For the time being…*

Now I’ve let the blog languish for over a week! I’m afraid this will be typical for the next few weeks. It’s the end of the semester, and I have just under 21 days to write four papers, 3 of which are due within a 3-day period. I suspect my internet news surfing will suffer during this time.

For now, just a few things.

Frank Rich is terrific this week, and links to several stories that were sitting on my “to blog” list last week.

George W. Bush is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia’s contribution of some 160 soldiers to “the coalition of the willing.” Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek’s latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.

The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for “victory.” Instead, both impugned their critics’ patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration’s prewar smoke screen both “dishonest and reprehensible” and “corrupt and shameless.” He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.

The Washington line has it that the motivation for the Bush-Cheney rage is the need to push back against opponents who have bloodied the White House in the polls. But, Mr. Murtha notwithstanding, the Democrats are too feeble to merit that strong a response. There is more going on here than politics.

Much more…

Pass this column around.

You’ll want to read the SF Chronicle’s Jon Carroll, too, as he savors the approval ratings map that showed up on Daily Kos last week.

“I was just gonna say that.” So, let’s see. Joe Biden (don’t get me started on this spineless weeny) gets all gutsy and introduces a cautious Iraq pull-out plan (after first publicly disavowing Murtha’s call for a pullout and then seeing that Murtha was getting some mighty good press for his principled stand), which is, according to the White House, “remarkably similar” to the one Bush never had until now and was in fact slandering Democrats for suggesting. (See Newsweek’s article on Bush’s “tipping point.”) (Update: I restored the hyperlinks in my puerile Biden rant above.)

Surely you’ve heard? Michael Brown is going into private sector business as a disaster consultant.

Randy Cunningham’s resignation and guilty plea. The growing, growing Abramoff scandal. I’d have to agree with conservative Norman Ornstein:

“I don’t think we have had something of this scope, arrogance and sheer venality in our lifetimes,” Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote recently. “It is building to an explosion, one that could create immense collateral damage within Congress and in coming elections.”

Here is a thoughtful interview with Christian Scharen, who writes this blog, on his upcoming book, One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Seeking God.

Sister Joan Chittister’s column last week was about “American narcissism;” it makes a great companion piece to the WaPo story on our xenophobic president:

For the president, it was a rare moment of fun on an otherwise dreary overseas trip. In five years in the presidency, Bush has proved a decidedly unadventurous traveler, an impression undispelled by the weeklong journey through Asia that wraps up Monday. As he barnstormed through Japan, South Korea and China, with a final stop in Mongolia still to come, Bush visited no museums, tried no restaurants, bought no souvenirs and made no effort to meet ordinary local people…The Bush spirit trickles down to many of his top advisers, who hardly go out of their way to sample the local offerings either. A number of the most senior White House officials on the trip, perhaps seeking the comforts of their Texas homes, chose to skip the kimchi in South Korea to go to dinner at Outback Steakhouse — twice. (Admittedly, a few unadventurous journalists joined them.)

(*For some reason, I’m reminded that this is a line in WH Auden’s For the time being - A Christmas Oratio. Maybe it was the stories of the festive tramplings at various Wal-Marts this past weekend.)

Now we’re trying to silence churches

Perhaps you heard about this a couple weeks ago: the IRS is threatening to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Church in Pasadena because a pastor preached an anti-war sermon shortly before the election. The church is fighting back and has a lot of support from both liberal and conservative churches.

If you go to their web site they’ve posted an internal link to the text of Rev. Ed Bacon’s rip-roaring good sermon from November 13, 2005, “The IRS Goes To Church.”

Faith in action is called politics. Spirituality without action is fruitless and social action without spirituality is heartless. We are boldly political without being partisan. Having a partisan-free place to stand liberates the religious patriot to see clearly, speak courageously, and act daringly.

Go and enjoy.

"Woe to you legislators of infamous laws…"

“…who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.” (Isaiah 10:1-4; note, that links to the NRSV version.) Yesterday, I received the SojoMail bulletin with Jim Wallis’ statement on the Republicans’ gleeful attack on the nation’s most vulnerable, and it starts with those bracing words. Wallis continues:

Today, I repeat those words. When our legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets of justice and tell the truth.

It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about. There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, “for the least of these.” It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership.

Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children’s futures in jeopardy - and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The choice to cut supports that help people make it day to day in order to pay for tax cuts for those with plenty goes against everything our religious and moral principles teach us. It says that leaders don’t care about people in need. It is a blatant reversal of biblical values - and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism.

The faith community is outraged and is drawing a line in the sand against immoral national priorities. It is time to draw that line more forcefully and more visibly.

I applaud those House members who have stood up for better budget priorities and fought hard all year to keep issues of basic fairness at the forefront of this debate. And I thank those on both sides of the aisle who stood up and did the right thing in voting against this bill, despite pressure from the House leadership. These strong voices provide some hope for getting beyond an ideology that disregards the role of government for the common good.

And the House leaders were so pleased with themselves. Can we get some good shots of the back-slapping and celebrating going on in the House of Representatives, please? They will make great Democratic campaign ads in 2006.

Death tolls are lower when you don’t count all the dead people

Apparently, officials simply stopped counting and left the remaining bodies in New Orleans’ 9th Ward for family members to discover (via Americablog).

…in which I read a Charles Krauthammer column and live to tell about it

Knock me over with a finch feather. Charles Krauthammer has a great column on the “false conflict” that is evolution “versus” intelligent design. I would never have known about it if Americablog hadn’t taken the plunge, first.

(Update: I meant to include this - GTU’s Ted Peters has a good column, too. Free registration required to get that one.)

"War without rules"

I simply haven’t known how to blog even parts of this sickening news. Words fail.

Early last week, Americablog picked up on a story in the Italian media
documenting that white phosphorous had been used on insurgent troops AND Iraqi civilians in the assault on Falluja. CSM then ran the story noting that the US denied the allegations last year, when the rumors started. And the Pentagon continued to deny the Italian stories… until a Daily Kos diarist found an article in AN ARMY PUBLICATION describing the use of White Phosphorous as a weapon! Fascinating - the UK Independent has stayed on the story (also the BBC; a “public relations disaster for the US”? That seems the least of it…). Where is the US press? Did I miss something?

George Monbiot (”War Without Rules”):

We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.

Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces? Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP who turned from peace campaigner to chief apologist for an illegal war, is, as far as I can discover, the only one of these armchair warriors to engage with the issue. In May this year, she wrote to the Guardian to assure us that reports that a “modern form of napalm” has been used by US forces “are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm – either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time.”(16) How did she know? The foreign office minister told her. Before the invasion, Ann Clwyd travelled through Iraq to investigate Saddam’s crimes against his people. She told the Commons that what she had discovered moved her to tears. After the invasion, she took the minister’s word at face value, when a thirty-second search on the internet could have told her it was bunkum. It makes you wonder whether she, or any of the other enthusiasts for war, really gave a damn about the people for whom they claimed to be campaigning.

Saddam Hussein, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment, the embezzlement of billions and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are the people who overthrew him.

(Emphasis mine, because italics catch the eye, and this paragraph needs to be read.)

At long last

(Riley, birding from her “blind” on the window sill this morning.)

Wow - have I ever let this place go 7 days without an update? ‘Abc’ was out of town, and I’ve been inundated. But hey, it’s not like anything happened this week…

Right-wing dirty novels

They have their own genre. Yes, we’ve all heard about Lynn Cheney’s “bodice ripper”, but now we learn (via Lutheranchik, who spotted it on Kos) that Lewis “Scooter” Libby is a member of that elite pantheon of right-wing porn writers:

So, how does Libby stack up against the competition? This question was put to Nancy Sladek, the editor of Britain’s Literary Review, which, each year, holds a contest for bad sex writing in fiction. (In 1998, someone nominated the Starr Report.)

Sladek agreed to review a few passages from Libby. “That’s a bit depraved, isn’t it, this kind of thing about bears and young girls? That’s particularly nasty, and the other ones are just boring,” she said. “God, they’re an odd bunch, these Republicans.”

You can snap up your copy here.

"Supernatural Science"

Christian Hatemonger, Pat Robertson has made it a little harder for Intelligent Design advocates to continue insisting they have no religious agenda:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Because God will be in Kansas. (This piece reminds us of some of Robertson’s other gems in recent years. Perhaps he’s staying on the air as some kind of public service — a documentary on advanced dementia?)

Last week, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture assured followers that the theory of evolution is compatible with the bible:

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

“The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator”.

A former Council for Culture member, William Rees-Mogg saw this as a promising indicator of the new pope’s view:

It is a precautionary statement, distancing the Church from the American attack on Darwinism that Rome considers to be neither good science, nor good theology. It will also be taken as an indication of the priorities of the present Pope Benedict XVI.
[---]
Cardinal Poupard’s statement clarified the acceptance of Darwinism and rightly asserted that religious belief is compatible with the theory of evolution. He also gave a further indication that the mindset of Benedict XVI may be a good deal more modern than had been expected.

Or not. The new pope popped off this week:

Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an “intelligent project” and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.

How low can he go?

(Photo from Newsweek. What did we do to deserve it?) 36% approve of the job the president is doing. In case you’re inclined to dismiss that as a mainstream media blip, Fox News Poll, puts him at 36% too. (Newsweek bizarrely describes Bush as “a leader who rode comfortably to reelection just a year ago.” Comfortably? 51% Bush to 49% Kerry, with suspicious results in the state that determined the election?)

But the burning question is, how low can he go? Pollwise, suggests Kung Fu Monkey (via Slacktivist) he really hasn’t hit bottom, yet…

John: Hey, Bush is now at 37 percent approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is —

Tyrone: 27 percent.

John: … you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27 percent of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5 percent of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27 percent Crazification Factor in any population.

But indecency-wise, he really can’t get lower or more desperate:

“These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.”

Yes, the man who harbors a known traitor in the White House accuses his critics of treason. But this was the tough new offensive we heard about last week — Bush was going to “hit back” at his critics (Steve Soto calls this the Lying Bastards Tour):

In a Veterans Day speech at an Army depot here, Mr. Bush made his most aggressive effort to date to counter the charge that he had justified taking the United States to war by twisting or exaggerating prewar intelligence.

OK, but he gave the same speech he gave last month (via Atrios), adding only a few new accusations that have been completely decimated in the last 24 hours, first by the reliable Think Progress and then by the Washington Post.

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

I’ll be interested to hear how this plays out on Meet the Press, etc., tomorrow, but I won’t have the stomach to listen to it myself.