And I Thought Oregon Was Progressive Maybe Even Liberal

I am indebted to Andy at The Cool Justice Report for calling my attention to this story. I try to keep up with book-banning/burning events but I missed this one.

Helen Jung reports in the Oregonian: "The Crook County School District has temporarily removed a book from classrooms after one parent complained to the school board that the National Book Award winner was "trashy" and "inappropriate."

Her article is Crook County removes book from schools after parent complains

What is wrong with a parent who would make this kind of a complaint about a book described as "deeply funny, politically incorrect, slightly naughty, and heart-wrenching, . . . a glimpse into an unfamiliar culture and maintains a balance between the bleak reality of reservation life and the stunning beauty of a loving family and friendship" in a review in School Library Journal. I know there is probably not grounds for a charge of child abuse here, but maybe there ought to be.

Baptists Put An End To Tolerance

The fundanazis in charge of various southern baptist organizations continue to demonstrate that lack of concern for historic baptist distinctives. Among the things that baptists of the sbc type have claimed as deeply held spiritucal convictions is the idea of the autonomy of the local church. The moderates who were run out of the sbc over the past few years were always strong supporters of this doctrine even when it led to them being verbally abused by those who felt called to judge the behavior and belief of some congregation other than their own. Among the big issues back in the 70s that got the moderates in trouble, was allowing churches that practiced the more controversial spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, to remain members in good standing. But the current leadership has consistently just given lip service to this historic baptist doctrine. This is nowhere more apparent than in today's press release from the Associated Baptist Press, an alternative to the sbc's official mouth organ, the baptist press. The first article which demonstrated this lack of concern for local church autonomy was about NC baptists who will no longer allow cooperating churches to funnel their gifts through the convention to anyone but "approved" baptist concerns. Particularly targeted with the gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a splinter group formed by some of the aforementioned moderates. The statement which reveals the somewhat lack of Christ-like spirit from those opposed to the open giving plan came from Eric Page, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus, who said "that refusing
to take a strong stand would promote "tolerance" of a group with which most North Carolina Baptists disagree. (We certainly wouldn't want any church to promote tolerance now would we?)
Page illustrated his point by saying the cartoon character Popeye took abuse only so long before he "popped out" a can of spinach and put an end to it."

Are you ready for this line?!?!

"It's time for us to pop out a can of spinach and put an end to tolerance," he said.

Farther down in the same ABP release we find baptists isolating themselves even more.

"On Nov. 12, in a front-page story, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the news that the Georgia Baptist Convention has approved a new policy giving GBC executives the freedom to refuse donations from churches it finds to be out of step with Southern Baptist beliefs. The policy move is aimed (for now) at First Baptist Church Decatur, because it called a woman, Julie Pennington-Russell, to serve as pastor."

So now Georgia baptists don't even have to vote on it. Their executives can decide for them which churches are "out of step." This is even more tragic when you consider the number of times Georgia baptists and other "good" southerners refused to censure churches for blatant racism because of local church autonomy. If you want a a good example of this just google "racism beyond the grave."

You people out there who have remained in your southern baptist church with its connection to the sbc better be aware. It is only a matter of time before "they" find some reason to come after you.

Jesus-A Bleeding Heart Liberal?

I am frequently reminded how wrong we can be when we stereotype people based on their religious convictions, or based on just about anything else. I am guilty of thinking of people I know (with a few very notable exceptions) that attend the Alexander Campbell type of Churches of Christ as being conservative reactionaries when it comes to politics. The following letter, written to a Tulsa newspaper by an elder in one of the local churches is just such a reminder.

You can read the full letter on the Morning Rush blog at http://terryrush.blogspot.com/2006/12/being-salt-and-light.html.

I will just give you his final paragraph:

"If Jesus were walking the Earth today, from his actions and his words, some might understandably describe him as a bleeding heart liberal. But in truth, he is more accurately described as a bleeding hands, feet and side compassionate. And so must we be if we intend to bear his name. "

I have been told that the author of the letter went beyond words to actions when he contributed to the Obama campaign.

An Open Letter To Barack Obama

If anyone with any connections to the Obama campaign reads this letter, please pass this on to somebody who can influence campaign strategy.

Dear Senator Obama,
I watched the debate last night with friends who are mostly Obama supporters plus a couple of independents who have not made up their minds. Unanimously, the consensus of the watchers was that you wasted valuable time repeating the attacks you made in the previous debate against John McCain. Everybody knows McCain is tied to Bush. Everybody knows McCain supports the war in Iraq. Everybody knows McCain supports tax cuts for the rich. What all of us were looking for were specific answers to questions that concern us all, particularly on the economy. We all thought you were better than your opponent last night, but you did let McCain steal the headlines for coming up with something new that might help the average American, the buy-up of mortgages. Please stop wasting time attacking McCain. Spend more time convincing the independents that you really are the one that can help them.

Let the bloggers do the attacking. They really are better at it than you are anyway. Don't get down in the gutter with Palin/McCain. Take the high road, talk about the issues, refuse to be sucked in to the character debates. The main reason swiftboating hurt John Kerry was because people remembered him throwing his medals over the Whitehouse fence. It resonated with them. There is nothing in your background that can cause the same reaction. Just shrug off the attacks saying, "We don't have time for that kind of campaigning. There are too many problems to solve and too little time to solve them, so here's what I'm going to do . . ."

You have our support. My family, which is large, is 100% behind you. Now show us your are worthy of our support.

Thanks,

Manny Tomes
An evangelical Vietnam Vet from Norman, OK

Famous Last Words

"I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war." When John McCain made this memorable statement it was an obvious attempt to disparage his opponents motives. Now, because of his ill-conceived selection of Sarah Palin as running mate, we clearly see that he did not mean he wouldn't endanger the country in other ways just to try to win a political campaign. Carl Bernstein, as astute an analyst of the political scenc as anyone writing today, says it well in his article, The Palin Pick -- The Devolution of McCain. Berstein says,

Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate. He is 72 years old; has had four melanomas, a particularly voracious form of cancer; refuses to release his complete medical records. Three of our last eleven presidents (and nine of all 43) have come to office unexpectedly in mid-term from the vice presidency: Truman, who within days of FDR's death was confronted with the decision of whether to drop the atom bomb on Japan; Lyndon Johnson, who took the oath in Dallas after JFK's assassination; Gerald Ford, sworn in following the resignation of Richard Nixon. A fourth vice president, George H.W. Bush, briefly exercised the powers of the presidency after the near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Given that history, what does John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin -- the cavalier, last-minute process of her selection and careless vetting; and her over-briefed, fact-lite performance since -- reveal about this military man who has attested to us for years that he is guided by his personal code of honor? "Two things I will never
do," McCain told me, "are [to] lie to the American people, or put my electoral interests before the national interest" -- an obvious precursor of "I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war."

He then answers his own question:

It does not take a near-death experience to know that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be commander in chief, or that -- in choosing her -- McCain has ignored his own oft-avowed code of conduct. "McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee," noted David Ignatius in the Washington Post. "....No promotion board in history would have made such a decision."

I having no problem praising Berstein for coming to this decision because he now agrees with me. Of course I came to this same conclusion almost a month ago. See my post McCain Throws the Election on August 29, 2008.

I don't always agree with the folks at MoveOn.org but this message hits the nail on the head.

Yesterday was one of the stranger days in presidential election history. John McCain actually asked to "suspend" Friday's much anticipated debate with Barack Obama so that he could posture on the financial crisis.


Even the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board was mystified.


Bottom line: This isn't presidential behavior. It's a desperate, reckless move that actually threatens to make it harder to resolve this crisis. And of course, presidents have to be able to handle lots of important issues at once—they can't panic and take their eyes off of one urgent priority when another one pops up.


Obama wants the debate to go forward. So do millions of other Americans. With 40 days left until the most important election in a generation, we deserve a debate on the issues. What's motivating all this panicky erratic behavior from McCain? It's hard to tell, but here are what some of the experts are saying might be behind it: A drop in the polls. As Politico writer Ben Smith pointed out, "In terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling."


Stopping the VP debate. Last night, McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that the vice presidential debate between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden be postponed indefinitely to accommodate his request to postpone tomorrow's debate. (Now, why would they ever want to postpone or cancel the VP debate?)

Pure reckless decision-making. McCain has a history of reckless decision-making. Here's how Time's Joe Klein put it yesterday, "McCain suspends his campaign because of financial crisis? Oh please. Given today's poll numbers—even Fox has him dropping—it seems another Hail Mary (like the feckless selection of Palin) to try make McCain seem a statesman, which is difficult given the puerile tenor of his campaign's message operation."


And the Wall Street Journal wrote last week: "In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help."

But whatever the cause is, McCain's wrong. Serious situations like this one are exactly the time when Americans most need a real discussion—a debate.

We've got to make sure that the Debate Commission doesn't bend under Republican pressure. Can you sign this emergency petition to the Commission on Presidential Debates urging them to hold strong and make sure that the debate go forward on Friday, as planned? We'll make sure they get your comments by the end of the day.


Clicking below will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/demanddebate/o.pl?id=14042-8768238-oW5enXx&t=3



The petition reads: "Now more than ever, the American people deserve a presidential debate. We urge you to make sure the debate goes forward as planned tomorrow night."

Witch: But we spell it differently

One of my favorite musicals is Brigadoon. And one of my favorite lines in the show come when the townspeople of Brigadoon are telling New Yorker, Jeff Douglas, about the witches that threatened the village. Jeff responds, "We have them where I come from too, only we spell it differently." That has always been my approach to Ann Coulter, but she makes some truly outrageous claims in her column when she tries to demonstrate her knowledge of the Bible and fails miserably. It comes in her rather lame response to the rather lame comments by a well-meaning democrat as reflected in the bumper sticker at the top of the post. In response to the incredibly stupid remarks by Rudy and Sarah at the repubcon, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said: "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." I have been amazed at the groundswell of righteous or not so righteous indignation emanating from the religious non-left.

An editorial by the publisher Loné Beasley of an Ada, Oklahoma newspaper said: "Jesus was not a community organizer. For anyone to say so as a way of promoting a political candidate shows as gross a misunderstanding as has ever been generated by a presidential campaign. Jesus dealt with individuals and individuals only, not entire communities."

The publisher needs to look at the gospels again. He will find that Jesus entire ministry took place in communities, both large and small. When he was in town, the crowds were so big, people had to tear through the roof to get to him. When he walked by the sea, he had to get into a boat to keep from being pressed by the crowd. Even when he went up on the mountain side, the crowds followed him. How could he have fed 5,000 and 4,000 people dealing with "individuals and individuals only." I wonder what the publisher thinks Jesus was doing when he organized his own community called "the church."

Pastor Chris, Gig Harbor, Washington, said: "Let me make one thing clear – as an actually believer in Jesus: 'Jesus was not a "community organizer.' Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord of the universe, the savior of humanity. Demeaning Jesus as a "community organizer" is an insult to every Christian believer in the world. But, more importantly, it is a reckless, blasphemous and profane attack on the Divine Person who sits at the right hand of God the Father.

He goes on to give a dire warning to those who would stoop to such political skullduggery, "I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anyone who throws around such mischaracterizations of the Living God for political gain."

I guess Pastor Chris forgot that part of the Christian creed that says that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine. Somehow, in light of many of his teachings, I don't think the human part of Jesus would object to being known as a community organizer. Remember that the teaching of Jesus that is emphasized more than any other by nearly all of the New Testament writers is "Love your neighbor as yourself." Do publisher Loné and pastor Chris think all of those neighbors were living out in the wilderness all by themselves? Perhaps there were some communities around somewhere.

I really liked the comment by the guy who said that even if Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was not a governor, he was a prefect. If this guy will do just a little more homework he will find out that a prefect is one level of Roman governor.

But the best (worst) comments from the aforemention witch (check spelling) who in her regular fashion produces some poorly written attempts at being ironic or satirical saying, "Rep. Cohen would be well-advised to stay away from New Testament references. As anyone familiar with the New Testament can confirm for him, there are no parables about Jesus passing out cigarettes for votes, lobbying the Romans for less restrictive workfare rules or filing for grants under the Community Redevelopment Act. No time for soul-saving now! First, we lobby Fannie Mae to ease off those lending standards and demand a windfall profits tax on the money-changers in the temple."

If she really knew as much about the New Testament as she wants us to believe, she would know that Jesus spent very little time "saving souls." That was left to his followers after he ascended back to heaven. Those closest to him at the time (the community of twelve) really did think he was "organizing" the Jews to throw off the Roman oppressors and bring on the kingdom of God. She also makes her weak little attempts to insult the work of community organizers.

But her number one, super-stupid remark comes earlier in the column when she tries to make a case for George Washington being pro-life because in a speech to his troops before going into battle in 1776, he said, "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army." She says, "So Washington . . . gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the "unborn." That's right! George Washington was a "pro-life extremist," just like Sarah Palin. I've know her to say some crazy stuff, but that one pretty much tops them all.

Hey McCain, Shutup!

I realize an opening like that is not appropriate in this day of political correctness. And after all McCain is a "real American hero." But I have to agree with Mitchell Bard in his article, "It's Time for the "Deregulators" Like McCain to Step Aside and Shut Up" For some reason all of the people in Washington who are responsible for the economic "CF" keep talking like they think they can now dictate the terms of the solution. It's bad enough that we have to let Bush in, but there is no way congress should allow them to say what kind of "clean bill" they want. Congress needs to have the (I would say balls but that would be sexist) intestinal fortitude to pass a bill with oversight and tax payer protection and dare the shrub to veto it. Then the shrub and his twin can go sit out in Arizona or Texas and watch the sun go down and keep their damn mouths shut. Where does John McCain think he gets the credibility to demand "oversight" and "regulation" now after an entire career of fighting "oversight" and "regulation." So once again I say.

Hey McCain, Shutup!!

Potholes and Garbage

Question: Who said

"I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. "

Answer: John McCain in the Republican Debate, October 21, 2007.

Of course then he was running against Mayor Giuliani, mayor of one of the largest cities in the world, and Governor Romney, governor of Massachusetts with 6.5 million people.

Let me make sure I understand McCain's reasoning.
Being the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world doesn't adequately prepare you to be president.
Being governor of Massachusetts, population 6.5 million doesn't adequately prepare you to be president.

But being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,469 and governor of Alaska, population 670,000 does adequately prepare you to be the proverbial "heartbeat away from the presidency."

I think Barack Obama said it well last night. Being mayor of a small town is a tough job. You have to make sure the potholes get filled and the garbage gets picked up. Sounds like qualifications to be the strongest person in the free world to me. So please send Sarah back to her potholes and garbage and get serious about who is going to be president of the United States.

Baptist Leaders Backpedal After Palin Nomination

After years of using their interpretation of certain biblical teachings to beat women into submission-

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband" and "has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." (Excerpted from the Baptist Faith and Message)

The current leadership of the southern baptist convention is rapidly backpedalling in order to support Sarah Palin for vice president. The uniquivocal voice of the SBC leadership in the past few years has been that the wife's first responsibility is to be in the home. One large church in Oklahoma went so far as to fire all of the church secretaries who were church members because they were not supposed to be working outside the home.

Now, however, that Sarah Palin, a mother whose home obviously needs attention, has been nominated by the republican party, they are claiming that that teaching was never intended to speak to women in secular leadership positions only to women in church and family where she is commanded to submit to the headship of her husband. Let me get this straight, according to this teaching there is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president or even president of the United States as long as she serves as Todd's helper in managing the household and nurturing their five children including a special needs baby.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with a woman trying to do that. I am just amazed that people like Albert Mohler and the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission can believe that anyone with half a brain will believe their illogical extrapolations. There is at least one southern baptist pastor who is sticking with his beliefs,

"I don't see this as a pro-family pick at all!" said Voddie Baucham, a popular author and conference speaker who serves as preaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas. "In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick."

"My point is simple," Baucham said in a blog. "The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul's admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking."

You can read a fuller account of Baucham's statement at Baptist Preacher Terms Palin VP Pick 'Anti-Family'

Another good source for analysis of this issue is Robert Parham's article, Politician Palin Forces Theological Revisionism at the EthicsDaily.com website.

The Lies Just Keep On Coming

An old joke with a new subject: "How can you tell when Sarah Palin is lying? Her mouth is open." It just keeps getting piled higher and deeper. Now the Washington Post is reporting some very questionable travel claims including staying in a $700 a night hotel in NY. Not that's what I call a fiscal conservative. Since I am primarily just ranting about McCain/Palin at this point let me point you to a blog that is doing more documentation of the lies and insanity of the McCain crowd.

Go see

How Insane Is John McCain?

He gives you enough evidence to keep several grand juries deliberating for a long time.

Eight Years of Lies Is Enough

I have been upset for the last couple of years because no one on a national level, whether politician or media pundit was willing to tell the truth about George Bush and John Cheney. The flat truth is that they lied about the situation in Iraq in order to get support for their stupid war. And they have continued to lie in order to keep the American people from totally revolting against them. I lost all respect for several people at high levels in government for not only refusing to call a lie a lie but continuing to support the Bush war even though they knew it was based on lies. Among these are Condolezza Rice, Joe Lieberman, and sure enough John McCain. I don't care how much they think the war was a good idea. It was based on lies that Bush and his cronies told to the American people.

And now, John McCain and Sarah Palin evidently think if Bush could get away with it regarding the war, they can get away with it in the campaign. And even after the truth is told they keep telling the lies, evidently thinking that if they just keep saying it, people will eventually believe them. One reallyobvious big lie is that Sarah Palin was against the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere." She supported it from the beginning of her statewide political career until it was obvious that it was making Ted Stevens the laughingstock of the Senate. Then even after she canceled the project, she kept the $200+ million for other pet projects in Alaska including a new road that led to the place the bridge was supposed to be.

John McCain lied when he said Barack Obama had not introduced any legislation. John McCain lied when he said he was the lobbyists worst enemy. Sarah Palin lied when she said BarackObama had asked for a billion dollars in earmarks in one year. Sarah Palin lied about her own requests for "earmarks" both as a mayor and as a governor. Sarah Palin lied about her involvement in the troopergate scandal. I was amazed just this morning when one of her old exercise buddies said on Good Morning America that if there is one thing Sarah Palin is, it is honest.

Of course, the BIG LIE concerns John McCain himself. Far from being a proponent of change, he is a major part of the problem in Washington. George Bush along with his republican allies in congress has come close to destroying the American economy in the last eight years and we haven't even begun to pay for the war yet.

I do not understand how anyone can honestly support John McCain and Sarah Palin in the current election. Their campaign is filled with lies from beginning to end. My only conclusion is that the purported 46-48% of Americans who are supporting the liars McCain and Palin are blind, stupid or just plain evil.

This is not a lie. It's 133 days until the end of the Bush disaster and America cannot stand one more day of the same failed policies, much less four more years. If you really care about this country, look at the records, look at the evidence and tell John McCain to pick one of his houses to go hide in and tell Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska. They elected her, they can have her.

The Daily Show Breaks News on Palin

While I have generally been disappointed in the Daily Show's coverage of the conventions this year, the following clip, which includes Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and even Sarah Palin saying words they should have to eat, is definitely up to their old standards.

More on Palin Watch--Hypocrites

This is truly an historic day. I finally found a Cal Thomas statement that I can agree with. In a column about the media unfair treatment of Sarah Palin, his opening line is "We are such hypocrites." He can just stop there and he will have for once spoken the truth. But no he has to go on and castigate the media for piling on the Palin family because of Bristol's pregnancy. Doesn't he realize that the only reason the media is piling on is because Sarah Palin represents herself as part of that group of Christians who have been piling on other people for years who crossed the line of their loudly proclaimed family values. But somehow, when the plank is in her eye, we are not supposed to notice it. I want to thank one of my conservative friends for making me aware of Cal's column.

I am truly sorry that Bristol Palin's sex life has become a topic of conversation for the whole world. I know she didn't ask for that. But the one person responsible for it is her mother, the righteous Sarah Palin. Supposedly she knew her daughter was pregnant when she accepted the nomination and surely she is not so politically naive as to think that it would be kept secret. Should candidates' families be off-limits, absolutely. Will they be if there is any hint of scandal? Absolutely not. Why was Chelsea Clinton constantly bombarded with questions about her father's sexual practices? No child should be subjected to that, but it was a sure fire way to get ratings and sell papers. And if you don't think the horde of news people are in it for the money just ask Rupert Murdoch.

If you want to read the Thomas column here is the link, just remember if you want the truth just read the first line.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2008/09/04/what_standards

Palin--Energy Expert?

I'm not sure how or why but anti-Palin blogs, articles, messages, etc. keep jumping off the screen at me. I tried changing computers and logins but nothing seems to help. I thought I knew away to escape when I turned off the computer and got in my car, turned on the radio and hoped for some relief from the onslaught of antisarianism, but right there on my car radio was my republiclone representative, Tom Cole, praising Sarah Palin saying that because she's governor of a state with 20% of the nations energy reserves she knows more about energy than anyone else in the race, including McCain. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it perpetuates the very problem some of us are trying to solve, dependence on oil, whether domestic or foreign. To her credit, she did help get some tough energy legislation passed. But then she used the proceeds to buy her 80% approval rating by distributing money to all of the citizens of Alaska. She may know something about the oil business, (oh wait, that is her family business isn't it? Haven't we had enough oil men or women in the white house to last us for a long, long time?) As I was saying, just knowing something about the oil business does not make you an energy expert.

Of course, my biggest complaint about her is not her lack of experience but her heavy handed way of dealing with anyone who opposes her. The firing of the chief public safety officer is only the latest in a string of power grabs. I am not really concerned about all the other people she has fired through the years but when she starts picking on librarians she is in big trouble. How much more evidence of her megalomania do you need, than to read that when she took over as mayor of Wasilla, she asked all of the department heads, including the town librarian, to resign as a show of support for her administration. She had to back down from the librarian but some of the others were more than willing to say goodbye. I guess they were like Daniel. We have just had 8 years of imperial presidency and don't need any more. I don't care how well she does in her speech tonight, and she ought to to well since her only job outside of being a politician seems to have been as a part time sports journalist and everyone knows how eloquent sports reporters are. Just ask them.

So far the best of the blog articles on Sarah Palin that I've seen is Sarah Palin: Dick Cheney in a Dress by Reality Catcher. I do think he takes a cheap shot at the end but the rest of the article is very good.

Reality Catcher: Sarah Palin: Dick Cheney In A Dress

Sarah Palin, Too Little Too Late

Since I've already discussed her absolute lack of qualifications to be vice president of the United States, (except of course for her membership in the PTA as noted elsewhere) I won't comment much more about the Too Little part of this article. What is really tragic is that she will be Too Late. Too Late for the Bush whitehouse where she would have fit right in. The more I read about the Wootengate fiasco the scarier it gets. There are a multitude of articles available about this, but the one with the most cogent arguments is from talkingpointsmemo.com

Getting Real About Palin

The final paragraph of the article sums up the problem for us:

We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government.

Look again at that opening sentence: "We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. " Like I said, she would have fit right in with the Bush/Chaney/Rove/Libby/ etc. ad nauseum gang.

So Who's the Celebrity?

I think it is very appropriate that the first interview with the republican ticket was given to People magazine. I love the picture of the two wannabe first families right next to the following headlines.

• Ryan Cabrera: Ashlee Will Be a 'Great Mom'
• Johnny Depp Rocks Out for a Good Cause
• Friends Remember Dr. Dre's Son
• Amy Winehouse Cancels Paris Performance
• David Duchovny Has Addressed Rumors of Sex Addiction

Do you think McCain is trying to convince us that in spite his millions and his so-many-he-can't-remember-them-all houses, he is really just one of the folks? Don't underestimate the power of the mob. Remember that GWB won because he pulled off the guy-you-would-like-to-have-a-beer-with image.

In my previous post on this subject I did neglect to give SP credit for her leadership experience as the point guard on the Wasilla Warriors basketball team. Don't get me wrong. I'm a great fan of women's basketball. Some of my very favorite people play the game, but somehow I never saw it as preparation for the White House.

McCain Throws the Election

I knew McCain and his ilk were desparate, but this is absolutely crazy. His most effective criticism of Barak Obama has been his lack of experience and now, if he wins, a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world will be a person whose primary experience is being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of about 8400 people. She has no experience, she has no credentials, she has no credibility, she has nothing to justify her as a candidate for Vice President of the United States except that the McCain people hope that some of the dissaffected Hilary supporters will vote for her just because she is female. Oh yes, she was Miss Wasilla of 1984.

If you take a look at the City of Wasilla webpage for today (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/) these are the two lead stories:

Former Wasilla Mayor Picked for Vice Presidential Run
CNN and Fox News are reporting Senator John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on the GOP ticket for the White House! More...

Baby & Me Lap-Sit Program at the Library
Baby & Me Lap-Sit is a new one-on-one program for an adult and baby (ages 4-18 months). The program will be held of Fridays at 10:30 am at Wasilla Public Library. Registration is required.

As a former public librarian, I fully recognize the value of the Lap-Sit programs. In fact I have conducted some myself and they are quite a learning experience. And I don't mean for the babies. But I can conceive of no situation where any of the mayors of my town, which is bigger that Wasilla, would ever be considered as candidates for the vice-presidency.

Here is the bio of the current mayor of Wasilla. Peruse it at your leisure to discover the political nuances that would prepare here to be next in line for the most powerful job on the planet.

Mayor Dianne M. Keller was twice elected to the Wasilla City Council, Seat B.
She was previously appointed to serve a one-year term from 1996-1997, and was
elected to serve a full term from 1997-2000. Her Council term ended in October
2002 when she ran for and became the Mayor of Wasilla. Dianne was re-elected as
Mayor in 2005 and will serve until 2008.
The Mayor is an active
member of our community. She has been a member of the AML Legislative Committee
from 1996 to 2004, and the Alaska Conference of Mayors from 2002 to present.
Mayor Keller also chairs the Mat-Su American Red Cross leadership committee and
formerly was a Board Member for the Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce in
2005.
In addition, she is a member of the Alaska Resource Development
Council, Mat-Su Resouce Development Council, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
Alaska Miners Association, the Mat-Su Youth Court, a member of the Alaska Moose
Federation, and Chair for the Statewide Moose Safety & Rebuilding Task
Force.
The Mayor was appointed to serve the State residents on the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC). She is also an active supporter of the Boy
Scouts of America and donates regularly to the Blood Bank of Alaska.
Mayor
Keller was born and raised in Anchorage and has lived in the
Matanuska-Susitna valley since 1983. She and her husband Dave have lived in
the city since 1992 and their son Seth was born in Wasilla in 1994.

After Obama's acceptance speech which should have removed all doubts about his ability to lead and after the Bill & Hilary shows of the previous nights in support of Barak Obama removed all doubts about who they are supporting the repubs really needed to pull out their big guns to counter the momentum of Obama's campaign had coming out of the election. So the first thing they do is time the release of McCain's running for the day after the convention to take away some of the headlines and talking head time. That's pretty transparent but all's fair in presidential politics. But this is absolutely ludicrous. I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a very fine woman, but she has no business being nominated or agreeing to this nomination. The Bush/McCain team continues to make a mockery of the American political system. McCain likes to be known as a maverick, but this is just plain old ordinary stupidity.

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

The Bush so-called "Justice Department" is getting to have things both ways. First they violate the rules then they claim that resolving that problem would violate the rules. First one attorney general, who should never have been approved, gets his hirlings to fill all the available US attorney slots with card-carrying conservatives in clear violation of civil service laws. Then the next attorney general covers for him, first acknowledging that people were hired in violation of the law but refusing to remove them because they did nothing wrong and in his words, "Two wrongs do not make a right. People who were hired in an improper way didn't themselves do anything wrong."

That is the kind of convoluted thinking we have come to expect from bush appointees, but one always hopes that one of these days we will get an attorney general who believes justice is more than just the name of his department. Thank goodness we only have to suffer through this for another 160 days.

This will probably just become another bullet point in all of those coming lectures about why George Bush will go down in history as one of America's worst presidents. And for some reason there are still fools out there supporting him. How can they do that, are they blind, stupid, or just plain evil. I don't see any alternatives.

You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian.

Just in case you were wondering whether or not you can be liberal and Christian, the all-knowing Rick Santorum has given us the last word. Referring to Barack Obama, the ousted, but out-spoken former senator from Pennsylvania said,

You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian.

The comment is reported in a post on a beliefnet blog, Santorum: Obama's Faith Is "Phony"
Blogger Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of beliefnet, says, "Santorum, known for overtly connecting his fath to his politics, said the Democrats' current efforts to be more faith-friendly are "a charade... I dont think it's sincere at all." Obama's efforts to talk about the importance of faith in his life is "phoney--absolutely disingenuous. I think he's a complete phoney. . . (At the end of the attack, he added that of course it would be inappropriate for him to judge the authenticity of Obama's faith, as only God could do that.)"

Santorum went on to question whether liberal christianity was really, well, Christian. "You're a liberal something, but your not a Christian." He continued, "When you take a salvation story and turn it into a liberation story you've abandoned Christiandom and I don't think you have a right to claim it."

I wonder if Santorum ever heard about "the truth will liberate (my translation) you. Of course, this is not terribly significant but is reflective of the kind of rhetoric that continual pours out of the mouths of the righteous right.

Someone finally gets it right--Iraq invasion was f*cking stupid

Someone with Whitehouse connections has finally gotten it right about the war in Iraq.

Iraq invasion was f*cking stupid!

David Kilcullen, a counter-terrorism expert from Australia, who is now an adviser to Condoleezza Rice, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "f*cking stupid." He goes on to say, "The biggest stupid idea was to invade Iraq in the first place."

Kilcullen's comments are printed by The Washington Independent from a draft copy of A Counterinsurgency Guide for Politicos-Eighth in a Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents. This manual is be prepared to help those involved in policy making to have the same kind of understanding that the military does. It is intended for "Cabinet-level" officials and their staffs.

Among the novel concepts included in the manual are:

• negotiations are a two-way street in counterinsurgency


• integrate civilian and military agencies into a concerted strategy


• intervening to support an oppressive, authoritarian or abusive government against an insurgency is extremely problematic


• it is folly to intervene . . . unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the affected government will cooperate


• and a really novel idea (at least for the Bush Whitehouse) RESPECT PEOPLE

Since this is draft, one must wonder how much of this will make it into the published version. I seriously doubt that the "f*ucking stupid" comment will survive. Of course many of us started saying this (without the colorful metaphor) before the war and have been saying it continuously for years. Of course, I do not have the slightest doubt that it will be ignored by those who make the decisions.

Crimes Against Nature?

This is a little out of the ordinary for me to address a story like this one, but it raised a red flag. NewsOK.com carried a news story entitled Dog sex tapes lead to Tulsa arrest, charges which tells of a women in Tulsa who was arrested for "crimes against nature" which included beastiality. Specifically she and a friend were charged with performing various sex acts with dogs. Let me state emphatically, that I in no way condone this kind of behavior. My question is,

Why is it against the law?

Why are there even statutes on the books that address this kind of
behavior? Is it repugnant? Yes. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it
stupid? Yes. Is it unsanitary? Most likely. But is it criminal? I
don't think it should be. But obviously it is in Tulsa. I wonder how
many other cities or states have laws covering "crimes against nature."
Apart from global warming and pollution, how do you commit a crime against
nature?

I was especially disturbed that the Tulsa DA's office was recommending that the dogs be "taken away from the suspects and be put down." They want to kill the dogs because the stupid people had sex with them. What possible reason can they have for doing that? This case has ACLU, SPCA and PETA written all over it.

Supreme Court Gets It Wrong, Twice. Oops, THRICE

Historically the Supreme Court has swung between the extremes of too much or too little power. Early in its history, it could make all the pronouncements it wanted to, but had no means to enforce its decisions. For the past few decades there have been many complaints about an "activist" court or "activist" judges, meaning of course that the complainer did not like the court's decision on a particular issue. Because the court had an obvious liberal slant up until the Bush appointments, most of those charges had come from the right. Now the shoe is on the other (left?) foot and the liberals are making the charges about "activist" judges. Of course, they are not using those words, but the complaints are the same.

So at this point I get to add my complaints. The court has made three critical decisions in the last few days, two along straight 5-4 ideological lines and one 5-3 with one recused. First they decided that using capital punishment for those convicted of child rape is "cruel and unusual" punishment, second they decided that the 2nd amendment includes the right of self-defense, and third they reduced the punitive damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. It is my firmly held conviction that they are wrong on all three.

A strange thing is happening here. I am actually siding with the conservative element of the court on the capital punishment decision. Don't get me wrong. I am opposed to capital punishment. I am in full agreement with the sentiment expressed by the child who asked, "Is capital punishment when we kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?" I am absolutely convinced that violence is never an appropriate response to violence. However, I am just as convinced that if we are going to use capital punishment for any crimes, the crime of child rape ought to be included. I do not understand the logic of the majority which does not see the violence of rape used against the most helpless in our society as being worthy of the highest level of punishment. It is a rare set of circumstances which has me agreeing with Justice Samuel Alito when he said, it means the death penalty would be barred

"no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be."

Things are back to normal on the handgun decision. I am firmly in the camp of the liberal justices. Justice Scalia, speaking for the majority says, "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." I've read the 2nd amendment many times. It is one of the shortest of the Bill of Rights, only 27 words, and I find nothing that guarantees a right of "self-defense." This is judicial activism at its best.

I am in complete agreement with Justice Stevens that "there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Justice Stephen Breyer, states it even more clearly:

"The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens _ namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.

"The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."

And finally there is the most clear-cut example of judicial activism in favor of corporate America. Of course no one should be surprised that a Bush dominated court would protect the profits of his paymasters. The reasoning behind the decision to cut the punitive damages by 80% is that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. Just for the record, the $500 million amounts to four days worth of profits for Exxon.

Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, declared that the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. She concluded that this was a "new law made by the court should have been left to Congress."

I find it saddening that the oil-man president's court will not stand up for the rights of children to be safe from rape but will stand up for the rights of oil companies not to be held accountable for their actions.

Worth a thousand words

You gotta admit, they've got balls

I am constantly amazed at the chutzpah of the radical religious right. After years of totally ignoring or at most giving lip-service to the biblical demand about caring for the poor, an issue has finally arisen that makes them take the side of the poor. I was made aware of this when I received an "action alert" from the chief of modern day pharisees, Richard Land of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Only last year, Land used as an excuse for not supporting some of the evangelical green efforts, that his "constituency" had not come to any consensus on the issue of globlal warning.

Land is quoted in Christianity Today as saying, "I don't think there is anywhere near that kind of consensus on the issue, at least among the evangelicals I know. … They're not ready to accept it is a settled fact that human beings are the major cause of global warming."

Apparently since then, he has reached his own conclusion that stopping global warming is not biblical. Here are some excerpts from the alert:


Tell Senate to Reject Climate Change Bill that Would Hurt Poor, Economy

Dear Friends:
Alarmists (emphasis is mine not Land's) are calling all senators to board their global warming train this week in Washington to avoid what they consider to be a looming climate catastrophe, despite warnings that it could wreck our economy, destroy jobs, and harm the poor.

I need your help to stop this train before it leaves the station!

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to mandate massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by electrical, industrial, and transportation sectors in a vain attempt to reduce the unfounded threat of cataclysmic global warming. The hype and good intentions driving this train would yield devastating consequences.


What is even more troubling is that poor people in this country and around the world would suffer the most as the rising costs of all goods make mere subsistence increasingly burdensome and millions of people in underdeveloped regions of the world would find it even more difficult to have the cheap and abundant energy they need to escape their desperate circumstances.

All this would come with an almost immeasurable reduction in global climate temperatures. This is a price too high for a policy based on science disputed more and more each day by thousands of scientists and climatologists.

Christians have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship. But any action should first consider its impact on God’s most prized creation, human beings.

Thank you for joining me as a voice of reason to stop this bill before it crushes livelihoods and liberties.

In His Service,
Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

By using words and phrases like alarmist, unfounded threat, science disputed he shows that he is cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming evidence and support for the reality of this crisis from the scientific community. Even NASA has released a report acknowledging both the high probablility that global warming is caused by human activity and can be controlled by human activity. But it comes as no surprise that Land and his ilk align themselves with the "do-nothing, status quo" party on this issue, since they effectively wedded themselves to the repubs many years ago. The names Land, Dobson, Perkins, etc. have become synonomous with other sycophants of the radical right, religious or otherwise.

The alert directs readers to a website called We Get It! A blurb from the page proclaims

Caring for the environment and the poor – Biblically
Imagine…one million Christians standing together
to shed Biblical light on one of the biggest
cultural issues of our day…
Honoring our Lord Jesus Christ as creator and
sustainer of this wondrous world…
And impacting the lives of millions of the
poorest people here and around the globe.
That’s what the We Get It!
campaign is all about!

And guess who's names show up as being among those who "Get It."

Dr. Daniel Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Singer Pat Boone
Congressman Paul Broun
Senator Tom Coburn
Dr. James Dobson
Senator James Inhofe
Dr. Richard Land
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America

What a collection. I thought I had gotten over my shame at having the two most ill-informed men in the Senate be from my state and yet here they are, Inhofe and Coburn. You remember Inhofe, he's the one who said on the floor of the Senate in 2003 that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Good old Oklahoma reasoning. Right up there with Sally Kern.

Along with them the campaign is supported by
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
Family Research Council
and believe it or not
Wallbuilders ( I guess since David Barton was thorougly discredited as a historian he is seeking a new platform as a climatologist) They even quote Barton as if he were some sort of expert on something, saying that proper care of creation and the environment will "come not from government-implemented programs but rather from unfettered free-market solutions." I guess I was mistaken. He can be just as wrong about the environment as he was about American history.

But the new and most despicable element in the appeal of these groups and individuals is their professed concern for the poor. I can only conclude that in light of their previous apathy or even hostility toward issues involving the poor, both here and abroad, it is not hard to see that what they really mean is that they don't want to have to give up their SUVs and big houses and consumptive lifestyles. I was particularly appalled by that reference to "cheap and abundant energy." When has anyone in this group that is so closely tied to the oil barons in the White House ever been concerned about the energy needs of the poor.

McCain's Lobbyists Come Out of the Closet

A recent letter from Howard Dean notes:

I've got a joke for you.

Last week, John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent a memo to the McCain campaign staff about a brand new "conflicts policy."

This policy was designed to identify staffers with "conflicts" working within McCain's organization after three advisers resigned from the campaign. One was found to be working for an anti-Democrat "527" organization, and the other two -- a regional campaign manager and the convention CEO -- were found to have lobbied for the Myanmar junta in 2003.

Here's the punch line: Rick Davis, author of the memo and the person in charge of finding these "conflicts" within the campaign, founded his own lobbying firm, and, according to the Politico, "has made at least $2.8 million lobbying Congress since 1998."

But it gets worse. Charlie Black is McCain's chief political adviser. Over the past seven years, lobbying filings show he's used his connections with George Bush and Dick Cheney to lobby administration officials for dozens of wealthy clients. The Washington Post reported that "Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

John McCain's commitment to keeping Washington lobbyists out of his campaign is a joke -- but it's not funny. It's shocking. Since Davis sent around his "conflicts" memo, two more people have been shamed out of the McCain campaign. But why not Davis and Black? Of all the possible conflicts revealed, isn't lobbying from the campaign bus the worst? And does McCain care that his campaign manager made millions after starting his own lobbying shop? If those are acceptable, what exactly did McCain find about the people they let go?

Tell John McCain to fire Rick Davis and Charlie Black today. If he's really committed to keeping "conflicts" out of his campaign, he should have no trouble cleaning house the way he needs to.

http://www.democrats.org/FireTheLobbyists

This past Sunday, John McCain defended the situation by telling reporters that his lobbyist advisers are "not in the lobbying business; they've been out of that business." And just yesterday, John McCain said he wants to have "the most comprehensive and transparent of any presidential campaign in history" when it comes to lobbyists. How can that be true when people like Charlie Black admit he's conducting his lobbying business on the back of the bus?

John McCain and his campaign can't have it both ways. On the one hand, he says "ethics and transparency are not election year buzz words." But, on the other hand, he and his top campaign advisors have no problem fudging about their lobbying records. When pressed on the discrepancy, they give a flip excuse: Americans don't care.

Demand honesty and openness in politics. Tell John McCain to fire Charlie Black and Rick Davis today:
http://www.democrats.org/FireTheLobbyists
Let's keep McCain accountable,

Howard Dean

McCain needs to do his homework

John McCain is perpetuating a myth that has been debunked many times.

The shrub carried out a thinly veiled attack on Barack Obama as an "appeaser" for suggesting that it might be a good idea to talk to some of the Middle-East leaders. When McCain was asked about the shrub's statements, a part of his response was,

"I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''

The reaganites are very fond of claiming that it was the fear of the supposed actor's toughness that caused the Iranians to release the prisoners a few minutes after his inauguration on January 20, 1981. All of the news channels gave that as a possible or probable reason for the timing of the release. But the rest of the story came out later when it was revealed that President Carter's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher had concluded negotiations for their release the day before with the signing of the Algiers Accords. Sources inside Iran later revealed that the timing of the release was done deliberately to detract from reagan's inauguration not because they were afraid of his pseudo-macho, Hollywood cowboy toughness.

Please, John. There are enough reagan myths clogging up the minds of the American people without you perpetuating this one.

So Much for Compassionate Convervativism

ThePatriotPost, subtitled "The Conservative Journal of Record," revealed what most of us already knew, that there really is nothing compassionate about conservativism with this comment,

If Obama’s past Senate voting record wasn’t incriminating enough, he recently gave some revealing, and disturbing, insight into how his nominees would be chosen: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting judges.” An Obama presidency led by empathy rather than by constitutional dictates would certainly be in keeping with his pledge to bring “real”change to Washington. Uh, you can keep the change, Barack. (PatriotPost)

I just wish conservatives would be honest about their motives. At best they are motivated by enlightened self-interest and at worst by pure selfishness and greed. I'll take heart and empathy anyday

Worst President of Two Centuries

Only two other presidents have served in two centuries, John Adams and William McKinley. Why oh why did we end up with George Bush?

Five years ago today, George W. Bush got up on that aircraft carrier and fed us the biggest load of bullshit of his entire presidency. Not counting of course, the lies about the imminent threat from Iraq which was the whole pretext or pretense for going to war in the first place.

He told us it was "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Of course later he denied that he ever meant the war was over. And just today another lame comment came out of the Whitehouse.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission."

Somehow in the previous discussions of this bit of stupidity, I missed the fact that the Whitehouse had acknowledged that they paid for the banner, but only because the crew of the ship had requested it.

President Bush's flight suit posturing was a grotesque gumbo made up of equal parts arrogance, dishonesty and downright ignorance. But it was par for the course.

This whole presidency has been one "Mission Accomplished" moment after another, where our confabulator-in-chief told us how dandy things were in Iraq, how strong our economy was, how well the recovery was going in New Orleans, only for us to quickly find out how wrong he was.

Let's talk about what George Bush has really accomplished since he took office:

-The price of oil has quadrupled;
-We've seen the biggest drop in housing prices in 20 years;
-We experienced the first-ever economic expansion without a rise in median income; and
-Osama bin Laden - the guy who actually attacked us on September 11th -- is still on the loose.

It's a sad record and clear proof that Bush hasn't accomplished much of anything - and it's enough to drive you crazy to think he still has almost nine months left in the White House. Who knows what kind of damage he can do to the country on his way out.

Disclaimer: Contents freely adapted from a fund raising message from James Carville.

Expelled: This is not argument, it’s circus

I really hadn't planned to post on this movie, but I really liked the line from the NY Times review that appears as the title. Nuf said.

This is the link for the full review.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ex=1332475200&en=709faf668585ee66&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook

Skating on Thin Ice

The Baptist Messenger, mouth piece of the baptist general convention of Oklahoma is navigating some perilous waters. In the latest issue they publish at least two articles telling their readers why they should not vote for Barack Obama. I'm not really sure about the IRS rules in regard to church owned newsletters. I would think that since the BM is an agency of and wholly owned by the bgcO the same rules would apply to it that apply to churches. But maybe not. Someone really ought to tell the IRS about it and let them decide.

One article with a front page lead-in is "EDITORIAL: A gay bully pulpit?"
This staff-written editorial opens with the broad statement,

"If Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has his way, he will use the Presidency as a bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."

They also make the common mistake of assuming that since a resolution passed at the annual meeting is the voice of Oklahoma Baptists with the statement, "Oklahoma Baptists do not agree with Sen. Obama on this issue." That is not consistent with baptist theology or ecclesiology but is common practice. Resolutions passed at an annual meeting represent only the majority opinion of those who vote at the meeting. These are non-binding resolutions and have absolutely no direct effect on the beliefs and practices of individual baptists or baptist churches. No one can speak for Oklahoma baptists because each Oklahoma baptist can speak for her or himself. The only proof I need of this is that, at least for the moment, I am an Oklahoma baptist and I don't agree.

The other article is just plain wrong for attacking Obama's view of scripture. For some reason that article does not show up in their online version so I will have to synopsize it here and make corrections after I get home tonight if I happen to mis-state any of the facts. Anyway it accuses the Senator of not believing the whole bible is inspired because he said he would prefer to act according to the Sermon on the Mount rather than an obscure passage in Romans when he was dealing with the homosexual issue. Obama is wrong because "real" Christians believe all the bible is inspired and every word is just as authoritative as any other word. I can't really do it justice from memory so I will do a follow-up tomorrow.

I Really Don't Understand this Guy

Mike Huckabee continues to surprise me. His has been one of the few voices of reason I've heard in the midst of the feeding frenzy over Jeremiah Wright.

Huckabee said,

As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had ... more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me. (Source: MSNBC)

I'll never understand how someone with that kind of insight has stayed a fundy republican.

On the other hand I can't understand why this is still a story after all this time. Surely those media types who keep pushing it don't really think people pay any attention to what their pastors say from the pulpit.

Sadly, it is the right decision

I just saw the headline on ABP that "Judge dismisses Klouda lawsuit against Patterson, Southwestern." Sadly, in light of the obvious unjust way Dr. Klouda was treated, I believe the judge's decision is correct, that "the decision made by defendants concerning plaintiff was ecclesiastical in nature. The testimony on both sides was filled with theological and biblical arguments. Based on the first amendment the judge had no choice but to rule that the court could not "entangle" itself in this issue.

However, that should not be the end of this issue. Whether Dr. Klouda wants to pursue it or not, there should be those who still have standing and influence in the SBC that would be willing to right this wrong. Unfortunately, I have not the slightest hope that this will happen. If current southern baptists would not stand up for missionaries I seriously doubt that they will stand up for a Hebrew professor.

It saddens me, but this is the new SBC that you wanted.

A Picture is worth a thousand words

No comment necessary

A Silver Lining Moment

Out of the incident which demonstrates that Richard Land has no business leading anyone when it comes to ethics and morality, I at least learned a new word, contumelious. And to show you that I know how to use it in a sentence: Richard Land is one of the most contumelious people I know.

According to thefreedictionary.com
CONTUMELIOUS - arrogantly insolent, disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous.

I think that "arrogantly insolent" part is particularly applicable.

I am grateful to Jeffrey Weiss of the Dallas Morning News Religion Blog for this expansion of my vocabulary.

Oklahoma has done it again

Oklahoma seems to have an inordinate ability to elect the most inappropriate people to public office. The latest example is Sally Kern, Republican from OKC. I don't know which is worse, Sally Kern's homophobia or her ignorance. Her homophobia is self-evident and her ignorance was certainly made evident by her recent comments. If you have any doubts about her ignorance there are numerous sites which document it. This is one of the better ones, Exploring Our Matrix.

Her ignorance is definitely the bigger problem, because her homophobia is just one facet of her ignorance. One of the more disturbing elements in this incident is that she is the chair of the Social Services Committee of the OK House of Representatives. Is it any wonder this state is in such a mess, when the good people of Oklahoma keep sending people like Sally Kern to the legislature.

SBC=GOP As If There Was Really Any Doubt

It has been obvious for some time now that the southern baptist convention (sbc) has sold-out to the conservation/reactionary wing of the republican party. This was never more apparent than yesterday (March 3, 2008) when I received the following erlc (ethics & religious liberty commission) action alert.

America's National Security At Risk

Dear Friends:
Americans are less safe today from terrorists than two weeks ago.

On Feb. 16, a critical law authorizing our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications expired.

That’s why the modernized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA—which amends the 1978 law—is urgently needed. Since the horrific 9/11 attacks, many telecommunications companies have helped keep us safe from another attack on U.S. soil by cooperating with our intelligence agencies to intercept phone conversations of foreign terrorists placed into our country.

Now, without an amended FISA, our intelligence agencies are hamstrung from intercepting foreign communications unless they have a warrant, and phone carriers lack retroactive immunity from lawsuits leveled against them at the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for admirably protecting you and me. Meanwhile, our national security is continually placed at greater risk as our foreign enemies can easily pass information into our country without us knowing it.

Liberals in Congress appear more interested in empowering the lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies than they are in providing for the security of United States citizens.

The Senate passed an update to FISA last month with strong bipartisan support, 68-29. But the House leadership has failed to give it a vote, despite its broad support in the House.

If this is a concern to you, please tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge your representative to support the bill.

You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for your doing your part to help keep America safe from those who wish us harm.

In His Service,

Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

One of our privileges at the ERLC is to help you take a stand for Biblical values in your community, in the marketplace of ideas, and in the public policy arena. This Action Alert is one tool we use to keep you informed and call you to action on the important issues of the day.

Many people in both political parties will have different opinions about this action. What troubles me, is just what "biblical value" is Richard Land taking a stand for her. He obviously thinks doing his part to "keep America safe" is somehow connected with being "in his service." I think this ought to trouble anyone who gives any part of their offering to the cooperative program of the SBC. It is a very clear case of using funds given for relgious purposes to further a specific political cause. Since I quit giving any of my offerings to the SBC a couple of years ago, that is not my problem. But it ought to be a big problem for any of you who still think giving to the SBC is somehow helping to spread the kingdom of god. Some of you need to start holding Richard Land's feet to the fire on this.

Can You Spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?

The shrub's latest attempt to show that he actually knows something about foreign policy reveals once again the fantasyland he has been living in for seven years. Barack Obama has promised to actually sit down and talk to leaders of countries that the shrub has done nothing but threaten or ignore. What a concept, diplomacy by talking instead of shouting or shooting. But the shrub responded, "It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity." He obviously doesn't realize that nothing suppresses human rights and human dignity like an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-managed and probably ill-egal war. It makes you wonder what kind of insulation his handlers keep him wrapped up in.

Who Does She Think She's Kidding

The headline reads "Clinton attacks Obama ahead of debate. " A couple of paragraphs into the story she brings out the same old line, "Who is best prepared to be commander in chief on day one?" I know she's losing and desparate, but I really don't understand what possible reason she has for thinking that she is any better prepared to be commander-in-chief than Barack Obama is, or that the American people would have more confidence in her to handle a military crisis than they would in him. Somehow, I don't see being a senator from New York as preparing one to be C-i-C. Although, I must acknowledge that I have been to NYC enough to know that it can sometimes be mistaken for a war zone. And as far as spending eight years in the Whitehouse, Bill's record as CIC is second only to his "indescretions" as being among the worst things about his presidency.

Besides that she's playing right into John McCain's hand, because he is the only one in the race that can legitimately claim to be "prepared." Fortunately, the framers of the constitution did see military prowess as a necessity for being president. In spite of the unanimous election of George Washington as the first president, only three of the next ten had any military experience and one of them died a month after he took ofice. Looking at the history of how the presidents have used the CIC position, there is no direct correlation between effectiveness in office and military experience. Although there have been a number of presidents who used their military experience to help get them elected.

If Hilary really expects to make a comeback in this race, she had better find a different message. It seems pretty obvious to me that as soon as democrats and independents began to have confidence that Barack Obama was electable, her fate was sealed. We thank her for keeping the repubs on the ropes for so long, but now is the time for both candidates to heat up the attack on McCain and let the nominations chips fall as they may.

IMPEACH BUSH NOW! Why? 935 Reasons

President Bush . . . and officials in his administration made 935
false statements on Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks,
according to a new study.

See the article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/from/ET/

See my post

Bush has Lied, is Lying, and Will Continue to Lie as long as people continue to listen

How many ways are there to say "I told you so?"

Avoid the rush, IMPEACH BUSH NOW!