Monica is the tip of the iceberg

Monica Goodling, the person currently at the center of a Congressional investigation in which she used illegal discriminatory practices to stack the Justice Department with pro-Bushies, is as useless as she looks. And that seems to be the point.

A full accounting of her experience can be found here, including her obviously inflated resume. Missing is her law degree from Pat Robertson's Conservative mill, Regent University.

What is insane is that the obvious technique employed by the Bush Administration isn't merely an issue of politicos being placed or 'hired' for positions despite their lack of qualifications (or qualifications that would eliminiate them from consideration, such as defenders of Big Oil in charge of the EPA, for example), it is that they seem to be using every aspect of the administration to build experience for those that cannot earn it. Putting weaker candidates in place doesn't just serve the current administration in compliance, but serves the Republican Party by inflating the number of "experts" that have their ideology.

This concept is dangerous and will have long-term consequences. Look at the example of those political operatives that were deemed failures from the 1970s and weren't involved until their careers were resurrected by Bush I (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz). Or look at those that were discredited and/or sent to jail after Nixon's administration and the renaissance they are experiencing. At least these people "earned" their positions (AND happened to be crooked). President Bush, on the other hand, gives promotions to loyal followers regardless of credentials, giving his personal lawyer (Alberto Gonzales) the job of Attorney General and initially nominating another of his lawyers (Harriet Miers) to the Supreme Court. Giving his cronies jobs is bad enough, but he is now giving them experience that they can use after he is out of office. The Bush Administration is inflating the statistics to their long-term advantage.

The media already gives liberals and moderates a ridiculous burden of proof unreflective of reality--now put more 'former White House officials' on the street to spread lies and misinformation for the next generation. Chalk it up as yet another poisonous byproduct of Bush's corrupt legacy.

Toby Keith isn't just a racist, he's sick

It is all too easy to use 'racist' to describe someone. It seems to have lost its meaning. In fact, conservatives are likely to make you think that they no longer exist: that we are all color-blind now.

But here's the truth: racism isn't just alive, its well. Toby Keith has gone on a publicity tour supporting his new album, singing the song "Beer For My Horses on The Colbert Report and will play it on The Tonight Show. The song, among other things, glorifies lynching, the Jim Crow South, and vigilante 'justice' and terrorism.

If you want to read more about it, check out this article here, but I must warn you that its pictures are graphic.

If this is the symbol of patriotism, don't you wish there were another option?

File this under "absurd"

Yeah, weddings get so out of hand, that police have to taser the groom all the time.

Check out the lunacy and overreaction here.

A reflection on two worldviews

In light of Lambeth, GAFCON, and all of the media’s attempts to dismantle the positive conversation that is currently going on within the Anglican Communion, as well as the Archbishop’s address yesterday, a thought occurred to me recently.

The current talk of schism (encouraged by the self-called Global South, cranky American bishops, and the reporters that amount to teenagers in a schoolyard chanting “Fight! Fight!
Fight!”) leads to the embodiment of two incredibly questionable worldviews:

1. There are two groups that are warring in any situation.
2. Conservatives are in a culture war.

Neither of these worldviews is accurate, nor are they beneficial to the discussion. But we use
them as the subtext, pretext, or even primary text of our discussion.

The war worldview is obviously unhealthy. It begins by suggesting that there are only two views of a situation and that they are diametrically opposed to one-another. It then attempts to shoehorn divergent perspectives into these two opposing positions. Our current political use of liberal and conservative don’t seem to fit the modern definitions or the classical definitions, so why would they even accurately describe the current situation?

Like church conflicts of old, the groups of people that are responsible are not diametrically opposed, but tangentially. Imagine that you are sitting in front of a sandbox. The oppositional/conflict worldview suggests that the other child playing in the sandbox must be directly across from you and that they are in direct opposition to you. What if the other child is to your side, or worse, next to you? Does that mean you have to knock down their castle to make room for your own? Can’t you work on the same greater project?

The second worldview is perhaps more subtle, but strangely common. It is the idea of the culture war: a crusade to remake culture into a conservative ideal. It suggests that the world has strayed, not just from God’s plan, but because of liberalism. Related to the us vs. them mentality described above, this represents the opposing forces from the victim’s perspective. It recasts normal as liberal and conservative as normal. This not only shifts the goal posts, but the sidelines as well!

We have seen this worldview engaged in national politics, introduced in the 70’s, epitomized in the 80’s, and then implemented as normal in the 1990s. It represents a retro response to what they perceive as a creeping liberalism. A liberalism that is also authoritarian. It believes that they have been stripped of their position by those at the top, despite their interest in replacing the existing status with a new centralized conservative authority!

This worldview is further made difficult in that, as in war, both sides are seemingly “responsible” for the current arrangement. It seems to suggest that the culture itself represents hostility toward them and that a chosen action is not a breeching of covenant, but a response to aggressive action. The Schismatics seem to have learned from the Southern rebels that have inherited their region’s legacy after the Civil War.

Both of these worldviews distract us from the discussion that would enliven our relationship, replacing it with conflict, distrust, and in some cases, violence and oppression. Think about this: In confirming the election of V. Gene Robinson to Bishop of New Hampshire, the Episcopal Church didn’t “act”. It abided by its process. The incursion of international bishops into
the Episcopal Church, on the other hand, are acts of aggression.

Until we sit together in honesty and integrity, these things will continue to divide us.

Lambeth update

For those that are interested, the second week of the Lambeth Conference got off to a lively start. On Monday was the release of the final recommendations of the Windsor Continuation Group. Not surprisingly, these recommendations are clearly the wrong move for the Anglican Communion, and heavily weighted against the Episcopal Church. For a great summary, check out Susan Russell's reaction here.

The Archbishop made an "unscheduled" address to the conference today, which actually seems reasonable...Susan Russell also has the address in full here.

What makes a monster?

Who bears responsibility for hate? For years, culture warriors went after "devil" music and D&D because they thought it taught children to worship Satan. They went after goth and industrial music and The Matrix after Columbine. They even went after condoms because they thought it might lead to teens having sex. For the culture warriors, bad influencers must be silenced...forever.

The hate-mongers (pick a time and flick on Fox News) that pervade our media: Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, Beck, etc.: have daily TV, radio, internet, and print opportunities to send the world into a tizzy over the latest thing that "the liberals" have done. Some have all but called for round up and lynching of anyone that professes a liberal position. The very notion that these people are "culture warriors" puts this at the forefront of their thinking.

So what happens when a mass murderer is found to have been influenced by these people? There is a fascinating commentary from The Huffington Post by RJ Eskow that you can find here.

Eskow is interested in the human part: the part that wonders how these people can spew such hate and not feel responsible. I think its time that we stop firing hate-mongers, only to have them reappear after the furor over their latest diatribe ends. How do these people have jobs? How do they get chances to speak in public?

And if we are to consider them entertainers, then why are they on Fox News, hosting news broadcasts, and having articles printed in newspapers? I would expect that more qualified, articulate, and compassionate people could be found...virtually anywhere. Perhaps a random person off the street could be just as entertaining on the nightly news.

Flushing Democracy

Woooooossssshhhhh!

gurgle

You know when you flush your toilet? You hear that sound of the bowl filling and then draining, then that short pause as the water escapes down the drain, leading to the usual last little gurgle of the water settling. For us, that is the sign that the toilet has officially flushed.

Our country has just heard that gurgle.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 5-4 on July 15th that the federal government has the right to detain anyone (including citizens and legal residents) indefinitely, without a trial, AND with the government’s ability to label someone an ‘enemy combatant’ without determining proof that the individual has taken direct or even indirect violent or military action against the United States.

gurgle

We’ve been listening to the flushing sound ever since September 12^th, 2001. When the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus extends to Guantanemo Bay, we heard that moment of silence. Then this gurgle. But I’ll give you a second to let the above sink in.

According to this ruling, described in an article for Alternet, which includes acknowledgments from the majority opinion, the U.S. government has the right to claim any person at any time anywhere an ‘enemy combatant’, and despite the oldest rule of modern law (habeas corpus), detain that person in isolation indefinitely. The separation between this and Pinochet’s Chile is now gone.

Since 2002 and the declared War on Terror, we have gone back and forth about terms and about concepts. We avoided using the term Prisoner of War because that would require our following the Geneva Convention. We were told that ‘enemy combatants’ are synonymous in the “good” ways, but afford us more “freedom” in handling prisoners. Yeah, right. We made up the term ‘enemy combatant’ as a means of treating American citizens and legal residents as if they had plotted and implemented 9/11.

We also argued that the concept of ‘enemy combatants’ was, like prisoners of war, determined by the length of the conflict. “We have to hold these people so that they don’t rejoin the fighting” they argued. Except that we are in the midst of one of the longest armed conflicts in U.S. history, and one that Attorney General Mukasey is looking to extend indefinitely and without direction (a new request for authorization for military action anywhere at any time is coming before Congress right now). We were promised that ‘enemy combatants’ wouldn’t be held but for a couple of years, only as long as a) useful intelligence could be gathered and b) the couple of years we would be fighting. Now we are looking at a permanent legal black hole in which the president might shove dissenters.

We used to be afraid of new McCarthyism. But McCarthy was an angry man demanding his way. What if we greased the wheels and cleared the tracks for the next one? What happens when we hand over the keys to the kingdom for miniscule hypothetical and potential benefit?

Here’s a reminder course:

The Suspension Clause:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The Due Process Clause:

in Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

and Fourteenth Amendment:
(from Section 1)

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Not to mention these other areas, also affected:

The Fourth Amendment:

“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.”

The Sixth Amendment:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

And the Eighth Amendment:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The person on trial, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, was entering grad school in 2001. He was arrested and in 2003, was labeled an enemy combatant and locked up in solitary confinement where he was tortured repeatedly and has yet to be relieved from “harsh interrogation” despite military urgings. He has a wife and five children that haven’t seen him in seven years.

The following is an excerpt from the dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz:

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President call them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country…For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power -- were a court to recognize it -- that could lead all our laws 'to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces.' We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic."

God save us.