyone else, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Theocracy." --my input]
..."It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity."---Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925...
...The unity of the Church is a recurrent message delivered by Hitler. His object, of course, was "against the power"—i.e., the international Jewish conspiracy against the Church, and, of course, the German people and the world in general. The technique of solidifying the churches into the "Hammer of God" was a strategy that appealed to the vast majority of German Christians. That he would see in them such an instrument of righteous indignation was commending—both to them as the object of his insight, and to himself for his discernment of such...
...It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle “against evil” within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!...
...[W]e see the ultimate FOE of today’s Christianity lurks behind the fanaticism of an "evil religion"—notwithstanding the ecumenical protestations to the contrary—the CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG: This is a CRUSADE! Let freedom ring within the 10/40 corridor! At last, a leader that understands what real freedom is all about—for true freedom is RELIGIOUS in nature and outlook. Religious freedom is at the heart and soul of whatever freedom can possibly mean—without it, there is no freedom! A united Church is the most critical tool in forging a nation's will in the spread of this freedom—and in subduing every militant foe that would come against us.
[I only got about a 1/4 of the way through the article...Yikes!]
...Ultimately, a lie told long enough, and amplified to the uttermost, resounds with familiarity—YE SHALL BE AS GODS, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL! This original deceit confounded our original forebears. This is no ordinary lie—it is THE LIE...
...In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi terminology) adopted a twenty-five-point program with the clear intent to persuade the German people that "positive Christianity" was in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Party—i.e., the Party fully embraced the morality of Christianity and that Christianity was viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants were considered as the foundation of German Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraced both as one)....
[READ: In the 2000s, Bush's Republican Party (pre dictatorship terminology) has adopted a program with the clear intent to persuade the American people that "positive Christianity" is in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Republican Party—i.e., the Republican Party fully embraces the morality of Christianity and that Christianity is viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants are considered as the foundation of American Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraces both as one). -- my input]
...Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of blending "faith with politics." ...
...Note that Hitler claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Jews who harass his people, like Jesus did. The German people, according to Hitler, were being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Hitler's identification as a Christian was one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he under girded the German people in their predisposition to anti-Semitism, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Solution."...
[READ: Note that Bush [et al.] claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Unbelievers who harass his people, like Jesus did. The American people, according to Bush, are being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Bush's identification as a Christian is one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he undergirds the American people in their predisposition to anti-everyone else, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Theocracy." --my input]
..."It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity."---Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925...
...The unity of the Church is a recurrent message delivered by Hitler. His object, of course, was "against the power"—i.e., the international Jewish conspiracy against the Church, and, of course, the German people and the world in general. The technique of solidifying the churches into the "Hammer of God" was a strategy that appealed to the vast majority of German Christians. That he would see in them such an instrument of righteous indignation was commending—both to them as the object of his insight, and to himself for his discernment of such...
...It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle “against evil” within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!...
...[W]e see the ultimate FOE of today’s Christianity lurks behind the fanaticism of an "evil religion"—notwithstanding the ecumenical protestations to the contrary—the CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG: This is a CRUSADE! Let freedom ring within the 10/40 corridor! At last, a leader that understands what real freedom is all about—for true freedom is RELIGIOUS in nature and outlook. Religious freedom is at the heart and soul of whatever freedom can possibly mean—without it, there is no freedom! A united Church is the most critical tool in forging a nation's will in the spread of this freedom—and in subduing every militant foe that would come against us.
[I only got about a 1/4 of the way through the article...Yikes!]
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Happy 21st Anniversary, Babe!
It's Thursday July 21, 2005
On this day... The Creation of the World, according to the ancient Egyptians
And you created mine on this day in 1984.
Thanks for hangin' in there. Here's to another 21. Love you.
On this day... The Creation of the World, according to the ancient Egyptians
And you created mine on this day in 1984.
Thanks for hangin' in there. Here's to another 21. Love you.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
The Reality of Rove
Take this first paragraph one sentence at a time. Let what it describes sink in...
If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden...
Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States...
Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests...
Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.
Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.
"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.
Excerpt from KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
By Ted Rall Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET
If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden...
Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States...
Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests...
Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.
Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.
"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.
Excerpt from KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
By Ted Rall Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET
Friday, July 08, 2005
Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. "Patriotism" is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by "patriotism" I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one's own nation, which is the concern with the nation's spiritual as much as with its material welfare --never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.
— Erich Fromm
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
— Samuel P. Huntington
Today the real test of power is not the capacity to make war but the capacity to prevent it.
— Anne O'Hare McCormick
Another victory like that and we are done for. — Pyrrhus
Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.
— Bertrand Russell
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
— Benjamin Franklin
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Of mountains and souls...
One day's exposure to mountains is better than cartloads of books. See how willingly Nature poses herself upon photographers' plates. No earthly chemicals are so sensitive as those of the human soul.
-John Muir, naturalist, explorer, and writer (1838-1914)
Jeffrey R Hapeman took this picture of an aurora over Lac du Flambeau, WI on May 29, 2005. He accounts his experience, �Very bright but diffuse aurora from the CME last night. Highest intensity was between 12:30 and 1:30am Central Daylight time. There were rays and beams, and the show was quite impressive. I used a Canon 1Ds Mark II at ISO 1600 to capture this 30s exposure at f/2. The pinks reds and blues were not visible to the naked eye.�
July 4th Reality Check
America doesn't really believe in democracy any more. It's just a slogan used to sell unpopular wars, or justify the greasy manuevers of a corrupt political machine. America doesn't want social justice, either -- just a few extra crumbs from the tables of the wealthy. It worships power and material success and expects those who don't to hold their tongues. It hears what it wants to hear and sees what it wants to see, and it has a corporate media establishment increasingly dedicated to ensuring that it always does...
Without that ideal, patriotism is just tribalism: the mindless glorification of "us" and the demonization of "them." And in the case of America, "us" includes a long list of right-wing idiots who I feel absolutely no affinity with or loyalty to -- beginning with Rush Limbaugh and continuing through the loudmouth Bush supporter who sits just outside my office. I don't want to be in their tribe. And I sure the hell don't want them in mine.
As for the rest of my fellow Americans? Their lives are no more -- and no less -- precious than any other group of human beings with a flag and a national anthem. I don't wish them ill, but the moments when I feel any emotionally solidarity with them (like on the morning of 9/11, or, briefly, in Jimmy John's the other day) are becoming quite rare. I don't really feel like I even know them any more.
Which means that if I still support the war on terrorism, or hope that America finds a way out of the Iraq quagmire, or wish for a more successful U.S. foreign policy, it's not out of patriotism. I live in the United States, my family lives here, and we're not moving, at least not any time soon. That being the case, I'd rather not see it nuked, or hit with a dirty bomb, or anthrax or smallpox. I'd also rather not live in a complete police state, which is what we may get if any of those things happen. That's not patriotism -- just the instinct for self preservation.
But not loving America -- or rather, what America is fast becoming -- isn't the same as believing there are no worse things than America. Bin Ladin and the fanatics who follow him aren't evil because they're the enemies of America, they're evil because they're evil -- because they slaughter innocent people, promote religious hatred and would rather see the Islamic world impoverished and ignorant than freed from their medieval fantasies.
Opposing that also isn't patriotism -- just common human decency, and a (probably vain) hope for a better world than this shit pile we live in...
If that be treason, I suppose I'll just have to learn how to make the most of it.
My thanks to Whiskey Bar, experted from Goodbye Columbus posted by Billmon.
Without that ideal, patriotism is just tribalism: the mindless glorification of "us" and the demonization of "them." And in the case of America, "us" includes a long list of right-wing idiots who I feel absolutely no affinity with or loyalty to -- beginning with Rush Limbaugh and continuing through the loudmouth Bush supporter who sits just outside my office. I don't want to be in their tribe. And I sure the hell don't want them in mine.
As for the rest of my fellow Americans? Their lives are no more -- and no less -- precious than any other group of human beings with a flag and a national anthem. I don't wish them ill, but the moments when I feel any emotionally solidarity with them (like on the morning of 9/11, or, briefly, in Jimmy John's the other day) are becoming quite rare. I don't really feel like I even know them any more.
Which means that if I still support the war on terrorism, or hope that America finds a way out of the Iraq quagmire, or wish for a more successful U.S. foreign policy, it's not out of patriotism. I live in the United States, my family lives here, and we're not moving, at least not any time soon. That being the case, I'd rather not see it nuked, or hit with a dirty bomb, or anthrax or smallpox. I'd also rather not live in a complete police state, which is what we may get if any of those things happen. That's not patriotism -- just the instinct for self preservation.
But not loving America -- or rather, what America is fast becoming -- isn't the same as believing there are no worse things than America. Bin Ladin and the fanatics who follow him aren't evil because they're the enemies of America, they're evil because they're evil -- because they slaughter innocent people, promote religious hatred and would rather see the Islamic world impoverished and ignorant than freed from their medieval fantasies.
Opposing that also isn't patriotism -- just common human decency, and a (probably vain) hope for a better world than this shit pile we live in...
If that be treason, I suppose I'll just have to learn how to make the most of it.
My thanks to Whiskey Bar, experted from Goodbye Columbus posted by Billmon.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Relativism from the Right
Tomgram: The immoral relativists of the Bush administration
And other distractions of the Age of Bush
Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch.com
06.29.05
...In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ("The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.") And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs...
You sweep opponents up on a battlefield, but you don't want to call them prisoners of war or deal with them by the established rules of warfare. No problem, just grab that dictionary and label them "unlawful combatants," then you can do anything you want. So you get those prisoners into your jail complex (carefully located on an American base in Cuba, which you have redefined as being legally under "Cuban sovereignty," so that no American court can touch them); and then you declare that, not being prisoners of war, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions...
Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration.
Hat tip to WorkingforChange.com for my excerpts...
And other distractions of the Age of Bush
Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch.com
06.29.05
...In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ("The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.") And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs...
You sweep opponents up on a battlefield, but you don't want to call them prisoners of war or deal with them by the established rules of warfare. No problem, just grab that dictionary and label them "unlawful combatants," then you can do anything you want. So you get those prisoners into your jail complex (carefully located on an American base in Cuba, which you have redefined as being legally under "Cuban sovereignty," so that no American court can touch them); and then you declare that, not being prisoners of war, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions...
Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration.
Hat tip to WorkingforChange.com for my excerpts...
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin...
...The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.
This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.
The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.
While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.
As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.
The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled." They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental. [italics mine]
"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote...
..."For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.
He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
~~~
Hat tip to Blogging for Truth for this interesting article from UC Berkeley News.
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin...
...The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.
This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.
The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.
While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.
As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.
The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled." They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental. [italics mine]
"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote...
..."For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.
He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
~~~
Hat tip to Blogging for Truth for this interesting article from UC Berkeley News.
Trivia for 50-somethings...
Today in 1951, the first commercial computer, UNIVAC I, was unveiled.
A little background from Infoplease: The first fully automatic calculator was the Mark I, or Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator, begun in 1939 at Harvard by Howard Aiken, while the first all-purpose electronic digital computer, ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Calculator), which used thousands of vacuum tubes, was completed in 1946 at the Univ. of Pennsylvania. UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer) became (1951) the first computer to handle both numeric and alphabetic data with equal facility; this was the first commercially available computer.
I wasn't around for another few years, but I remember UNIVAC...punch cards. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. It was built with vacuum tubes, not transistors, and took up an incredible amount of space. Data was on magnetic tape. Guys in short sleeved white shirts, narrow black ties, pocket protectors and glasses walked around looking serious. Jeesh, things do change.
A little background from Infoplease: The first fully automatic calculator was the Mark I, or Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator, begun in 1939 at Harvard by Howard Aiken, while the first all-purpose electronic digital computer, ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Calculator), which used thousands of vacuum tubes, was completed in 1946 at the Univ. of Pennsylvania. UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer) became (1951) the first computer to handle both numeric and alphabetic data with equal facility; this was the first commercially available computer.
I wasn't around for another few years, but I remember UNIVAC...punch cards. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. It was built with vacuum tubes, not transistors, and took up an incredible amount of space. Data was on magnetic tape. Guys in short sleeved white shirts, narrow black ties, pocket protectors and glasses walked around looking serious. Jeesh, things do change.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Which Would You Choose?
Object ive 1: June 8, 1789 - The Bill of Rights was first proposed, by James Madison.
[Judicial oversight in the issuance of warrants is a check on the potential abuse of power by the government against individuals -- our founding premise was, and has been till now, individual liberty.]
Objective 2: Senate Committee OKs New FBI Powers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 9:16 PM EDT (0116 GMT)
[What would the newly-created US citizens of 1791 do if these governmental 'expanded powers' had been proposed then?]
Amendment IV from the Bill of Rights
[written in 1791 - 214 years on the books]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[Judicial oversight in the issuance of warrants is a check on the potential abuse of power by the government against individuals -- our founding premise was, and has been till now, individual liberty.]
Objective 2: Senate Committee OKs New FBI Powers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 9:16 PM EDT (0116 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI would get expanded powers to subpoena records without
the approval of a judge or grand jury in terrorism investigations under Patriot Act revisions approved Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.Some senators who voted 11-4 to move the bill forward said they would push for limits on the new powers the measure would grant to law enforcement agencies...
[What would the newly-created US citizens of 1791 do if these governmental 'expanded powers' had been proposed then?]
Monday, June 06, 2005
War is a Racket: General Smedley Butler on Interventionism
This artticle posted by Jon Lebkowsky at greaterdemocracy.org reminds us all to be very careful about what we support our government doing...
...General Smedley Butler was the one of the most decorated war heroes in U.S. history, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. His military genius (if not his politics) was greatly admired by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The Marine base on Okinawa was named after him...
...General Smedley Butler was the one of the most decorated war heroes in U.S. history, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. His military genius (if not his politics) was greatly admired by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The Marine base on Okinawa was named after him...
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the many.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the
service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
One way to curb excesses like these is campaign reform. Check out these sites to see what each of us can do:
Friday, June 03, 2005
Remembrance
June 3, 1989 - The Chinese government authorized its soldiers and tanks to reclaim Beijing's Tiananmen Square after 7 weeks of protests for democratic reforms. The army killed 2,000 protesters.
Word History
I love word histories. Here's one I ran across...
On June 2, 455 Vandals sack Rome. We still use the words: vandal, vandalize, vandalism. It must have been a memorable day to survive 1,500 years in our vocabulary.
Van·dal (vndl) KEY NOUN:
1) One who willfully or maliciously defaces or destroys public or private property.
2) A member of a Germanic people that overran Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa in the fourth and fifth centuries CE and sacked Rome in 455.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin Vandalus, Vandal, probably of Germanic origin
On June 2, 455 Vandals sack Rome. We still use the words: vandal, vandalize, vandalism. It must have been a memorable day to survive 1,500 years in our vocabulary.
Van·dal (vndl) KEY NOUN:
1) One who willfully or maliciously defaces or destroys public or private property.
2) A member of a Germanic people that overran Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa in the fourth and fifth centuries CE and sacked Rome in 455.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin Vandalus, Vandal, probably of Germanic origin
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, published last fall, a former economist/consultant named John Perkins came clean about his two-decade career as an extortionist of developing countries. In order to convince them to accept loans from the World Bank which they could never possibly repay, economic hit men like himself parachuted onto the scene and cooked the books, Enron-style, to assure the local leaders they could. Then, in exchange for securing those loans,
Perkins and his cohorts extracted promises to hire U.S. companies, award concessions, etc. And when those countries ultimately couldn't pay (like Indonesia), the World Bank essentially foreclosed on them. Now, would you want Paul Wolfowitz sitting across the desk from you while you sign your mortgage? Thought so.
Hat tip to The Black Table. Great site.
Perkins and his cohorts extracted promises to hire U.S. companies, award concessions, etc. And when those countries ultimately couldn't pay (like Indonesia), the World Bank essentially foreclosed on them. Now, would you want Paul Wolfowitz sitting across the desk from you while you sign your mortgage? Thought so.
Hat tip to The Black Table. Great site.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Strongest Evidence Yet...
"The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq," attorney John C. Bonifaz recently wrote to Conyers. "If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution...
...The leak of the memo weeks ago, providing minutes from a high-level meeting that Prime Minister Tony Blair held with aides in July 2002, may be the strongest evidence yet that Bush is guilty of an impeachable offense. As Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in late May:
* "First, the memo appears to directly contradict the administration's assertions to Congress and the American people that it would exhaust all options before going to war. According to the minutes, in July 2002, the administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq."
* "Second, a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere 'failure' or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being 'fixed' around the decision to go to war."
Excerpted from Impeachment Fever and Media Politics by Norman Solomon at Common Dreams.
[I tried to comment on this, but there are no words that can convey my feelings here. I am truly beyond words.]
...The leak of the memo weeks ago, providing minutes from a high-level meeting that Prime Minister Tony Blair held with aides in July 2002, may be the strongest evidence yet that Bush is guilty of an impeachable offense. As Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in late May:
* "First, the memo appears to directly contradict the administration's assertions to Congress and the American people that it would exhaust all options before going to war. According to the minutes, in July 2002, the administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq."
* "Second, a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere 'failure' or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being 'fixed' around the decision to go to war."
Excerpted from Impeachment Fever and Media Politics by Norman Solomon at Common Dreams.
[I tried to comment on this, but there are no words that can convey my feelings here. I am truly beyond words.]
Monday, May 30, 2005
Memorial Day: Praise Bravery, Seek Forgiveness
For all our troops, past and present. A right-on editorial from Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune. Read on...
Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. [emphasis mine] In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.
The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.
At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.
Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.
On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.
Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.
startribune.com
Published May 30, 2005
© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. [emphasis mine] In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.
The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.
At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.
Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.
On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.
Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.
startribune.com
Published May 30, 2005
© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
On This Day: Wednesday, May 25, 2005
In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia with 55 delegates (a quorum) to compose the US Constitution.
I can still feel its reverberations...faintly.
I can still feel its reverberations...faintly.
Twelve Die on the US Border
A big price to pay for supporting your family...(that's eating, BTW, not buying BMWs):
A grim toll of a dozen fatalities in just three days marks the rapid onset of this year's season of death along the US-Mexican border. As temperatures suddenly soared in southern Arizona this past week, so did border-crossing deaths.
Twelve border crossers were listed as dead in Arizona between last Friday and Monday. Border Patrol agents in western Arizona called this past weekend the busiest ever in a three-day period as they made forty rescues. An equal number were chalked up by agents in the Tucson sector.
Corpses of the crossers were scattered among different sectors of the border, with a majority found in the relatively unpopulated western part of the state. "What scares me is that there just continues to be very widely scattered deaths," said the Rev. Robin Hoover, founder of Humane Borders, a group that puts out jugs of water in remote areas used by illegal crossers.
US border control policy over the past decade has increasingly funneled the immigrant flow into ever more rugged and dangerous terrain. More than 3,000 people have died trying to make the crossing in the past decade.
More than 200 extra Border Patrol agents were deployed in Arizona precisely to prevent such deaths this summer. Last year about 200 people died crossing the line in Arizona. An almost equal number perished in California and Texas.
This past weekend's macabre tally comes as the national immigration debate simmers and as the first comprehensive immigration reform bill has been introduced in Congress.
The news of the border deaths this past weekend received minimal coverage, only a tiny fraction of the attention afforded last month to the shut-the-borders campaign staged by the Minuteman Project.
Just last week the Mexican Consulate undertook a public education campaign warning crossers that at this time of year they will face lethal conditions.
Twelve Die on the US Border
Marc CooperTue May 24,12:54 PM ET
at Yahoo News from The Nation
Comment from Wild Rider: If someone can prove that criminals are the ones that come across the border I may change my tune. But, as I see it, 98% of the people coming here want to work, provide for their families and become productive citizens. They do the jobs no one here wants to do. They pay taxes, which are taken out before they recieve their paychecks (or not, if they are paid by unscrupulous American employers who hire them under the table). They contribute, for crissakes! We should emulate, not disparage them. Okay, off the soapbox for now...
A grim toll of a dozen fatalities in just three days marks the rapid onset of this year's season of death along the US-Mexican border. As temperatures suddenly soared in southern Arizona this past week, so did border-crossing deaths.
Twelve border crossers were listed as dead in Arizona between last Friday and Monday. Border Patrol agents in western Arizona called this past weekend the busiest ever in a three-day period as they made forty rescues. An equal number were chalked up by agents in the Tucson sector.
Corpses of the crossers were scattered among different sectors of the border, with a majority found in the relatively unpopulated western part of the state. "What scares me is that there just continues to be very widely scattered deaths," said the Rev. Robin Hoover, founder of Humane Borders, a group that puts out jugs of water in remote areas used by illegal crossers.
US border control policy over the past decade has increasingly funneled the immigrant flow into ever more rugged and dangerous terrain. More than 3,000 people have died trying to make the crossing in the past decade.
More than 200 extra Border Patrol agents were deployed in Arizona precisely to prevent such deaths this summer. Last year about 200 people died crossing the line in Arizona. An almost equal number perished in California and Texas.
This past weekend's macabre tally comes as the national immigration debate simmers and as the first comprehensive immigration reform bill has been introduced in Congress.
The news of the border deaths this past weekend received minimal coverage, only a tiny fraction of the attention afforded last month to the shut-the-borders campaign staged by the Minuteman Project.
Just last week the Mexican Consulate undertook a public education campaign warning crossers that at this time of year they will face lethal conditions.
Twelve Die on the US Border
Marc CooperTue May 24,12:54 PM ET
at Yahoo News from The Nation
Comment from Wild Rider: If someone can prove that criminals are the ones that come across the border I may change my tune. But, as I see it, 98% of the people coming here want to work, provide for their families and become productive citizens. They do the jobs no one here wants to do. They pay taxes, which are taken out before they recieve their paychecks (or not, if they are paid by unscrupulous American employers who hire them under the table). They contribute, for crissakes! We should emulate, not disparage them. Okay, off the soapbox for now...
Go Figure! (You'll get the pun shortly...)
...the Texas legislature has decided that sexy cheerleading is our nation's undoing.
Forget the fact that it was the state of Texas that made sexy cheerleading part of our national cultural life. (This state, which wanted to be an independent nation, has also given us the execution of women and the mentally handicapped, Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.)
... my favorite part of this legislation is that it requires every school district to hire a sexy cheerleading commissar to enforce the proposed prohibition of "overtly sexually suggestive" cheerleading routines...Big government conservatism at your service.
As we fight fundamentalism abroad, it is crucial to know that we are fighting it here at home...
Cowboy Cheers
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Tue May 24, 2:12 PM ET
at Yahoo News from The Nation
Forget the fact that it was the state of Texas that made sexy cheerleading part of our national cultural life. (This state, which wanted to be an independent nation, has also given us the execution of women and the mentally handicapped, Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.)
... my favorite part of this legislation is that it requires every school district to hire a sexy cheerleading commissar to enforce the proposed prohibition of "overtly sexually suggestive" cheerleading routines...Big government conservatism at your service.
As we fight fundamentalism abroad, it is crucial to know that we are fighting it here at home...
Cowboy Cheers
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Tue May 24, 2:12 PM ET
at Yahoo News from The Nation
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The New World's Founding Population
How many people made up the original group that crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to make the New World their home? Approximately 70, says Jody Hey, Professor of Genetics at Rutgers University. By using a computation using genetic information to create models of population divergence, Professor Hey can not only determine how many, but when -- approximately 12,000 to 14,000 years ago -- the split occurred. This is roughly consistent with the dating for most of the archaeological evidence.
Fascinating.
From Archeological Digs. Read the rest at EurekAlert.
Fascinating.
From Archeological Digs. Read the rest at EurekAlert.
One vs. the Power of the State
I thought this picture an apt visual for us all to keep in mind as our current government wages war in Iraq for its oil company cronies and feeds its voting block of rabid religious dominionists. We are the company we keep. Telling, don't you think?
Monday, May 23, 2005
Which direction will America take?
Byron Williams makes much sense in his article, U.S. Patriots Need a Reality Check, posted at Working for Change.
...As we collectively stand at the intersection of patriotism and nationalism, we are presented with a question: Which direction will America take?
Patriotism and nationalism, especially in moments of crisis, are often confused.
Patriotism is simply defined as love and devotion to one's country, while nationalism is the devotion to the interests of a nation; a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Nationalism itself does not carry a negative connotation, but that which is currently practiced in America is cause for great concern.
While patriotism finds its roots in dissent and questioning, the contemporary form of American nationalism depends on the power of groupthink. The Nazi regime remains the gold standard of nationalism gone awry.
Nationalism tends to sound like patriotism, especially when married to fear. It is the emotion of fear that causes one to focus on self-preservation -- seductively lured into seeing the world as good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, or us vs. them...
His other great writing can be found at his website, www.byronspeaks.com.
...As we collectively stand at the intersection of patriotism and nationalism, we are presented with a question: Which direction will America take?
Patriotism and nationalism, especially in moments of crisis, are often confused.
Patriotism is simply defined as love and devotion to one's country, while nationalism is the devotion to the interests of a nation; a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Nationalism itself does not carry a negative connotation, but that which is currently practiced in America is cause for great concern.
While patriotism finds its roots in dissent and questioning, the contemporary form of American nationalism depends on the power of groupthink. The Nazi regime remains the gold standard of nationalism gone awry.
Nationalism tends to sound like patriotism, especially when married to fear. It is the emotion of fear that causes one to focus on self-preservation -- seductively lured into seeing the world as good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, or us vs. them...
His other great writing can be found at his website, www.byronspeaks.com.
A Big Truth on a Little Button
While on vacation in Utah/Colorado last week, my husband found this little button.
How did our oil get under their sand?
Please, Mr. President, no more blood for oil.
How did our oil get under their sand?
Please, Mr. President, no more blood for oil.
Who Wins and Who Loses...
[snip] Will future historians portray George W. Bush as the heroic leader of a new world empire and reborn Christian nation? Or, will they treat him as one of America's worst presidents ever?
It all depends on who wins and who loses.
As Winston Churchill cautioned, history is written by the victors, and the current battles have only just begun, whether in Iraq, Iran, or at home. But, even in the early rounds, it would be shortsighted and self-defeating to give Mr. Bush too much credit - or blame - for the direction our country is taking.
With or without his hand at the helm, two areas of concern - religion and oil - now drive our nation's destiny, and how Americans resolve them will determine who writes the history of our times. [snip]
---
Read the complete (and very interesting article), When Neo-Cons and Theo-Cons Meet at Armageddon, written by Steve Weissman at Truthout.
It all depends on who wins and who loses.
As Winston Churchill cautioned, history is written by the victors, and the current battles have only just begun, whether in Iraq, Iran, or at home. But, even in the early rounds, it would be shortsighted and self-defeating to give Mr. Bush too much credit - or blame - for the direction our country is taking.
With or without his hand at the helm, two areas of concern - religion and oil - now drive our nation's destiny, and how Americans resolve them will determine who writes the history of our times. [snip]
---
Read the complete (and very interesting article), When Neo-Cons and Theo-Cons Meet at Armageddon, written by Steve Weissman at Truthout.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
The Raw History of Steak Tartare
Interesting and disgusting all at the same time...from the New York Times News Service.
---
Thirty years ago in Normandy, a Frenchwoman with whom I was boarding insisted on feeding me raw horsemeat every Wednesday as a restorative for what she regarded as my weak constitution.
She would buy the meat, finely ground, from a butcher shop with a golden horse head hanging over the door - the sign of butchers who sell horsemeat in France - and mix it with salt, pepper, mustard, chopped shallots, parsley and a raw egg. I ate it with fries and a piece of baguette. I went on to work that summer on a horse farm and have not eaten one of those animals since, but the primordial appeal of uncooked meat stayed with me...
My horsemeat experience had led me to believe the widely repeated myth that steak tartare was a horsemeat dish that originated with the horse-eating Mongols of Central Asia who swept across Central Europe 800 years ago. The most common tale is that Tatar horsemen would place a slice of horsemeat beneath their saddle in the morning and retrieve it, tenderized by the pounding, to eat raw for dinner. They supposedly left their raw-meat-eating habit behind, and, according to one version of the story, it was carried by German sailors to Hamburg, where the taste for ground beef begat both hamburgers and steak tartare.
But as with many good tales, a little research suggests it's not true: "The Cambridge Medieval History" of 1924 says the story was started by early chroniclers who saw Mongol horsemen putting thin slices of raw meat beneath their saddles, but that the meat was meant to help heal the horses' sores rather than fill the men's stomachs. The book notes that the meat would have been impregnated with sweat and inedible by the end of the day.
The dish may have started out as horsemeat, and, if so, Germans did play a role, but not by bringing the Tatars' horsemeat-eating habits to France. The Roman Catholic Church banned the consumption of horsemeat in Europe in medieval times, and France developed a taste for the noble steed only when beef ran short in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war.
Boucheries chevalines have been around ever since, and because of a relative lack of parasites in the meat and a belief in its therapeutic powers, raw horsemeat became a kind of health food that is still eaten by some people today, though it has rarely appeared in restaurants.
Raw chopped beefsteak first appeared on menus in France's grand hotels at the turn of the 20th century, when expanding European tourism fueled a period of culinary cross-pollination. Here is where Soulier may be right: The dish was originally called "beefsteack a l'Americaine."
"It was an epoque of internationalism in restaurants," explains Patrick Rambourg, the French food historian, though he says it's not clear why the dish was associated with America. In any case the dish did not become popular until later in the century.
"The vogue for steak tartare really started after the Second World War, in the 1950s," he said.
Beefsteack a l'Americaine (as it was spelled at the time) was served with a raw egg yolk atop the raw ground meat and with capers, chopped onion and chopped parsley on the side. Steak tartare was originally a derivative dish, named not for raw-meat-eating Tatars, but for the tartar sauce that was served with it.
Tartar sauce had appeared earlier in the century and anything served with it was known as "a la tartare." Alexandre Dumas mentioned "goat a la tartare" in his 1846 novel, "The Count of Monte Cristo" and Honore de Balzac wrote about "eel a la tartare" four years later, around the time of his death.
The sauce bore little resemblance to the glutinous pickle-dotted muddle Americans eat with their fish sticks today [our bland and greasy tartar sauce -- yuck], but was a subtler melange of pureed hard-boiled egg yolks, vinegar, chives and oil...
The whole raw tale [sorry, I couldn't resist] can be read at The Raw Truth: Don't Blame the Mongols (or their horses) by Craig S. Smith
May. 19, 2005 12:00 AM
---
Thirty years ago in Normandy, a Frenchwoman with whom I was boarding insisted on feeding me raw horsemeat every Wednesday as a restorative for what she regarded as my weak constitution.
She would buy the meat, finely ground, from a butcher shop with a golden horse head hanging over the door - the sign of butchers who sell horsemeat in France - and mix it with salt, pepper, mustard, chopped shallots, parsley and a raw egg. I ate it with fries and a piece of baguette. I went on to work that summer on a horse farm and have not eaten one of those animals since, but the primordial appeal of uncooked meat stayed with me...
My horsemeat experience had led me to believe the widely repeated myth that steak tartare was a horsemeat dish that originated with the horse-eating Mongols of Central Asia who swept across Central Europe 800 years ago. The most common tale is that Tatar horsemen would place a slice of horsemeat beneath their saddle in the morning and retrieve it, tenderized by the pounding, to eat raw for dinner. They supposedly left their raw-meat-eating habit behind, and, according to one version of the story, it was carried by German sailors to Hamburg, where the taste for ground beef begat both hamburgers and steak tartare.
But as with many good tales, a little research suggests it's not true: "The Cambridge Medieval History" of 1924 says the story was started by early chroniclers who saw Mongol horsemen putting thin slices of raw meat beneath their saddles, but that the meat was meant to help heal the horses' sores rather than fill the men's stomachs. The book notes that the meat would have been impregnated with sweat and inedible by the end of the day.
The dish may have started out as horsemeat, and, if so, Germans did play a role, but not by bringing the Tatars' horsemeat-eating habits to France. The Roman Catholic Church banned the consumption of horsemeat in Europe in medieval times, and France developed a taste for the noble steed only when beef ran short in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war.
Boucheries chevalines have been around ever since, and because of a relative lack of parasites in the meat and a belief in its therapeutic powers, raw horsemeat became a kind of health food that is still eaten by some people today, though it has rarely appeared in restaurants.
Raw chopped beefsteak first appeared on menus in France's grand hotels at the turn of the 20th century, when expanding European tourism fueled a period of culinary cross-pollination. Here is where Soulier may be right: The dish was originally called "beefsteack a l'Americaine."
"It was an epoque of internationalism in restaurants," explains Patrick Rambourg, the French food historian, though he says it's not clear why the dish was associated with America. In any case the dish did not become popular until later in the century.
"The vogue for steak tartare really started after the Second World War, in the 1950s," he said.
Beefsteack a l'Americaine (as it was spelled at the time) was served with a raw egg yolk atop the raw ground meat and with capers, chopped onion and chopped parsley on the side. Steak tartare was originally a derivative dish, named not for raw-meat-eating Tatars, but for the tartar sauce that was served with it.
Tartar sauce had appeared earlier in the century and anything served with it was known as "a la tartare." Alexandre Dumas mentioned "goat a la tartare" in his 1846 novel, "The Count of Monte Cristo" and Honore de Balzac wrote about "eel a la tartare" four years later, around the time of his death.
The sauce bore little resemblance to the glutinous pickle-dotted muddle Americans eat with their fish sticks today [our bland and greasy tartar sauce -- yuck], but was a subtler melange of pureed hard-boiled egg yolks, vinegar, chives and oil...
The whole raw tale [sorry, I couldn't resist] can be read at The Raw Truth: Don't Blame the Mongols (or their horses) by Craig S. Smith
May. 19, 2005 12:00 AM
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The Rich are Unfairly Segregated!
I found this excerpt hilarious from The Phantom Professor.
...[A student] accused me of "discrimination" against the wealthy. She didn't appreciate my attitude toward thin, beautiful young Ashleys. This writer equated it with racism.
Come to think of it, I guess the rich have been unfairly segregated by society. All their lives they've been forced to ride at the front of the bus. They live in gated communities designed to restrict their freedom of movement. Their clothes are tagged with identifying logos -- little Polo players and crocodiles -- that tell the rest of us who and what they are. Their children attend separate schools (and wear uniforms!). Where is Amnesty International? Why isn't the UN working to liberate these rich people and let them mix freely with the rest of us?
The rich may be an oppressed minority, but given the current White House administration's compassion for the over-privileged, I'm sure there's someone in Washington willing to take up their cause. Maybe they could organize a Million Billionaire March that begins at the Dallas Country Club and ends in the parking lot at Neiman Marcus.
...[A student] accused me of "discrimination" against the wealthy. She didn't appreciate my attitude toward thin, beautiful young Ashleys. This writer equated it with racism.
Come to think of it, I guess the rich have been unfairly segregated by society. All their lives they've been forced to ride at the front of the bus. They live in gated communities designed to restrict their freedom of movement. Their clothes are tagged with identifying logos -- little Polo players and crocodiles -- that tell the rest of us who and what they are. Their children attend separate schools (and wear uniforms!). Where is Amnesty International? Why isn't the UN working to liberate these rich people and let them mix freely with the rest of us?
The rich may be an oppressed minority, but given the current White House administration's compassion for the over-privileged, I'm sure there's someone in Washington willing to take up their cause. Maybe they could organize a Million Billionaire March that begins at the Dallas Country Club and ends in the parking lot at Neiman Marcus.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
ANNIVERSARY PLUS ONE
Nick Burbules of Progressive Blog Digest has some interesting thoughts on the five year anniversary of the election of our fearless nincompoop, The W.
Building on something my colleague David Prochaska said, if someone had been saying five years ago that electing George Bush would result in any of the following, they would have been branded as a paranoid conspiracy nut:
• the largest budget surplus in history would be squandered through tax cuts and turned in just a few years into the largest deficit in history
• the government, through lies and manipulation of intelligence, would construct a phony “imminent threat” from another country in order to trick the U.S. people into approving a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded
• following a horrible terrorist attack that brought international sympathy from nearly every country in the world, the U.S. government would within months turn us into a country despised and mistrusted nearly everywhere because of their arrogance, duplicity, and “with us or against us” rhetoric
• the U.S government would secretly approve, and publicly rationalize, the widespread use of prisoner torture and mistreatment expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention, forever sullying the nation’s moral stature
• a President and Vice-President long affiliated with oil industries would preside over energy policies that they let oil company execs write, turn over to their corporate donors billions in war profits, let them impose extortionist gasoline price hikes, and carry out the aforementioned war in order to boost oil supplies – all without a serious investigation or public outcry
• survivors of the Iran-Contra affair would be rehabilitated and returned to positions of power to re-establish the very same practices of skullduggery and deception that almost brought down the Reagan administration
• religious groups would extend their influence into nearly every corner of public life, taking encouragement from an openly evangelical President to demolish the Constitutional wall between church and state – indeed, denying that such a wall even exists
• the first election of George Bush would come down to a razor-thin vote count in the state run by his brother. When a call is made to recount the vote, the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the five Republican-appointed judges put a halt to all recounts, saying that their ruling “only applies to this specific instance.” All objective data show after the fact that a full and fair recount would have turned the state, and the election, against Bush. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Florida subsequently won election to Congress with strong Bush administration support
•the re-election of George Bush would feature a vast increase in the use of electronic voting machines that are easily hacked and which produce no paper trail of votes – yet when the reported vote totals in two major Bush states (Ohio and Florida) are found to be seriously out of accord with exit polling (polls which are so accurate they are routinely used to check the accuracy of vote tabulations), suddenly it is the exit polls that are thrown into jeopardy. No serious investigation is carried out despite widespread evidence of vote suppression and other electoral irregularities. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Ohio now is seeking election as Governor, with strong Bush administration support
• a ruthless and radical House Majority leader would repeatedly violate House ethical standards and abuse the privileges of the majority party without losing his job, or even being seriously admonished
• a handpicked and underqualified Senate Majority leader would be installed in power and then encouraged to dismantle decades of Senate traditions and institutional checks and balances in order to drive through a slate of judicial nominations that include “activists” of the most extreme order
• a candidate openly contemptuous of the United Nations would be seriously considered as the U.S. representative to the same, despite copious evidence of unreasonable, unethical, and possibly illegal conduct
• a plan would be relentlessly pursued to demolish the most successful and egalitarian social welfare policy ever invented
• despite all of this the major media networks, cable news, and even public t.v. and radio would continue to praise the decency and personal popularity of the man presiding over these policies, and not a single major figure would be tried, punished, or removed from office for any of them – in fact, several would receive conspicuous government awards and/or promotions
No this is not a nightmare, it is America 2005 – and this is Year Two of Progressive Blog Digest...
It is becoming more and more apparent that the true struggle over the filibuster is over religious judges and the far-right Christian agenda. Listen to what their leaders say, and you will see why the Republicans take this fight very, very seriously.
Building on something my colleague David Prochaska said, if someone had been saying five years ago that electing George Bush would result in any of the following, they would have been branded as a paranoid conspiracy nut:
• the largest budget surplus in history would be squandered through tax cuts and turned in just a few years into the largest deficit in history
• the government, through lies and manipulation of intelligence, would construct a phony “imminent threat” from another country in order to trick the U.S. people into approving a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded
• following a horrible terrorist attack that brought international sympathy from nearly every country in the world, the U.S. government would within months turn us into a country despised and mistrusted nearly everywhere because of their arrogance, duplicity, and “with us or against us” rhetoric
• the U.S government would secretly approve, and publicly rationalize, the widespread use of prisoner torture and mistreatment expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention, forever sullying the nation’s moral stature
• a President and Vice-President long affiliated with oil industries would preside over energy policies that they let oil company execs write, turn over to their corporate donors billions in war profits, let them impose extortionist gasoline price hikes, and carry out the aforementioned war in order to boost oil supplies – all without a serious investigation or public outcry
• survivors of the Iran-Contra affair would be rehabilitated and returned to positions of power to re-establish the very same practices of skullduggery and deception that almost brought down the Reagan administration
• religious groups would extend their influence into nearly every corner of public life, taking encouragement from an openly evangelical President to demolish the Constitutional wall between church and state – indeed, denying that such a wall even exists
• the first election of George Bush would come down to a razor-thin vote count in the state run by his brother. When a call is made to recount the vote, the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the five Republican-appointed judges put a halt to all recounts, saying that their ruling “only applies to this specific instance.” All objective data show after the fact that a full and fair recount would have turned the state, and the election, against Bush. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Florida subsequently won election to Congress with strong Bush administration support
•the re-election of George Bush would feature a vast increase in the use of electronic voting machines that are easily hacked and which produce no paper trail of votes – yet when the reported vote totals in two major Bush states (Ohio and Florida) are found to be seriously out of accord with exit polling (polls which are so accurate they are routinely used to check the accuracy of vote tabulations), suddenly it is the exit polls that are thrown into jeopardy. No serious investigation is carried out despite widespread evidence of vote suppression and other electoral irregularities. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Ohio now is seeking election as Governor, with strong Bush administration support
• a ruthless and radical House Majority leader would repeatedly violate House ethical standards and abuse the privileges of the majority party without losing his job, or even being seriously admonished
• a handpicked and underqualified Senate Majority leader would be installed in power and then encouraged to dismantle decades of Senate traditions and institutional checks and balances in order to drive through a slate of judicial nominations that include “activists” of the most extreme order
• a candidate openly contemptuous of the United Nations would be seriously considered as the U.S. representative to the same, despite copious evidence of unreasonable, unethical, and possibly illegal conduct
• a plan would be relentlessly pursued to demolish the most successful and egalitarian social welfare policy ever invented
• despite all of this the major media networks, cable news, and even public t.v. and radio would continue to praise the decency and personal popularity of the man presiding over these policies, and not a single major figure would be tried, punished, or removed from office for any of them – in fact, several would receive conspicuous government awards and/or promotions
No this is not a nightmare, it is America 2005 – and this is Year Two of Progressive Blog Digest...
It is becoming more and more apparent that the true struggle over the filibuster is over religious judges and the far-right Christian agenda. Listen to what their leaders say, and you will see why the Republicans take this fight very, very seriously.
Just Some of the W’s Faith-Based Policies
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in Lee v. Weisman (90-1014), 505 U.S. 577 (1992)...
And marching forward with eyes wide shut, Bush issued executive orders aimed at granting evangelicals access to federal funding and federal contracts and grants, despite two centuries of law and policy to the contrary. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” reads the first Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Bush failed to win Congressional approval of his faith-based plan after two years of trying. So in December 2002 the Bush Administration took matters into its own hands and issued Executive Order 13279: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations. Section 4 of the order allows federal agencies to award grants or contracts to religious organizations that discriminate in hiring for publicly funded positions on the basis of religion...
In Chris Mooney’s report “W’s Christian Nation” we learn that in October 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services gave $30 million to 21 religious and community groups as part of the faith-based program. $500,000 went to Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing. $700,000 went to the National Center for Faith-Based Initiative, founded by Bishop Harold Calvin Ray, who has declared church-state separation "a fiction." All the religious recipients of Health and Human Services grants were connected to Christian ministries, mostly evangelical ones.
Excerpted from Abstinence, Suffering, and Christianity - The Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Policies. Read more at Buy Blue.
And marching forward with eyes wide shut, Bush issued executive orders aimed at granting evangelicals access to federal funding and federal contracts and grants, despite two centuries of law and policy to the contrary. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” reads the first Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Bush failed to win Congressional approval of his faith-based plan after two years of trying. So in December 2002 the Bush Administration took matters into its own hands and issued Executive Order 13279: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations. Section 4 of the order allows federal agencies to award grants or contracts to religious organizations that discriminate in hiring for publicly funded positions on the basis of religion...
In Chris Mooney’s report “W’s Christian Nation” we learn that in October 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services gave $30 million to 21 religious and community groups as part of the faith-based program. $500,000 went to Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing. $700,000 went to the National Center for Faith-Based Initiative, founded by Bishop Harold Calvin Ray, who has declared church-state separation "a fiction." All the religious recipients of Health and Human Services grants were connected to Christian ministries, mostly evangelical ones.
Excerpted from Abstinence, Suffering, and Christianity - The Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Policies. Read more at Buy Blue.
Monday, May 09, 2005
You Can't Beat News Like This!
Blood Test Could Save Lives of Thousands of Women
A NEW blood test could save thousands of lives by helping to spot ovarian cancer before the main symptoms develop, according to new research.
Ovarian cancer is responsible for the deaths of nearly 5,000 women a year in Britain and has been called the "silent killer" because it is usually advanced and hard to treat by the time symptoms appear.
The new test has the potential to save lives by allowing identification of the disease at a stage when it can be effectively treated. But, with an accuracy of 95 per cent, it is still not precise enough to be used in national screening programmes.
At present there is no way to detect the disease reliably at an early, curable stage.
Just under 7,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year in the United Kingdom and a large proportion - almost 4,700 - will die of the disease. It kills more than 300 women a year in Scotland.
The new test was developed by scientists in the United States led by Dr Gil Mor, from the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. It relies on four marker proteins, whittled down from an initial list of 169. The four - leptin, prolactin, osteopontin and insulin-like growth factor II - identified cancer with 95 per cent accuracy in a test group of more than 200 women.
Each of the proteins had previously been suggested as a possible cancer biomarker. But, in the study, no protein on its own could completely distinguish cancer patients from healthy participants.
The findings were reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers pointed out that the test would have to be improved before it was good enough for national screening, which required an accuracy of at least 99.6 per cent...
EDWARD BLACK from The Scotsman
A NEW blood test could save thousands of lives by helping to spot ovarian cancer before the main symptoms develop, according to new research.
Ovarian cancer is responsible for the deaths of nearly 5,000 women a year in Britain and has been called the "silent killer" because it is usually advanced and hard to treat by the time symptoms appear.
The new test has the potential to save lives by allowing identification of the disease at a stage when it can be effectively treated. But, with an accuracy of 95 per cent, it is still not precise enough to be used in national screening programmes.
At present there is no way to detect the disease reliably at an early, curable stage.
Just under 7,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year in the United Kingdom and a large proportion - almost 4,700 - will die of the disease. It kills more than 300 women a year in Scotland.
The new test was developed by scientists in the United States led by Dr Gil Mor, from the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. It relies on four marker proteins, whittled down from an initial list of 169. The four - leptin, prolactin, osteopontin and insulin-like growth factor II - identified cancer with 95 per cent accuracy in a test group of more than 200 women.
Each of the proteins had previously been suggested as a possible cancer biomarker. But, in the study, no protein on its own could completely distinguish cancer patients from healthy participants.
The findings were reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers pointed out that the test would have to be improved before it was good enough for national screening, which required an accuracy of at least 99.6 per cent...
EDWARD BLACK from The Scotsman
Interesting Florida Demographics...
This picture is what stopped the ballot recounts in Florida shortly after it seemed that legitimate President Gore had a lead. The "citizens" started what was later called "the preppy riot". Screaming, yelling, pounding on the walls, these "outraged citizens" intimidated the polling officials to halt the court mandated recount. A closer look reveals who they really were. They were bussed and flown in at Republican lawmakers expense. Some even flew in on Tom Delay's private plane.
Makes Sense to Me...
If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the Republican party?
See Old American Century for more on our country's current crisis.
See Old American Century for more on our country's current crisis.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
In There Where It Matters
Yuri Kochiyama: Heartbeat of Struggle
Yuri Kochiyama was the first to rush to the aid of Malcolm X when he was shot by assassins on February 21, 1965, at New York’s Audubon Ballroom. She was photographed cradling Malcolm X in her arms as he died. Kochiyama had already been involved with the African American civil rights movement for some years, and she had come to that movement due to the plight of her own people. Kochiyama’s family, along with all other Japanese Americans, had been placed in US concentrations camps during the Second World War. The camp Kochiyama’s family was sent to was located in Arkansas, and it was there that the young Yuri Kochiyama witnessed the racist discrimination practiced by whites against blacks. She linked that bigotry to how her own people were being treated, and from that point on she became an activist for human rights and social change.
Heartbeat of Struggle: The Revolutionary Life of Yuri Kochiyama is the first biography of this courageous woman, the most prominent Asian American activist to emerge during the 1960s. Based on extensive archival research and interviews with Kochiyama's family, friends, and the subject herself, author Diane C. Fujino traces Kochiyama's life from an "all-American" childhood to her achievements as a tireless defender of-and fighter for-human rights. Ms. Fujino is associate professor of Asian American studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara -and is herself a scholarly activist dedicated to the civil rights of Asian Americans.
Author Diane C. Fujino will appear with Ms. Kochiyama in their first book signing and speaking engagement of their book tour. The event will take place at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, at 11:00 am, Sunday, April 24, 2005. The program with Ms. Kochiyama is included with Museum admission. The Japanese American National Museum is located in LA's historic Little Tokyo, at 369 East First Street, Los Angeles, Ca 90012. Phone: 213-625-0414. For directions and more information, visit the museums' website. (posted by M. at The Black Moon)
Yuri Kochiyama was the first to rush to the aid of Malcolm X when he was shot by assassins on February 21, 1965, at New York’s Audubon Ballroom. She was photographed cradling Malcolm X in her arms as he died. Kochiyama had already been involved with the African American civil rights movement for some years, and she had come to that movement due to the plight of her own people. Kochiyama’s family, along with all other Japanese Americans, had been placed in US concentrations camps during the Second World War. The camp Kochiyama’s family was sent to was located in Arkansas, and it was there that the young Yuri Kochiyama witnessed the racist discrimination practiced by whites against blacks. She linked that bigotry to how her own people were being treated, and from that point on she became an activist for human rights and social change.
Heartbeat of Struggle: The Revolutionary Life of Yuri Kochiyama is the first biography of this courageous woman, the most prominent Asian American activist to emerge during the 1960s. Based on extensive archival research and interviews with Kochiyama's family, friends, and the subject herself, author Diane C. Fujino traces Kochiyama's life from an "all-American" childhood to her achievements as a tireless defender of-and fighter for-human rights. Ms. Fujino is associate professor of Asian American studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara -and is herself a scholarly activist dedicated to the civil rights of Asian Americans.
Author Diane C. Fujino will appear with Ms. Kochiyama in their first book signing and speaking engagement of their book tour. The event will take place at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, at 11:00 am, Sunday, April 24, 2005. The program with Ms. Kochiyama is included with Museum admission. The Japanese American National Museum is located in LA's historic Little Tokyo, at 369 East First Street, Los Angeles, Ca 90012. Phone: 213-625-0414. For directions and more information, visit the museums' website. (posted by M. at The Black Moon)
Friday, May 06, 2005
Bumper Sticker Wisdom
I saw a bumper sticker the other day. As much as I resented Clinton's loose zipper, the wisdom of this sticker certainly makes a point.
Nobody died
when Clinton lied.
1,500 and counting plus untold Iraqis.
Nobody died
when Clinton lied.
1,500 and counting plus untold Iraqis.
Making Up History as He Goes...
This article from Think Progress, one of many blogs reporting on the leaked British memo with links included.
British Memo Busts Bush
Sure, we all knew it.
But now there’s even more proof the White House was determined to go to war no matter, without letting pesky facts stand in its way.
According to recently leaked notes from a 6/23/02 meeting between Britain and President Bush, the chief of Britain’s intelligence service worried Bush had made up his mind to overthrown Saddam Hussein and was pushing to manipulate intelligence into backing him up.
(Side Note: Keep in mind, in June 2002, President Bush was telling Americans there were no plans yet to attack Iraq. In August 2002, remember, the State Department deputy spokesman said shot down ideas that the administration was pushing for war saying, “There are no plans to attack Iraq on the President’s desk. He has said that.")
In the leaked memo, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated, “Bush has made up his mind to take military action.” The British intelligence chief went further, charging “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Straw also noted, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
After the invasion of Iraq failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, the White House tried to shrug off accountability and just blame faulty intelligence. Last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report slamming U.S. intelligence community. Taking place in an election year, the Committee sidestepped the question of White House culpability, saying they would do a second phase report after the November 2004 election.
Recently Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blew off the second phase of the report, saying it would be a “monumental waste of time” to investigate further. As this new memo shows, it would be a monumental mistake not to.
British Memo Busts Bush
Sure, we all knew it.
But now there’s even more proof the White House was determined to go to war no matter, without letting pesky facts stand in its way.
According to recently leaked notes from a 6/23/02 meeting between Britain and President Bush, the chief of Britain’s intelligence service worried Bush had made up his mind to overthrown Saddam Hussein and was pushing to manipulate intelligence into backing him up.
(Side Note: Keep in mind, in June 2002, President Bush was telling Americans there were no plans yet to attack Iraq. In August 2002, remember, the State Department deputy spokesman said shot down ideas that the administration was pushing for war saying, “There are no plans to attack Iraq on the President’s desk. He has said that.")
In the leaked memo, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated, “Bush has made up his mind to take military action.” The British intelligence chief went further, charging “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Straw also noted, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
After the invasion of Iraq failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, the White House tried to shrug off accountability and just blame faulty intelligence. Last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report slamming U.S. intelligence community. Taking place in an election year, the Committee sidestepped the question of White House culpability, saying they would do a second phase report after the November 2004 election.
Recently Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blew off the second phase of the report, saying it would be a “monumental waste of time” to investigate further. As this new memo shows, it would be a monumental mistake not to.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
A Radical in the White House
April 12 was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president...
That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few...
Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear.
The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed: A Radical in the White House
April 18, 2005
That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few...
Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear.
The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed: A Radical in the White House
April 18, 2005
Just Another Commie Pinko...
If you're interested in how the fringe religious right responds to freedom of thought, check out Counterbias.com's article: Bull's Eye: Targeted by the Christian Right.
As these e-mails prove, [says Mel Seesholtz,] Traditional Values Coalition doesn't value friendship with unfriendly columnists.
May 4 2005
www.Counterbias.com
atta, boy!
As these e-mails prove, [says Mel Seesholtz,] Traditional Values Coalition doesn't value friendship with unfriendly columnists.
May 4 2005
www.Counterbias.com
atta, boy!
Democratizing Iraq
This is an interesting take on our 'mission' of democratizing Iraq as seen through our own European beginnings. [Excerpted from St. Francis's Failure -- Marrying Islam to West is No Easy Task by James Muldoon in The Providence Journal of Thursday, May 5, 2005.]
In 1219, Francis of Assisi paid a visit to the sultan of Egypt in order to instruct that Muslim ruler in Christian doctrine. The sultan treated the visitor kindly, listened to him, and then sent him home -- instead of killing him, as Islamic law demanded. Francis was not the only Christian missionary to enter the Muslim world to preach the Christian gospel. Many others made the effort, and, like Francis, failed to make converts.
What these medieval missionaries overlooked was that the conversion of Europe had taken place over a thousand years or so -- it was a slow, difficult process. It was extraordinarily foolish to assume that a process of religious transformation that had taken Europeans a millennium to complete would appear so obviously true to Muslims that they would immediately accept baptism.
...as obvious as the value of these elements of Western society are to us now, they did not appear so to our ancestors. These qualities are the product of a thousand years of development that began in the Middle Ages...
We are now asking the Iraqis to undergo in a few months a process of transformation that took us a thousand years. They are to undergo the church-state conflict, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, and become modern at the wave of a wand. Why should we expect them to immediately accept the truths that our ancestors did not? Why assume that their response to the calls for change will be any less violent than European responses? The call for religious reform in 16th Century Europe unleashed the bloodiest wars that the continent had ever seen, and would not see again until the 20th Century. While it may seem noble to assume that the Iraqis, once presented with the truths of modern Western liberal democratic society, would see the truths and accept them, the odds are against it. [italics mine]
Does this mean that the Iraqis and Muslims generally are incapable of creating liberal democratic societies? Of course not. What it means is that over the past thousand years, Western Christian European society developed along one course, and Muslim society developed along another. For most of that time, the Muslim world was more successful than Europe, and thus a military threat to Europe. After all, the last great Muslim invasion of Europe ended only in 1683.
Americans who go to Iraq with the intention of transforming that society should probably keep a small statue of St. Francis on the dashboards of their Humvees. It will remind them that they are not the first to attempt the transformation of the Islamic world, and they may not be the last.
In 1219, Francis of Assisi paid a visit to the sultan of Egypt in order to instruct that Muslim ruler in Christian doctrine. The sultan treated the visitor kindly, listened to him, and then sent him home -- instead of killing him, as Islamic law demanded. Francis was not the only Christian missionary to enter the Muslim world to preach the Christian gospel. Many others made the effort, and, like Francis, failed to make converts.
What these medieval missionaries overlooked was that the conversion of Europe had taken place over a thousand years or so -- it was a slow, difficult process. It was extraordinarily foolish to assume that a process of religious transformation that had taken Europeans a millennium to complete would appear so obviously true to Muslims that they would immediately accept baptism.
...as obvious as the value of these elements of Western society are to us now, they did not appear so to our ancestors. These qualities are the product of a thousand years of development that began in the Middle Ages...
We are now asking the Iraqis to undergo in a few months a process of transformation that took us a thousand years. They are to undergo the church-state conflict, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, and become modern at the wave of a wand. Why should we expect them to immediately accept the truths that our ancestors did not? Why assume that their response to the calls for change will be any less violent than European responses? The call for religious reform in 16th Century Europe unleashed the bloodiest wars that the continent had ever seen, and would not see again until the 20th Century. While it may seem noble to assume that the Iraqis, once presented with the truths of modern Western liberal democratic society, would see the truths and accept them, the odds are against it. [italics mine]
Does this mean that the Iraqis and Muslims generally are incapable of creating liberal democratic societies? Of course not. What it means is that over the past thousand years, Western Christian European society developed along one course, and Muslim society developed along another. For most of that time, the Muslim world was more successful than Europe, and thus a military threat to Europe. After all, the last great Muslim invasion of Europe ended only in 1683.
Americans who go to Iraq with the intention of transforming that society should probably keep a small statue of St. Francis on the dashboards of their Humvees. It will remind them that they are not the first to attempt the transformation of the Islamic world, and they may not be the last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
