Sepherim

2010-03-31T17:44:00.002-04:00

I seldom have any desire to let someone else's article speak for me but today am making an exception. A fine Connecticut male known as BustingWingNuts posted this as a comment to the LL Cool J, Palin, Faux Flap. He says it about as well as it can be said. Note that he invites you copy and paste this wherever you see the teabaggers pushing their agendas.

Teabaggers are a misinformed, right-wing corporate media consumer who often fails to understand that BOTH major parties represent a corrupt plutocracy that steals from the middle class by taxing labor and profiting from corporate tax subsidies.

A teabagger also often fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush and his neo-conservative minions perpetrated one of the boldest and most egregious executive power grabs in the history of the United States. Furthermore, teabaggers mistakenly continue to blame a newly elected President Obama for all that ails the United States of America, based on a grossly flawed perception of reality (including latent racial prejudice) and despite the fact the U.S. economy collapsed on the previous administration's watch.

Teabaggers are also known to base their misguided, right-wing-media-inspired beliefs about President Obama on stupid conspiracy theories about totalitarian takeovers, FEMA camps, etc., despite the fact these very same theories have been circulating around on the Internet for years, and were originally ascribed to neo-conservative cabalists at a time when Barack Obama had not even entered national politics. Teabaggers also are known to be particularly paranoid, xenophobic and intolerant, especially with regard to immigrants and anyone who isn't white.

Additionally, teabaggers generally echo stupid myths about entitlement spending (it actually only accounts for about 1% of federal budget spending), have no idea that most poor people in America are not lazy, actually do work and don't want to be on welfare, and have no idea what socialism actually means or that socialist reform in this country is actually what allowed a middle class to flourish and ultimately make the U.S. one of the most prosperous nations in human history.

Furthermore, teabaggers incorrectly equate socialism with Stalinism, think a system that rewards greed (capitalism) is the divine preference (despite Gospel evidence to the contrary), and are shameless champions of a misguided belief in American exceptionalism. Teabaggers also fail to recognize the inherently unpatriotic nature of their failed every-man-for-himself ideology that ultimately vilifies anyone who supports public policy aimed at reaching out to fellow Americans in need. They celebrate an exploitative corporatocracy (holy creator of jobs, blah blah blah) while denigrating the little guy for being "weak."

Interestingly, teabaggers uphold an immoral, morbidly obese, twice divorced, draft-dodging, college dropout and known drug addict as their de facto leader, and are even known to advocate burning books. Of course, teabaggers fail to recognize the blatant hypocrisy within the GOP and tend to oversimplify all political debate and social issues, much like their pseudo-intellectual, fat-ass leader.

Finally, incredibly, teabaggers fail to recognize the hysterical double entendre associated with their proudly adopted teabag moniker.

Every village has its idiots, of course, but it's sad when citizens of any nation allow themselves to be whipped into a frenzy en masse by a state-run propaganda machine masquerading as a legitimate, fair, balanced and independent news organization. Teabaggers are right to believe the future of the U.S.A. is in jeopardy, but sadly they have not yet correctly identified the real enemy. Perhaps when teabaggers finally grow up and mature into thinking adults, they will see the right-leaning power establishment for the oppressive and cunning beast that it is.

Teabagger: We don't care that George Bush tripled the deficit and lied us into a war. The new administration only cut taxes for 90% of the population... fascists. Let's go throw some Lipton tea bags into a fountain!

Please copy and paste this wherever you see the teabaggers pushing their agendas.

Disgusted not strong enough

2010-02-25T07:57:00.000-05:00

I have never before been ashamed of living a good part of my life in Norman, Oklahoma. Sadly, that day is gone forever. Twice in the last few weeks, the administrators of Norman Public Schools have caved in and kow-towed to the worst kind of reactionary parents.

First-

They deprived many of the students from experiencing being addressed directly by the President of United States. We have a very vocal, reactionary, minority of the American people who respect no one but themselves. They have no respect for the country. They have no respect for the Constitution. They have no respect for their community. They have no respect for their neighbors. They have no respect for their own children. While ill- and under-informed parents certainly have the right to deprive their own children of a marvelous educational opportunity, they have no right to intimidate others into spreading their ignorance across an entire school system. Thankfully, I know a few teachers who recognized the educational opportunity they were being given and took full advantage of it. For those who didn't, I'm sorry your students are going to be less well educated than those in other classrooms.

Following is the text of the district's policy regarding the President's Address.

INFORMATION REGARDING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S

ADDRESS TO STUDENTS

SCHEDULED FOR 11:00 AM (CST), TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8

The President of the United States will deliver a national address directly to

students on September 8 at 11:00 AM (CST). According to information provided

on the U.S. Department of Education’s home page at www.ED.gov, the President

will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take

responsibility for their learning.

The school district will not re-organize the school day or interrupt scheduled

instructional time to participate in this event as a district-wide initiative. Teachers

may choose to watch the address with their students on a classroom by

classroom basis where they determine it to be instructionally appropriate.

In keeping with current practice, parents who do not wish their child to view the

President’s address may contact the school’s principal in writing asking that their

child be excused from the activity and the request will be honored.

Shame on you, Norman Public Schools.

Now, even worse. Book banning is alive and well in Norman, Oklahoma. I never thought I would see the day when one reactionary parent and a misguided superintendent would again deprive Norman students of a remarkable educational experience. I encourage you to go to the district website and search on Ellen Hopkins. You'll find teachers who want students to know they have read her books, you will find her listed among the very best authors for children, and you will find a middle school calendar that lists an Ellen Hopkins visit with a question mark. However, there is no longer a need for the question mark. Now, Superintendent Joseph Siano has decided not to let Ellen come and speak to the students at Whittier Middle School. For the full story of how this deplorable situation came to be, see Ellen's blog, Manifesto!!!!

You want to see other links related to this story-just google Ellen Hopkins Norman. I wonder how they feel about this at the Ellen Hopkins Elementary School in Moorhead, MN? I hope you are proud, Joseph Siano, you just gave our wonderful city a big, black eye.

We Should All Be Disgusted

2009-09-21T13:43:00.003-04:00

Thanks to internetshame.com for demonstrating that Jimmy Carter was right. Many right-wing extremist are absolutely racist no matter how much they whine.

I AM DISGUSTED

2009-09-04T13:13:00.004-04:00

Usually I am in favor of dialogue to resolve differences, but to all those people out there whining because the President of the United States wants to tell their school children to work hard and stay in school, get over it. Presidents have been talking to school children for as long as I can remember, which is a long time. My very first memory was of President Eisenhower when I was in the third grade.

Just a few examples:

Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally. Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes.

President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C. News reports from the time said the White House hoped that the address would be shown at schools nationwide, and Bush began his remarks by saying he was talking to "millions" of students "in classrooms all across the country."

And in the interest of fairness, I will not use the most famous of the George W. Bush pictures, but he made many school visits to gain support for his, in my opinion very ill-conceived, no-child-left-behind programs.

I am especially disgusted with those people who claim to be upholders of the constitution and then violate the constitution by not recognizing that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally elected President of the United States. In other words, no matter how much you dislike and or disagree with him and his policies, HE IS YOUR PRESIDENT. So stop whining and talk with your children about the significance of what he has to say and how all of us need to be working together to get the country through these troubled times. We have too many real problems to waste time on trivial issues like this.

Bozo Redux

2009-08-28T15:30:00.001-04:00

Bozo does it again.

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."

It's Time to Bring Bozo Home

2009-06-06T11:10:00.009-04:00

Way back in 2008 many of us thought this camparison with Senator Jesse Helms was an insult to Bozo the Clown. So the rest of this article is done with apologies to Bozo. Back then, we could rest comfortably in the thought that the good people of North Carolina had to claim the Clown of the Senate.

But now we Okies have our own Bozo.

Color us proud.

Anyone who knows the history of Jim Inhofe knows he was a joke as a state legislature and then the voters of Oklahoma thought they would share their joke with the rest of the country and send him to Washington. For his first few years in Happy Valley he lived up to his own low standards and had one of the worst attendance records in the senate. But then, obviously way over his head and not too good at treading water, he discovered that one way to get attention was to make ridiculous statements. So now whenever the press needs a ridiculous statement to lighten up their retelling of all the things going wrong around us, they know they can always count on the good senator for Oklahoma to provide some comic relief. Unfortunately, a small, and hopefully shrinking, minority of citizens take what he says seriously. So the joke has gone on long enough. It's time for Bozo to go home and leave the governing of the country to those who have a clue.

I found this comment from Eagle4 with a Tulsa Word story about Inhofe's latest idiocy-

Inhofe remains one of the most uneducated, Redneck bumpkins on this flat planet! His stupidity makes him the poster child for Planned Parenthood! Just when you think you're totally flabbergasted by what he's said, he opens his mouth again and takes you to a whole new level!

The Incipient Racism of Southern Baptists

2009-05-28T16:48:00.004-04:00

Richard Land needs to be very careful. The incipient racism that flows so easily just beneath the surface of many southern baptists tries to rear its ugly head in his recent statement concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Justice Sotomayor?—More for some, less for others?

He begins with a statement questioning the President's statement about most middle-class Americans not feeling particularly privileged. Yet it does not take very much listening to black Americans living in the Bible-Belt or Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans living many places in this country to realize that racial discrimination is alive and well. And any time or place there is this kind of discrimination, more often than not, it is white middle-class Americans who benefit from it.

Next he parrots one of the major talking point of the right wing media about the president's pre-selection statements about wanting a judge with empathy and assumes quite erroneously that a judge cannot be both empathetic and impartial. Just for the record, a definition of empathy-the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. I can state from personal experience that you are much more likely to get justice from a judge who has some understanding of where you are coming from than one who doesn't have a clue about what goes on in your neighborhood.

Next he talks about the Ricci case as if she is solely responsible for it. When in fact, she was one of a three judge panel which unanimously upheld the decision of the district court and in the majority of a 7-6 decision that the case did not merit further review at the circuit court level. He also does not mention that the plaintiffs in the case were not all white, but white and Hispanic. If she is guilty of letting her "race" influence her decision, why did should rule against the Hispanics in this case. Maybe one should look at the Cabranes dissent as the one that was racially motivated.

And finally he continues to parrot the right wing talking points by taking her comments about "a wise Latina woman" totally out of the context. In fact he violates one of the clearest standards of interpretation by stringing quotes together to make his point. I have always given him credit for his bible study skills but wonder if maybe he also treats the biblical text so unfairly. For a brief discussion of what she meant in her 2001 speech, see Charles Savage's NY Times column, A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record.

I am not suggesting that Richard Land's objection to her nomination is racially motivated. It is obvious that his objection comes from being in bed far too long with the radical right wing of the republican party. But the arguments he uses are certainly tainted by the underlying racism of the southern baptist convention. It began as a racist organization and, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, continues to demonstrate that racism in the way it and some of its members relate to American society.

Far from being solid analysis as one reader commented, this is a hatchet job on an extremely well qualified judge.

Which Part of "NO LAW" Does He Not Understand?

2009-05-27T17:14:00.006-04:00

Georgia does it again!

It never ceases to amaze me that people are smart enough to get elected to congress but not smart enough to read and interpret things like the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .

And just for those who have to be hit over the head with it. Here it is set in stone-

But over and over both nationally and locally well-meaning government officials keep ignoring what it says. The newest attempt is from Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a medical doctor and member of Prince Avenue Baptist Church in Athens, Ga. (Why do these kinds of things come so often from Georgia and Alabama?) As if to justify what he clearly knows to be "bs" the good doctor said in an interview with the Washington Post, "This doesn't have anything to do with Christianity . . ." Just how stupid does he think the American people are?

If you are now feeling superior to the buffoons in Georgia who keep electing people like this here are the bill's co-sponsors:

Rep Gingrey, Phil -GA

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. -GA

Rep Carter, John R. -TX

Rep Gohmert, Louie -TX

Rep Marchant, Kenny -TX

Rep Forbes, J. Randy -VA

Rep Goodlatte, Bob -VA

Rep Akin, W. Todd- MO

Rep Bachmann, Michele -MN

Rep Franks, Trent -AZ

Rep Jordan, Jim -OH

Rep Lamborn, Doug -CO

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. -MI

Rep Pence, Mike -IN

Rep Wamp, Zach -TN

That's three from Georgia, three from Texas, and two from Virginia. Just so you can be well-informed, Rep. Westmoreland is the same one that made of fool of himself on the Colber(t) Repor(t) when, after sponsoring a bill to post the ten commandments in public buildings, could only name three of them and got one of them wrong. No matter how you grade it, 2 out of 10 is failing.

To read more on this story go to:

'Year of the Bible' resolution roils Congress

Lawmaker wants to make 2010 'Year of the Bible'

The Totaled Woman Is Alive and Well at SWBTS

2009-05-05T11:48:00.007-04:00

The latest edition of the Latest News from Southwestern is just full of fun(dy) stuff. It may take me awhile to comment on all of it, so check back for updates.

First, an update on the happy homemaker program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. My first post on this subject came back in 2007 when the program was announced.

http://sepherim.blogspot.com/2007/08/two-pictures-are-worth.html

Now the seminary is proudly showcasing the new home on seminary hill for the happy homemaker home. You can see the proud parents in the press release,
"Southwestern Seminary dedicates Horner Homemaking House"

Acccording to the press release, the building, named the Sarah Horner Homemaking House, will serve as an educational building but will look more like a house than a classroom, complete with kitchen and textile lab, as well as a large library, full of resources for classroom lectures. Upstairs, two rooms will house students in the homemaking concentration and another room will be available for guest housing.

Next, just in case you are wondering if they do still allow women to teach about children's ministry at Fort Fundamentalist, "Trustees elected Karen Kennemur as assistant professor of children’s ministry in the School of Educational Ministries." I do wonder how they justify having a wife and mother of three children work outside the home like this. What kind of example is that setting for all of the future happy homemakers?

A Sad Day in Louisville

2009-04-24T16:26:00.005-04:00

No, inspite of what some of you think, I'm not referring to the upstart team that beat the Sooner women in the tournament. Today I'm addressing a subject which may or may not (depending on your theological perspective) have more lasting significance.

I have many friends who attended the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who were proud of the quality of theological education that they received. But now like those of us who attended the institution farther West, have good reason to take their diplomas down from the wall, or as one friend told me, turn it around so no one can see where it came from. Just read down through the "changes" that have taken place since the conservative insurgency in a recent article from the Associated Baptist Press, "Mohler presidency marked by change."

Some highlights (or lowlights):

·         Caused the exodus of about 60 percent of the seminary's faculty, who left either by force or voluntarily.
·         Closed the School of Church Music and Worship
·         Fired Diana Garland as dean of the Carver School of Social Work and abolished the Carver School of Social Work.
·         Redirected its Christian counseling department, moving away from the model of "pastoral care."

You might also want to look at "Jesus couldn’t teach church social work at Southern Seminary."

This article comes from the Texas Baptists Committed. (I always thought that name was an ill-informed choice and yet somehow strangely applicable.) Since I have saved most of my rapier like wit for the swbts, I feel it only fair to give Mohler Mayhem equal time.

What's the difference between a Georgia baptist and a republican congressman?

2009-01-30T11:36:00.007-05:00

Answer-

Nothing-neither of them has a clue.

Republicans in congress want to continue the totally failed policies of the totally failed presidency of gw and the Georgia baptists want to continue the totally failed policy of discriminating against those who refuse to discriminate. I won't say much more about the repubs in this post. That will come later as the story plays out. The short-sighted mysogyny of Georgia baptists (who are generally representative of southern baptists as a whole, but sometimes slightly less regressive than their Alabama neighbors) have waged a full-scale battle against First Baptist Church-Decatur for the last two years. The church's sin was to call a woman as pastor. They called Julie Pennington-Russell in 2007. That, of course, is a clear violation of the Baptist Faith & Message (2000 perversion) which states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Do the Bible study. How many times does the NT talk about the “office of pastor?” How many times does the word "pastor" even show up in the NT?The modern model of pastor as CEO is not biblical. Look at the older versions of the BF&M. They are much more true to scripture than the modern perversion.

Ms. Pennington-Russell had been serving at a baptist church in that hot-bed of denominational rebellion known as "Jerusalem on the Brazos." For the uninitiated, that's Waco, TX. I have commented on the lack of biblical support for the sbc's position in other posts and on other blogs and will not repeat it here unless someone is interested.

The sbc elite pride themselves on taking a stand against the demands of culture. One pastor, Bobby Braswell Jr. of Guyton, Ga., wrote that the convention's action is "not a popular position in today's cultural climate, but we are following the dictates of Scripture, not culture." What is abundantly clear is that rather than taking a stand against culture in their objection to women in church leadership positions, the sbc is actually supporting the same culture that brought us racism and slavery.

If you have not followed this story, I have provided a series of links to Associated Baptist Press stories.

18 June 2007

Pennington-Russell set to make history as pastor of large Decatur church

2 February 2008

Regain respect by rejecting exclusion, author Grisham urges fellow Baptists

13 November 2008

Opinion: Georgia Baptists isolate themselves

14 November 2008

Georgia Baptists reject church with woman pastor

27 January 2009

Church with woman pastor expects further rebuke from Georgia Baptists

And I Thought Oregon Was Progressive Maybe Even Liberal

2008-12-13T17:03:00.006-05:00

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

2008-11-17T17:34:00.004-05:00

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?

2008-10-28T12:51:00.003-04:00

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

2008-10-08T12:22:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-26T13:16:00.005-04:00

"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.

2008-09-25T16:48:00.005-04:00

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

2008-09-24T20:33:00.006-04:00

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!

2008-09-22T18:43:00.002-04:00

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

2008-09-12T11:50:00.006-04:00

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

2008-09-10T19:20:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-09T14:32:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-08T23:29:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-05T12:13:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-04T11:22:00.005-04:00

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?

2008-09-03T20:06:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-31T21:05:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-08-30T14:54:00.006-04:00

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.

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

2008-08-29T16:23:00.006-04:00

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

2008-08-12T15:22:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-08-08T16:21:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-31T12:09:00.006-04:00

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?

2008-07-29T11:04:00.007-04:00

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

2008-06-26T19:19:00.004-04:00

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

2008-06-05T09:56:00.004-04:00

You gotta admit, they've got balls

2008-06-03T15:23:00.004-04:00

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

2008-05-22T09:00:00.002-04:00

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

2008-05-15T16:17:00.004-04:00

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

2008-05-12T12:48:00.003-04:00

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

2008-05-01T11:57:00.003-04:00

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

2008-04-26T15:00:00.003-04:00

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

2008-03-27T19:14:00.003-04:00

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

2008-03-27T19:08:00.005-04:00

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

2008-03-25T13:24:00.004-04:00

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

2008-03-17T16:51:00.003-04:00

No comment necessary

A Silver Lining Moment

2008-03-11T15:33:00.004-04:00

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

2008-03-11T13:21:00.004-04:00

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

2008-03-04T12:41:00.003-05:00

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 ?

2008-02-28T20:09:00.003-05:00

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

2008-02-21T19:46:00.005-05:00

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

2008-01-23T17:11:00.000-05:00

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!

Hasta La Vista, Baby Jesus

2007-12-31T16:09:00.000-05:00

This parody actually presents the arguments about Jesus message on violence better than most debates about the subject. And as an added benefit, it's really pretty funny too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PFrufPxjwX0

Think about it

2007-12-19T06:55:00.001-05:00

We DO NOT Torture

2007-10-07T21:14:00.000-04:00

If you accepted the "big lie" technique that allowed George Bush to get us into a war in Iraq, this one should be no problem for you. It's obvious that he really thinks that if he just keeps saying, somebody will believe. The sad thing is that he is right. And the worst offenders are those who should be working the hardest at defending the rights of the the poor, the sick, and the prisoners, so-called Bible-believing Christians. I do not understand how people who claim the Bible as their "only" guide for faith and practice, can so totally ignore what it actually says. They work their tight little (or not so little) fannies off to make sure that everyone has a chance to be born, but don't give a damn about what happens to them after that.

--Let's be sure that we don't use a little piece of embryonic tissue that will never be born, to help relieve the suffering of someone who is already born.

--Let's fight as hard as we can to make sure no child of moderately well-off parents gets government paid health care. Forget about the millions of poor children who will suffer because of it.

--Let's support that godly man, George W. Bush no matter how many times he lies and how many people he gets killed because somehow he fits into our poor, befuddled idea of what a Christian is supposed to be.

--Let's fight with all our might to stop campaign finance reform so that we can be sure that no one restricts our right to say what ever we chose in Jesus name.

--Let's kill a commie for Christ (oops, reached a little too far back for that one)

Compassionate???? Conservative????

2007-10-05T17:01:00.000-04:00

President Bush vetoed legislation that would expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program complaining that the expansion was too big and would give health insurance benefits to children whose parents might be too far above the poverty line. What a concept: to deny health care to millions of poor children because some children who are not quite as poor might also get health care. Following are just a few of the comments I found from people who are outraged by the president's lack of compassion.

Jesus made healing a principal sign of his ministry and of the presence of the kingdom of God. From a biblical point of view, it is simply wrong when health becomes a commodity and accessibility depends upon wealth. . . . SCHIP is one bill – one program – to help fix the health care problem. No bill is perfect. But a bipartisan group of legislators think it is a good bill in the right direction.

To veto the bill, with no alternative plan instead - to simply abandon millions of poor children, to leave them to a market system that is failing to provide health care to enough people - is simply morally unacceptable.

Mr. President, members of the House and Senate, 9 million American children are without health care coverage this day. . . . When historians reflect back on this era, do we want to be remembered as the people who turned their backs on the uninsured children of this nation?

I think this veto has the potential of being talked about 20 years from now as part of the legacy of this administration, and it is seen as a cruel and cynical response to the needs of poor children.

I disagree with the [White House] legislative staff on all of this. Frankly, I think the president has had pretty poor advice on this. I can answer every objection that they've made, and I'm very favorable to the president. I know he's compassionate. (His words, not mine. I don't think he is concerned) I know he's concerned about these kids, but he's been sold a bill of goods. --Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

From streetprophets.com

When a young couple have a kid with an expensive, long term disease, will they try to take away our right to fire the parents to save money on our employer health insurance costs??????
When a young couple have a kid with an expensive, long term disease, will they try to take away our right, (after the parents lose their jobs and get new ones) to deny coverage to the kid because of a pre-existing condition???????
When a young couple have a kid with an expensive, long term disease, will they try to take away our right, (after the parents lose their jobs and get new ones), (and after their application for SCHIP is denied because the parents make too much money but their kid isn't covered) to run up bills in the parents names into the millions of dollars????????
When a young couple have a kid with an expensive, long term disease, will they try to take away our right, (after the parents lose their jobs and get new ones), (and after their application for SCHIP is denied because the parents make too much money but their kid isn't covered) (and after weve run up bills in the parents names into the millions of dollars) will they demand that we loosen the bankruptcy laws??????????
God in heaven, Jesus would never stand for this lack of personal responsibility on the part of parents! How dare those Liberals!!!!!!
(This happened to a niece and nephew-in-law of mine. They both have decent jobs, health insurance that does not cover their son's hemophelia, and owe millions of dollars in health care debt that they can never repay, and can never get out from under.... Jesus would be proud.)

The words of another prophet come to mind, "Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his television show?"

By Their Fruits . . .

2007-09-29T18:56:00.000-04:00

I loved it during the Dems debate the other night when Tim Russert caught nearly all of them off guard by asking them about their favorite Bible verse. All of them seemed a little nervous about the question except Dennis Kucinich, who quickly pulled from his pocket a copy of St. Francis' prayer, ". . . make me an instrument of thy peace . . ." which he keeps right next to the copy of the Constitution that he always carries. While some have criticized him because it was not a "Bible" verse, it certainly is biblical. I am constantly astounded that people who consider themselves to be followers of Jesus and his teachings find so many ways to get around his teachings on peace. I don't think Kucinich has a chance to win, but maybe he can influence the platforms of the front running fence straddlers.

Patreus or Betray Us

2007-09-11T19:49:00.000-04:00

Yesterday the right wing pundits were all having a hissy fit because MoveOn.org ran an add which questioned Petraeus credibility. They were crowing about the great success his testimony was for Dubya and his cronies. Following is a critique of his testimony from the MoveOn folks which will convince any thinking person that Patraeus is just another part of the Big Lie that Bush has been trying to sell the country for six years.

Yesterday, General David Petraeus misled the country.

He used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The general said we're making major progress¹—and we have to stay the course. Sadly, independent assessments show that things in Iraq have gone from bad to worse (see below for more on how Petraeus stretched the truth).

Some of you have emailed to say it reminds you of the day four and a half years ago when President Bush sent General Colin Powell to the U.N. to make a trumped-up case for war.

Powell's WMDs helped justify the invasion of Iraq, and Petraeus' version of "progress"—if it goes unchallenged—will justify keeping troops there for years. Can you take a few minutes to write a letter-to-the editor reminding folks that the "surge" didn't work—and that the responsible thing to do is bring our troops home?

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=84&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=2

Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping.² That just isn't true:

Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.³ And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.⁴
Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. ⁵
The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."⁶ In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press⁷ and the Los Angeles Times.⁸
For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.⁹

Petraeus claimed that he compiled his report without conferring with the White House. But the Washington Post recently reported that Petraeus or his staff joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit.¹⁰

We would all like to see life improving in Iraq. But it's not—it's getting worse. And if US forces stay in Iraq both Americans and Iraqis will pay a terrible price.

Today is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The wounds of 9/11 are still fresh for many of us. After 9/11, President Bush used fear, lies and trumped-up intelligence to stampede us into Iraq. Now, America is bogged down in an unwinnable civil war, and Al Qaeda has regained enough strength to once again menace the United States.¹¹

It would be a tragic irony if, six years later, the administration used skewed intelligence to head off the growing momentum for an exit strategy from Iraq.

Please write a letter reminding America and Congress not to fall, ever again, for White House lies—we need a timeline to bring our troops home.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=84&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=3

Thanks for all that you do,

–Nita, Karin, Laura, Eli, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007

P.S. Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims. Click here to see the ad—and the evidence to back it up:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html?id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=4

The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill—it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing—but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight.

SOURCES
1. Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=5 2. Ibid.
3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=6
4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=7
5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504
6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=8
7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/
8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=9
9. http://www.iCasualties.org
10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=10
11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-8292763-PChjRg&t=11

Fool Me Once . . .

2007-09-07T17:46:00.000-04:00

As Dubya tried to say one time, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." If there is anyone out there still being fooled about "progress" in Iraq, it is because they want to be fooled. See

http://pol.moveon.org/troopshome/?id=11197-8292763-A7ozWt&t=3

Don't fall for the Whitehouse spin on whatever next weeks report might say. The truth is American troops are their few allies are being killed everyday because Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. They will not take responsibility for their own security as long as we are doing it for them. We need to start bringing the troops home today and not stop until they are all out of harm's way.

Two Down, ? to Go!

2007-08-29T16:05:00.000-04:00

Are these two rats leaving a sinking ship?

Who cares, as long as they are leaving.

Two Pictures are worth . . . ?

2007-08-21T17:47:00.000-04:00

If a picture is worth a thousand words these two say pretty much all that needs to be said.

I am grateful to the Baptist Blogger for these images.

Going, Going, Goooooon--not quite yet

2007-07-31T13:11:00.000-04:00

One has to wonder how much longer a man, who will be universally acknowledged as one of the worst attorneys general of all time, can hang on. As was written in another blog,

Gonzales will go down in history as the attorney general who helped the president: 1) torture, 2) wreak havoc on civil liberties, 3) fire U.S. attorneys who didn't prosecute along preferred political lines, 4) demoralize the Department of Justice, 5) worsen Bush's already dismal relationship with Congress, and 6) relentlessly hector a man in the intensive care unit.

Of course, one also has to wonder why the Shrub cares more about loyalty than he does about justice.

Impeach Now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

2007-07-23T17:47:00.000-04:00

The title may be a little scary but those are not my words. They belong to an old-time Reagan republican who finally recognizes what some of us "liberals" have been warning you about. Bush is an imperialist and not just internationally. He continues to abuse the power of the executive branch for his personal goals and ambitions. Read the frightening analysis of the latest presidential power grab at Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy Impeach Now By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Roberts says

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

If this column does not make the hairs on the back of your neck stick straight out you have to be counted among those he describes as

"a diehard minority" who still believe "in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media."

There is no reason to wait and every reason to fear what Bush and his crew may try to pull off before we can vote someone else into office.

Where are the "Real" Baptists?

2007-07-05T16:58:00.000-04:00

. . . every true Baptist understands that any attempt to “baptize” the faith with the imprimatur of the state – whether it’s the Ten Commandments or faith-based initiatives or public prayer in public schools – ultimately diminishes the integrity of the faith. Roger Williams warned us about that nearly four centuries ago. Those warnings were prescient then.

Today, they’re urgent.

That comment in a speech last week By Randall Balmer at The Religious Liberty Council Luncheon in Washington, D.C., addresses the same problem I have been trying to raise at every venue that I have access to. The so-called baptists who are leading the SBC today have not concept of what it has meant historically to be baptist. Their hunger for power and caused them to throw away the one thing that really made baptists distinctive, their absolute commitment to a "Free church in a Free state." I urge you to read the entire address at "In Search of America's Baptists"

George Bush Hates America

2007-07-05T16:36:00.000-04:00

I heard on the radio this morning that a critic referred to George Bush as "brain-dead" in response to the Scooter Libby fiasco. Some of those on the panel thought this kind of language was a little too extreme to use for a sitting president. Well, I've gone way past that. I fully believe that George Bush hates the America that most of us love. You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to seriously consider the things he has done to try to undermine the whole system of government. All you really have to consider are his supreme court nominees. Specifically, if he cared about the way the court is supposed to operate why would he have ever considered nominating Harriet Myers. At least in that case there was enough public outcry to make him withdraw the nomination. His nominations for attorney general were, are, and will be a total disgrace. Ashcroft was an absolute failure, but at least he seemed to honest and knew that the wiretaps were illegal. Gonzales is not only a failure, but a liar. How sad it is when the man who is supposed to lead the "Justice" department has no concept of what justice means. His nominee to the UN was designed to undermine the US presence there. The few people of quality that he allowed into his cabinet have resigned in disgust. General after general has resigned from the military so they can openly comment on the fiasco in the defense department. Who can forget, "way to go, Brownie." I could go on but it's too depressing. I hope the country can survive another year and a half in the hands of a man who hates what it stands for.

"Sad But True" or "True but Sad"

2007-06-11T16:24:00.000-04:00

The Illegal Alien Is My Neighbor!

2007-06-06T11:43:00.000-04:00

The biblical illiteracy of many who claim the Bible as their inerrant, infallible guide is often astonding. Nowhere is this more true than in the issue of Christian response to immigration reform. There are very few issues in the Bible where God's expectations are more clearly spelled out for us. I encourage you to read the article by David Gushee, on Christians and Immigration Reform.

I have extracted some of the key statements:

"As American Christians, are we more Christian or more American? I think that we should be Christians first."

"Biblically, the five most relevant moral principles on this issue are love, justice, hospitality, family and humility."

"Every person is my neighbor, whom I am called to love. The “undocumented worker” or “illegal alien” is my neighbor."

Jeremiah 22: “Do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed violence in this place.”

"Matthew 25, the king says, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” Illegal immigrants are strangers."

"As Christians, we cannot rest comfortably with raids that leave children in schools and daycare while their parents are deported."

". . . our true “citizenship” is in the church, and we are there as “resident aliens” hospitably welcomed by our gracious God. In this sense, we too are aliens, immigrants and strangers, and we should identify compassionately with this world’s versions of the same."

Referring specifically to the immigration reform bill, "This is hardly the kingdom of God in action. But it is far better than any alternative, and Christians should support it."

Paige has done it again!

2007-06-04T16:16:00.000-04:00

I don't know how I missed this because I try to keep up with the really stupid things Paige Patterson says and does. I guess I was distracted by the end of school activities. According to PP educated women are a serious threat to the family, the country and the world.

At the fourth World Congress of Families in Warsaw, he said, "families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female." He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women."

As a result women will increasingly forsake their God-ordained place of being barefoot and pregnant, and usurp the authority that God gave to men. (Not his words but definitely his thoughts.)

(What can I say? I know she's not barefoot, but it is Natalie Portman)

I am grateful that after reading the story on a "Christian" news source, several Southern Baptist women responded showing just how myopic this view of the place of women in society is. I have quoted one of the best of the responses.

As a life-long Southern Baptist who is also a single mother and an attorney who has to work in order to support myself and my young daughter, I wish the Southern Baptist Convention would find alternative ways to convey the need to strengthen the family unit without denigrating women who work outside the home or dare to educate themselves. The fact that 60% of college enrollees are women is not a tragedy. Why not focus on the failings of men as the primary cause of the disintegration of the family instead of villifying women (the old Adam and Eve story, with a modern twist). As a Christian and, specifically a Southern Baptist, I often combat negative stereotypes about my religious affiliation. The Southern Baptists lose credibility when they staunchly oppose abortion (as do I) but then saddle single mothers who bravely raise their children alone with guilt because they have to work. If we want to stem the tide of broken families, the Southern Baptists would do well to employ methods other than decrying the education of women and resorting to 1950s imagery about "mom and apple pie."

The Pseudo-Justice Department

2007-05-31T18:17:00.000-04:00

The disgrace of the so-called Justice Department just gets worse and worse everytime someone who worked there in the past few years opens his/her mouth. The outright lies that have been revealed in testimony before congress should be stirring the American people to run them out of town on a rail or tar and feather them or some other appropriate actions. But the shrub just keeps saying, they are doing a find job, just like brownie did in NO. The best commentary I have seen on this mess came from none other than John Stewart on The Daily Show last week. When, after showing a series of clips of the AG, AG contradicting himself over and over again, Stewart grabs his head and cries, "They're shitting in my head!"

He nailed it.

Help Stop Censorship at CBS

2007-05-29T17:06:00.000-04:00

From the Moveon.org folks,

Remember when shock-jock Don Imus used racist and misogynistic terms to refer to a women's college basketball team? Well, it took CBS two weeks to fire him for that but it only took them TWO DAYS to fire a respected General from Iraq for speaking out against the president on the war.

CBS shouldn't be censoring or firing people for speaking their mind. I signed a petition urging CBS to re-hire General Batiste -- can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/batiste/?r_by=-8292763-amvLeI&rc=paste
There's more information on the firing on that page, too.

Thanks!

She Lifts Her Lamp

2007-05-24T15:17:00.000-04:00

She Lifts Her Lamp
by Maurice R. Franks

They took the lamp from out the torch
About the time they slammed the door,
And placed instead a lump of brass -
Fool's gold where flames had shone before.

Refurbished thus, this gift from France
With superficial gleam doth lure
A world naïve, nay, entranced
By ideals once so fresh and pure.

Shine that lamp on those in prison,
On ghetto children in despair.
Show the world our rapes and killings,
How racist thinking took us there.

A culture lost, its values gone,
Used needles shine from sea to sea.
Democracy shall ne'er last long
Too dumb to ask, "Why must this be?"

Truths now lost, truths now languish,
Truths for which our fathers died.
She holds her lamp aloft with anguish.
It's hollow, gnawing from inside.

Copyright © 1998, Maurice R. Franks

The Ongoing Iraq Intel Fraud

2007-05-10T18:02:00.000-04:00

After my rant on the lies of George Bush I was directed to this article which lays out the facts of the lies about the Iraq war much more thorougly than I was capable of. If anyone you know still gives the president the benefit of any kind of doubt, refer them to this article.

The Ongoing Iraq Intel Fraud

Why no one in congress is seriously addressing this issue I don't know. The leadership seems to be content to study the issues to death. But as I heard a man say in a different context recently, "When you study something to death, death is not your goal." Unfortunatley while they are studying people keep dying. I don't care what it takes, GET THE TROOPS OUT, BRING THEM HOME.

DUBYA sings U2

2007-05-02T14:00:00.000-04:00

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

2007-04-27T16:37:00.000-04:00

It's here folks. It's time to stand up and recognize that you cannot believe anything that comes out of the Whitehouse. If there is anyone out there who has not acknowledged the lies that have come out of his mouth and the mouths of all of his subordinates. If you cannot see it you need to pull your head out of your a$$ and pay attention. He has been lying for years. He lied in his Texas campaigns. He lied about his service in the national guard. He lied about WMDs. He lied about Iraq's nuclear capability. He lied about Saddam and Al Qaeda. He lied about wiretaps. He lied about firing US attorneys. He is lying today about the so-called surge and its effects on the stability of Iraq. He lies
readily, easily, and convincingly. And yet somehow 30% of the people in this country still say that they believe him. I really don't think they do. I think they are lying about it because they cannot admit to themselves or to us that they could have been so wrong. I posted the impeach banner a few days ago more as a symbol or protest than anything else, but I am beginning to believe that we cannot afford another year and a half of his lies.

2007-04-19T18:10:00.000-04:00

ABP compares faith-based positions of top-tier presidential hopefuls

2007-04-16T13:44:00.000-04:00

Associated Baptist Press (ABP), which is an alternative news source to be distinguished from the Baptist Press (BP), the mouth-organ of the SBC, has published a summary of the basic faith position of the currently front-running candidates from both parties. The summary includes: Faith background, Relationship with Religious Right, On abortion, On gay rights, On Iraq, and On the relationship between church and state. If you are looking for a good summary, this is the place for it. You can find the article at ABP compares faith-based positions of top-tier presidential hopefuls

So long, Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-13T20:34:00.000-04:00

The death of Kurt Vonnegut saddens me. I did not know him, neither was he one of my favorite authors. Other than Slaughterhouse Five, I read his other books primarily because I thought a well-read person was supposed to have read them. I put Slaughterhouse Five in a different category because it had a profound impact on me. I chose to read it in the first place because I was a science fiction freak and it was advertised as a science fiction book. As it turns out it was much more than just another good sci-fi yarn. It was the first anti-war book that I recognized for what it was. Not that it was the first I read, but I had always been able to dismiss the anti-war arguments as not be relevant or applicable to me. At the time that the travails of Billy Pilgrim affected me, I was serving in the army in Germany and soon to be deployed to Vietnam. I won't go into all of the details of my conversion from hawk to dove but give Kurt Vonnegut credit for being very significant in that process. He will be missed.

The destruction of Dresden can be seen in the picture below. While the bombing of Dresden was not charged as a war-crime, it is a clear example of the horrors of modern warfare with the use of weapons of mass destruction. Destruction like this is one of the main reasons I am firmly convinced that the concept of "just war" is no longer valid.

Happy Birthday Thomas Jefferson

2007-04-13T20:00:00.000-04:00

Thomas Jefferson was born 264 years ago today and yet is no less a controversial figure today than he was when he was living. In addition to the Declaration of Indepedance he left us with a strong legacy of keeping the government out of the churches business and of keeping the church as an institution out of the governments business. However, there are many who claim the mantle of speaking for Christianity who deliberately misrepresent his views on this important view. I find it tragic that many baptists are so ignorant of their own heritage that now that time and circumstance has brought to them a measure of political power they are trying to use it to gain an advantage in society that baptists of previous generations fought against. The so-called "obscure letter" that he wrote to the baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, stated in unequivocal terms that government and religion should remain separate as long as the country remained. The "wall of sepration" statement is clear in the excerpt printed below.

Blogswarm Promotes Support For Church-State Separation And Religious Liberty

2007-04-07T10:10:00.000-04:00

I find it very informative that the adages about power corrupting are proved true over and over again through history. Contemporary baptists are one of the more recent examples. Demonstrating a deplorable ignorance of their own roots, many current baptist leaders, having gained access to the seats of power, now want to use that power to promote their spiritual values. Forgotten are leaders of previous generatons who fought and died for religious liberty. Here is a quick survey--

James Dunn, 1996
“Daunting is the challenge to conserve and defend the distinctive marking on the beast called Baptist that insists upon separation of church and state.”

Hobbs Lecture, Oklahoma Baptist University, 1980
“We're free. Please, please, don't ever let anyone take your Baptist freedoms away from you.”

George W. Truett, pastor FBC Dallas 1897-1944
“Never, anywhere, in any clime has a true Baptist been willing, for one minute, for the union of church and state.” May 16, 1920

John Leland Baptist Preacher Virginia 1754-1841
“If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia—let him worship one God, twenty Gods, or no God—be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the State.”

“If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.”

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "Wall of Separation between church and state" in his letter to the Baptists of Danbury, CT in 1801. But the first record of the concept in the new world came from Baptist forefather, Roger Williams, who in 1631 advocated a “hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

But the earliest baptist proponent of religious liberty was Thomas Helwys, credited with being one of the founders of the modern English baptist movement, who sent a treatise on religous liberty to King James I around 1612 with the following inscription.

"Hear, O King, and despise not the counsel of the poor, and let their complaints come before thee.
The king is a mortal man and not God: therefore he hath no power over the immortal souls of his subjects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spiritual Lords over them.
If the king have authority to make spiritual laws and Lords, then he is an immortal God and not a mortal man.
O King, be not seduced by deceivers to sin against God Whom thou oughtest to obey, nor against thy poor subjects who ought and will obey thee in all things with body, life and goods, or else let their lives be taken from the earth.
God save the King.
Spittlefield, near London. Tho. Helwys

Shortly afterward, Helwys was imprisoned and probably died in prison.

Compare that with contemporary leaders like Jerry Falwell who, in 2003 said, "the hypothetical separation of church and state - the ominous phrase lifted from an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson that has been manipulated, exaggerated and embellished by those who wish to exterminate religious expression from the American public square.”

As long as I remain a Baptist, I will do what I can to call Baptists back to their roots.

Did the SBC end the boycott too soon?

2007-04-06T15:06:00.000-04:00

Remember the SBC boycott of Disney that only the diehard SBs payed any attention to. For those who don't remember, it was because Disney allowed Gay/Lesbian Days in Disney World/Land etc. The SBC called it off in 2005 figuring that they had punished Disney enough. Well it looks like they ended it too soon. Accord an AP report, "Same-sex couples who want to exchange vows in front of Cinderella's Castle now have the chance." The article, Disney Opens Weddings to Gay Couples.

A Disney spokesperson said, "We believe this change is consistent with Disney's long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

"Welcome," "inclusive," "respected." That sounds almost Christian. But take heart SBCers, it's not too late to get resolution submitted in time for the annual convention in SA.

LATEST OUTRAGE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS ;)

2007-04-05T16:25:00.000-04:00

LATEST OUTRAGE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A hostage drill at New Jersey school features phony "Christian terrorists." Full story and reaction here.

The religious right is horrified that a school would conduct a terrorist drill using mock gunmen, described as "members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders' who don't believe in the separation of church and state." How soon we forget. Doesn't anyone remember that the second largest terrorist attack in the US occurred April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City and that the terrorists had connections to "right-wing fundamentalist groups" and publically stated that their motive for the bombing was to avenge what the government had done at Waco and Ruby Ridge (more right-wing fundamentalists). In the wake of 9/11 have we forgotten that not all terrorists are from the Middle East? Sadly, the impulse that drives people to commit terrorist acts is not limited to any ethnic, geographic, or religious group. And historically some of the worst terrorists have called themselves Christian. At least the students at one NJ school have a chance to remember that you cannot tell a terrorist by the color of his skin or the direction he prays.

The kicker in this is that the call David Barton a "Historian and constitutional expert." The same David Barton that made up quotations from the founding fathers to support his attacks on religious freedom in this country. Why do Christians still consider him an authority on anything but making money for David Barton?

Land Watch

2007-03-27T16:33:00.000-04:00

Bruce Prescott has given us additional insight into the ethics?/theology? of Richard Land at
Richard Land -- Court Priest for a War Denomination
He cites an article at EthicsDaily.com, "Southern Baptist Leader Terms Premature Troop Withdrawal Immoral", which reports Land's statements on a PBS broadcast. As he has done in the past, Land twists Just War theory to make it fit his ideas. If you read the article and wonder about Robert Parham's statement, "Having demanded a wedding ring from the Republican Party, Richard is now so wed to the president's failed war than he is a court priest for a pro-war denomination." He is referring to the following statement Land made in 1999 when meeting with a group of conservative religious leaders about their strategy for the up-coming election. He said, “The go-along, get-along strategy is dead. No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.”

True Lies Redux

2007-03-16T17:39:00.000-04:00

It seems that the producers of the Jesus Tomb left out one little step in their research process, peer review. Of course all scholars know that if they want to get published they have to submit to peer review, or submitting their work to experts in the field for their evaluation. If that had been done then they might have avoided the embarrassment of having a scholar blow them out of the water. See Stephen J. Pfann's article MARY MAGDALENE IS NOW MISSING: A CORRECTED READING OF RAHMANI OSSUARY 701. Pfann's analysis is so detailed that no one should ever again think that Mary Magdalene is buried in that tomb. Which obviously destroys the very thesis that the production was based on.

As Pfann said in an AP article, "James Cameron is a great guru of science fiction, and he's taking it to a new level with Simcha Jacobovici. You take a little bit of science, spin a good yarn out of it and you get another 'Terminator' or 'Life of Brian.'"

Unfortunately, I don't think Cameron and Jacobovici will take the advice of another blogger in his 12 Lessons from the Jesus Tomb Saga, when he said

5. Don’t be tempted to “follow the money”; follow the evidence instead. Be on a quest for truth, not fame or fortune.

Are you crazy, this is show business.

The Wrong Richard--"he regularly speaks without authorization"

2007-03-14T09:52:00.000-04:00

While scanning an article from ABP, the following statement caught my attention.

"While many of us consider Richard to be a friend, he regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization and puts forward his own political opinions as scientific fact,"

My first thought was why are they talking about Richard Land in this article. Then I realized that they were talking about Richard Cizik, NAE's vice president for governmental affairs. He is in trouble with some of the high-powered fundies for talking too much about global warming. And while I really can't understand the fundies objections to global warming initiatives (unless they are so closely tied to conservative politics that they have lost all discernment), that is not my main concern here.

It seems to me that the "he regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization" statement is applicable to Richard Land. I realize that he is the head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and as such is tasked to educate and to provide resources to SBC churches and agencies on moral and ethical issues. As such the head of this commission will obviously make some public statements, but did anyone in the SBC vote to make him "spokesman on Capitol Hill for the largest non-Catholic denomination in the country" or ask him to represent "Southern Baptists’ interests in the halls of Congress, before U.S. Presidents, and in the major media"? He has turned his position into the cult of Richard Land. Look at the general publications of the ERLC, the most prominent thing in them is Richard Land. Look at the ERLC website, the first item on the menu is Richard Land. I searched the site using their own search engine with the following results:

Ethics 1730 hits
Religious Liberty 1840 hits
Abortion 1080 hits
Richard Land 2408 hits

And the winner is . . .!!!

I don't know about you but I am a member of a southern baptist church and he does not now nor ever has been a spokesman for me.

Thoughts on not having more than one wife

2007-03-12T13:44:00.000-04:00

I'm going to have to find something more productive to do besides sitting through the Sunday sermons at my church. I still attend this particular church for several reasons, some probably more valid than others. Some of them are, in no particular order,

Tradition--I have attended here off and on for more than 40 years. My wife's parents helped start the church. We were married here. Some of our children were baptized here and married here (not that we are in any way sacremental).

Fellowship--I have Christian friends here. Some of my closest friends have left and I have trouble finding new ones that I can talk seriously with.

Ministry--while it is definitely a minority of the members who are involved, the church does sponsor an active ministry to meeting the basic human needs of the poor and gives me opportunities to be a doer of the word.

But the Sunday morning sermons are just bad. Yesterday he was talking about God's plan for the family (no not submission but he did throw in an anti-gay marriage comment) and he at least acknowledged that there were some in the OT who did not live up to God's plan for the family. Some of them had more than one wife and some had concubines. He then gave us examples to show us why this is not a good idea.

The examples he used:

Abraham, of course only had one wife, and his wife was the one who had him sleep with Hagar and if only he hadn't done that we would not have an Arab/Israeli problem today.

Lot--as far as we know only had one wife, but have she turned into salt, his daughters got him drunk, had sex with him, and became the mothers of the Moabites and the Ammonites. Then he gave us serveral examples of how that was a bad think for Israel, especially the Moabites. The OT is just full of examples of how they did the Isrealites wrong. So Lot could have avoided all that if he had just kept it in his pants.

David--He really didn't talk about David or his wives just the trouble that came up between the half-brothers and half-sisters.

Solomon--No real discussion was needed here, because everyone knows that the wisest man in history allowed his foreign wives to lead him astray. What I really wanted to know was how Solomon managed to make it with all those wives and concubines. How did he even keep track of who he had slept with and who he hadn't without a computer.

So in light of those stories having more than one wife if not a good idea. But then he really muddied the waters by telling us about Ruth and Boaz (not because of polygamy, he had moved on to another point in his outline). Just after I had written a note to my wife that Ruth was a Moabitess, he said she was a Moabitess but never dealt with the obvious problem that raises. If Lot had not had sex with his daughter resulting in the birth of Moab, then Ruth would never have been born and since she was the grandmother of David, does that mean David would not have been born and since Jesus had to be of the house of David, then Jesus would not have been born and God's plan would have been all messed up. So obviously it was God's will for Lot to drunk and have sex with his daughter.

Oh well, back to reading the Apocrypha.

It's such a myth . . .

2007-03-08T17:35:00.000-05:00

"It's such a myth that somehow Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell represent religious Americans. Most religious Americans care about poverty, about health care, about fighting global AIDS." Mara Vanderslice of Common Good Strategies made this comment to Stephen Colbert.

Situation Ethics at the ERLC

2007-03-08T14:14:00.000-05:00

I seldom give Richard Land credit for anything, but I will give him credit for consistency in his condemnation of Rudolph Giuliani. Of course, I do wonder if he would be quite as concerned about the divorces if Giuliani were more conservative politically. Especially, in light of his comment, "I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

Oops

I spoke to soon. Read the rest of the statement. Although McCain has been married twice, Land said, the senator's other credentials and history of conservatism earn him more respect than Giuliani. Land said. "When you're a war hero [like McCain], you have less to prove on the character front."

So being a war hero excuses you from the moral absolutes that Land and his ilk are so fond of slapping us in the face with. I really do find it interesting that a man who claims to be a spokesperson for a large group that follow the "Prince of Peace" sees being a warrior as somehow justifying other moral failures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing either McCain or Giuliani for their divorces, I'm just trying to figure out what kind of situation ethicist Richard Land is.

...not about charity, it's about justice....

2007-03-06T13:23:00.000-05:00

I am grateful to Christopher at Dance with God for this video.

Are You Going To Be Next?

2007-03-06T12:38:00.000-05:00

First, they went after the moderates. Then they went after the non-signers of BFM2000. Then they went after the tongue-speakers. Then they went after the scripturally baptized. Then they went after the women. Now they are going after the Blacks (see the Dallas Morning News article). Are you going to be next?

More True Lies

2007-03-05T12:47:00.000-05:00

I was actually amazed out how appropriate the "True Lies" label was for the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" pseudo-documentary. I will not try to do a point by point analysis of the film, if you want that go to Jay Cost's article, "Examining the Jesus' Tomb Evidence." I tried to call into NPR this morning when they had author/director Simcha Jacobovici on with two archeologists, but couldn't get through. I wanted to ask him what he considers himself to be because both in the film and in the followup discussions he says of himself, "I am not a scientist or theologian or bible scholar." But does claim to be a journalist, an investigative reporter, and a film-maker. That he is a film-maker is self-evident, that he did some investigation I will acknowledge, but his claims of being a journalist are questionable. He reminds me a lot of the whole Fox News enterprise, "We report, you decide." Which we all know really means, "We decide, we report, you accept." While he continually insists that he is just reporting the facts, the film is filled from beginning to end with a few facts wrapped around a multitude of theories, suppositions, speculations, etc.

Every one of the experts he used, except the guy from NC, has objected to the way he used their opinions. I thought the best comment about the film came from one of the archeologists who was on afterward with Ted Koppel. Using a links of a chain analogy, he suggested that when true academic investigation was applied to the theories the links would all be weak. In other words if a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, Jacobovici's chain is made up of only weak links. He did not make a determinative argument for any factor, he merely left them hanging unresolved and moved on to the next link. I did think the "archeoporn" comment was kind of a low blow, funny yes, but still a low blow.

True Lies

2007-02-26T13:05:00.000-05:00

I find it ironically appropriate that James Cameron, famous as the producer of Titanic, but also holding credits for such well-known documentaries as The Terminator (1&2) and True Lies, is the producer of a new film on some old digs.

The new documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries — small caskets used to store bones — discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family.

This is not a new discovery, just a new way to make money off of an old discovery. As one archeologist said, "They just want to get money for it." That statement comes from Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, which he discovered more than 20 years ago. He also said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

An AP article quotes Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land as saying the film's hypothesis holds little weight.
Pfann said, "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."
Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.
Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.
"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

Pfann's view that there is about a 15% chance of it actually being the bones of Jesus' family contradicts Cameron's claim that a statistician told him it was a million to one in favor of it being them.

One of the clearest statements comes from Simcha Jacobovici, who wrote a companion book, The Jesus Family Tomb. “They are common names, these were archaeologists. They never went to statisticians. We're just reporting the news. We're not statisticians. We're not theologians . . . ." "We're just trying to make some money." The last statement is my paraphrase of Jacobovici's claim.

George Bush Told the Nation

2007-02-22T16:50:00.000-05:00

I went to a Tom Paxton concert not too long ago. I was amazed that a 70 year old man could stand for almost 2 hours with nothing but his guitar (and a guy even older than he was playing rhythm guitar) and keep the audience spellbound. No fireworks, no lasers, no theatrics, just him and his music.

He didn't take requests, but he didn't need to for me. I was going to ask him to do an updated version of "Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation" but he did it without me even having to ask. For those who don't remember it I have posted the lyrics at the end, but the most significant part is

Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."

The updated version went something like this

George W. told the nation,
"This is not an escalation.
This is just a surge toward victory.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending twnety thousand more,
To help save Iraq from Iraqese."

As someone else said (I would give them credit if I remembered who said it) "I thought a surge was something bad. Why else would we have surge protectors?"

********************************************************************************
Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation
Words and Music by Tom Paxton
I got a letter from L. B. J.
It said this is your lucky day.
It's time to put your khaki trousers on.
Though it may seem very queer
We've got no jobs to give you here
So we are sending you to Viet Nam
[Cho:]
Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."

I jumped off the old troop ship,
And sank in mud up to my hips.
I cussed until the captain called me down.
Never mind how hard it's raining,
Think of all the ground we're gaining,
Just don't take one step outside of town.
[Cho:]

Every night the local gentry,
Sneak out past the sleeping sentry.
They go to join the old VC.
In their nightly little dramas,
They put on their black pajamas,
And come lobbing mortar shells at me.
[Cho:]

We go round in helicopters,
Like a bunch of big grasshoppers,
Searching for the Viet Cong in vain.
They left a note that they had gone.
They had to get down to Saigon,
Their government positions to maintain.
[Cho:]

Well here I sit in this rice paddy,
Wondering about Big Daddy,
And I know that Lyndon loves me so.
Yet how sadly I remember,Way back yonder in November,
When he said I'd never have to go.
[Cho:]

Here I Stand

2006-04-26T17:35:00.000-04:00

In the words of Martin Luther, “Here I stand.” This pretty well sums up my theological worldview today. I’m not sure about tomorrow.

What's your theological worldview?created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern. . . . . . . . . 75%
Neo orthodox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. . . 57%
Modern Liberal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Classical Liberal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
Charismatic/Pentecostal. . . . . . . . 36%
Reformed Evangelical . . . . . . . . . . 32%
Roman Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
Fundamentalist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Other bloggers have posted this link and expressed interest in seeing whether or not others agreed with their results. I think it hits pretty close to where I think I am. I was surprised that I have any Fundamentalist at all. I will have to repent and perform acts of contrition because of that 14%.

Blind, Stupid, or What?

2006-01-24T14:35:00.000-05:00

“Last week, Gonzales sent leaders of Congress a 42-page legal defense of warrantless eavesdropping which suggests that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is unconstitutional if it prevents the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping.” AP writer Pete Yost 1-24-06
This is definitely a new low (or maybe high, depending on your political persuasion) in spin-doctoring. Initially, the Bush administration claimed that its domestic surveillance program was legal under FISA. Now it is claiming that if it is not legal under FISA then FISA is unconstitutional. I used to use the “Blind, Stupid, or What?” login for items regarding the lying of the Bush administration, but I now find it hard to believe that any rational person can put any trust in anything that comes out of the Whitehouse.
George W. Bush has been lying his entire career. Take you choice of issues: National Guard Service, WMDs, outing of CIA agents, etcetera, ad nauseum. Where is Jimmy Carter when we need him? Oh yeah, he out there doing some good for the kingdom of God.

PLEASE SIGN AND FORWARD

2006-01-13T14:53:00.000-05:00

Still very busy but needed to pass this on. I received an email from a college student with the subject:

PLEASE SIGN SCHOOL PETITION AND FORWARD

I was interested to see what kind of petition I was supposed to sign and discovered the following text:

PETITION TO REINSTATE PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Agree or Delete: Instructions to sign are at the bottom.
PETITION FOR PRES. BUSH

Following that was a list of 1839 names from all over the country.

As a firm believer that real prayer was not and cannot be removed from public schools, and consequently cannot be “reinstated,” I was not moved to add my name to the list and then forward it to a few thousand of my closest friends. But I was struck by the following dire warning that showed up at the end of the list of names.

If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names. If you do not want to sign it, please forward it to everyone you know. Thank you!!!
To add your name, click on "forward". You will be able to add your name at the bottom of the list and then forward it to your friends.
THE 2,000TH PERSON SEND IT ON TO THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESS  President@white.gov

“If you do not want to sign it, please forward it to everyone you know. Thank you.” I give them points for being polite and points for shear audacity, but just how stupid do they think I am? That, by the way, is a rhetorical answer which does not require a response.

What a temptation, all I have to do is not forward this message and all 1839 names of well-meaning but woefully misguided people will be lost. But upon further examination I saw that the sender had included six other names. It would be just my luck that one of them will sign and forward it.  It was interesting to see who was on the list.

One is from a baptist college
One is from a catholic college
One is probably a nurse, might be wrong but nurse_2b06@____  seems like a sure thing
One works for the OK state tax commission
One works for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service
And one is only identified as smilelady70

All of them and me is an interesting group. I wonder if there is a way we could get together to discuss this issue.  Alas, I don’t see how it can be done without mining the list for addresses which I consider to be the unforgiveable sin.

Super Power Teacher

2006-01-13T12:58:00.000-05:00

It’s a busy month, I’ve not had much time for blogging but found this on McCarty Musing and thought it was interesting/enlightening/disturbing/all-of-the-above.

if the US wants to run the world and be able to kick some serious military ass, we have to sacrifice certain other things. Like health-care. And maternity benefits. And reduced or free lunches for poor kids.

A Clear and Present Danger

2005-12-19T16:12:00.000-05:00

Dialogue between a fictional president and the other kind.

FP: “You broke the law. You’re going to jail.”

OK: “You are such a boy scout. You see everything in black and white.”

FP: “Not black and white. Right and wrong.”

OK: “I am not a crook.”

Oops, for some reason I keep reverting to that previous other kind of president.

The Slave is Our Brother

2005-12-18T15:38:00.000-05:00

In a morning marked by the dissension and controversy about an increasingly unpopular war, I was pleasantly surprised to learn in church this morning the background of one of my all-time favorite Christmas songs, Oh Holy Night. Considering myself to be well-versed on the social aspects of the gospel, I was intrigued to hear that the song was written by a socialist wine-seller, the music by a Jew, and the English translated by an ardent abolitionist. The song premiered at midnight mass on Christmas 1847 in Roquemaure, France. Even though it was a very popular Christmas song in France, at one time it was banned for use in catholic churches. The problem with the song was that the author, Placide Cappeau, had became, according to one web-site, " a social radical, a freethinker, a socialist, and a non-Christian." The article goes on to say that later in his life, "he adopted some of the more extreme political and social views of his era, such as opposition to inequality, slavery, injustice, and other kinds of oppression." Certainly doesn't sound very Christian by many of today's definitions.

John S. Dwight translated it into English in 1855. Dwight was a Transcendentalist, a "commune"ist (see Brook Farm, MA), an abolitionist, and one of the foremost critics and proponents of classical music of his day. The song was very popular in the churches of the North during the civil war for obvious reasons.

There is a great deal of folklore which has been attached to the song. It is credited with being the song sung to begin the Christmas day truce of the Franco-Prussian War. It may have been the first song ever broadcast by radio. It was sung by me at one of my earliest public performances. (All right, it was at an 8th grade piano recital. The fact that they asked me to sing rather than play is indicative of my lack of skill at the piano. To paraphrase one of my favorite movie characters, "Eight years of piano down the drain.")

As we continue to debate the significant and not-so-significant issues of our day, it is good to stop and remember that "yonder breaks a new and glorious morn."

A small prophecy fulfilled

2005-12-12T14:44:00.000-05:00

I make no claim to being a prophet, at least in the contemporary predictive sense of the word. But sometimes I do get something right. A couple of years ago a told a friend, who was considering leaving the SBC because of the actions of the current leadership, to be patient. I told him that the current leadership of the SBC cannot survive because they will self destruct. When they no longer have "liberals" (can anyone tell me who those liberals were and where they are today?) to fight against they will start fighting each other. We have already witnessed some opening salvos of the battle with the replacement of Ken Hemphill at SWBTS with Paige Patterson. Now the trustees of the International Mission Board have stirred up a hornets nest with their passage of new selection guidelines.

Such “supposed pillars” of the “supposed conservative resurgence” as Morris Chapman and Wade Burleson (see Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The War for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention) are greatly disturbed because the tactics which were used to “take of the convention and its agencies” are now be used to “take over the convention and its agencies.” Somehow these men and there supporters still don’t understand that the take over of the SBC was never about theology. It was always about power.

Oh well, like my church history prof used to say, “If the SBC ever splits, go with the Annuity Board.”

They Have Forgotten . . .

2005-11-01T16:55:00.000-05:00

“They have forgotten that what they believe is older than that which they read.”

An interesting statement from The Sacred Idolatry by James Shelly. He goes on:

They say, ‘We have the Book, and therefore we believe,’ but they forget those who believed before there was a Book. They forget that before the Book was formed, the Faith was sought. The Book did not give birth to faith. No, faith gave birth to the Book. The Book did not write faith, but faith wrote the Book.

To read the article go to The Ooze

Follow up to Another one bites the dust

2005-11-01T16:19:00.000-05:00

Messengers to the Missouri Baptist Convention took aim at a treasured Baptist principle, the autonomy of the local church, by approving an amendment to their constitution which “changed the membership eligibility requirement from ‘any Baptist church in sympathy with the objects of the Convention …’ to ‘Any Southern Baptist church singly aligned with the Convention….’” Historically Southern Baptist organizations have avoided the kind of connectionalism between groups that was approved in Missouri. You can get differing perspectives on the vote from ABP, “Missouri Baptists narrow membership to exclude CBF, moderate churches,” and BP, “Missouri Baptists strengthen ties to SBC, MBC.” It is a signficant that what one reports as narrowing and restricting the other reports as strengthening. The fundys have now attacked “the lordship of Jesus Christ,” “the priesthood of the believer,” and “the autonomy of the local church.” I wonder what they will go after next.