9/11: Who's Really Responsible

"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it...I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists -the Islamic fanatics-who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

The person who said this is talking about September 11, 2001 and is the one American politician that knows that dark day intimately...former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani.

There has been a lot of hullaballu over who is to blame for not stopping 9/11 with conservatives trying to tar President Clinton which gets liberals up in arms, and liberals (such as President Clinton) blaming President Bush (remember all the "My Pet Goat" stories?).

It's pretty pathetic that five years after this horrid event where 3000 people were killed in the space of 90 minutes conservatives and liberals are still trying to score political points about who is to blame. There is really only one person or group to blame: Osama bin Laden and his ilk. What's past is past. We can't change what happened. All we can do is try better in the future to prevent the fanatics from doing this again.

Guliani continues:

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush...they did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

I frankly don't give a rat's behind which president slipped. I think both Clinton and Bush could have done better and I also think they tried. But pinning blame on either does nothing to stop the terrorists from planning another 9/11.

I wish that more politicians would follow Guliani's example and stop using such a horrific event for political gain. The times are too important to be wasted on a pissing match.

Joe Gandleman has a worthwhile if somewhat biased piece on Guliani's run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Hyperbole or Right on Target?

Andrew Sullivan is an interesting guy. Early in the Bush Administration, he was a defender of the president, but these days, he is solidly against the Administration. Sometimes he is incredibly insightful, and at other times, he is given over to hyperbole-his postings being nothing more than rants.

Today, he continues to express his objections to the torture "compromise." I agree with him on this, but then he veers into this:

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. (emphasis mine.) And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

So, the question is, has democracy ended here? Is it 1973, when Augusto Pinochet overthrew the elected Chilean government and took over?

If this was a few years ago, I would have easily dismissed this. But hearing more and more about how the Bushies have sought diliberately to enlarge excutive power makes me at least wonder. However, I don't think we are a dictatorship; unless Bush and Cheney are planning to halt the 2008 elections or something. I do believe that the Bushies are eroding democracy in our country, but I don't think it has left us.

I'd like to know what others think. While I don't trust the Bush Administration anymore, I have a hard time seeing this as the end of American democracy. Please don't send rants. I want to hear reasoned speeches. Thanks.

On the Torture "Compromise" or Battle Without Honor or Humanity

The views on the agreement between a maverick group of Republicans led by Senator John McCain and the White House are all over the map. Some are just yelling, screaming positions we've already heard before. I've found two commentaries that are thoughtful and worthwhile. First up is Jeremy Dibble of Charing RINO. He states in his Saturday post, about how the Bush Administration basically pretended to compromise and then decided to go their own way. Jeremy writes:

...I think the senators (McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner)did get a great deal more than they had originally, and they forced the White House to give up some major points. However, I'm afraid that they took the negotiations at face value, and while it pains me to have to say it, I can draw no other conclusion but that this Administration headed by this president is incapable of good-faith negotiation and honest dealing(emphasis mine)... McCain, Warner and Graham deserve some credit for wringing water out of a stone. Unfortunately, it's clear now that that water is undrinkable.

Andrew Sullivan draws the same conclusion about the Bushies, and gives some speculation about why McCain "gave in:"

I've long tried to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on all of this. He has been the sole figure able to resist this president's permanent seizure of emergency powers - to detain any person at will without charges or recourse to courts and to torture them at will. McCain is, I believe, a good man. But he has obviously decided that he cannot win this one. He has decided that the best he can do is prevent a formal breach of the Geneva Conventions, keep the military itself away from torture, while allowing domestic law to be reinterpreted to allow all the torture techniques previously used by the CIA. It is easy to condemn him. Too easy, perhaps. He may have done as much as he possibly can to prevent torture without playing directly into Karl Rove's hands. It is clear that if McCain continued his opposition, the Bush machine would have done all it could to kill his nomination prospects. And if he fails to win the nomination, and a Christianist Rove-backed candidate seizes it, then the future for American liberty and a decent conservatism would be even darker than it already is. I'm guessing that's how he has rationalized it. He's not dumb enough to trust the good word of George W. Bush. And he's not dumb enough to fight a battle he cannot win - now.

Then there are more cynical interpretations. It is in McCain's interests for the Republicans to do very badly this fall, so he can position himself as their savior in 2008. By taking the torture issue off the table, he removes one of Rove's key weapons in the campaign: to portray the Democrats as too cowardly to torture the perpetrators of 9/11 and therefore too weak to defend the nation. It's b.s., of course, but that's beside the point. It works. So this deal may temporarily help the Democrats in November (which may explain their own supine cowardice on the subject).

I know there are some that think McCain, et. al are wimps. I tend to like McCain and I think he really does want to make sure our government doesn't torture. But I also think he is probably a realist. This administration, led by Karl Rove, would go after McCain as hard or even harder than they did during the presidential campaign of 2000. The problem here is not that McCain gave in or the Democrats didn't stand up, but that this Administration cares nothing about the rule of law. It thinks that because it won an election, it can do what it likes and damn the Congress, Geneva Conventions and the like. It is shocking to see conservatives, who philosophically believed in law and tradition, doesn't seem to care about those long-held Burkean traditions.

So, kudos for the McCain gang for standing up to the president. It's too bad that the President and his gang have no honor.

Who Would Jesus Torture? OR What Part of "Violence to Life and Person" Don't You Understand?

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

The Geneva Convention. Article 3.

The Bush Adminstration thinks that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is vague. Does anything in the above paragraph even looks vague? It seems pretty clear: treat prisoners humanely. What Bush wants to do is make Geneva vague to give the military cover as the use "agressive interrogation."

What's interesting is how the president's far right base is reacting to this. This group that loves to talk about how pro-life they are seems to support the use of torture. The Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Rev. Lou Sheldon, is urging Congress to back the Bush plan. Here is what Mr. Sheldon says:

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.

"We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees," said Rev. Sheldon. "As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent."

"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.

"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.

We have to redefine how we treat our enemies? This from the group that worries about my partner and I getting hitched would "redefine marriage?"

The enemy is evil, so we need to be as ruthless as we can be. Please. Our nation has faced Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, two of the biggest threats of the past century and we never compromised our values.

The threat from terrorism is real. And I agree that we have to be agressive in trying to stop these people from harming us or other lawful societies. And yes, people like Kahlid Sheik Muhammad, are heartless monsters. But we as a nation have a history of treating even monsters with respect, not because they've earned it, but because we are America, and we adhere to certain values that other nations ignore. Treating our enemies with respect proves we are more moral than we are.

I am not a pacifist, but it seems to me that Christians need to follow the example of Jesus who loved everyone. Jesus calls us to treat even our enemies with respect. Seems like Rev. Sheldon forgot to read Matthew 5:43-48.

Liberals, Neoconservatives and Terrorism

Alan over at Maverick Views has a great commentary about Ambivablog's take on left of center blogger Jack Whelan's view on the current age we live in.

(I know, there is a lot of the he-said-that-she-said-that-he-said going on here, but trust me, there is a method in this madness.)

To sum up Whelan's view, the reason we have Islamic fundamentalism is because of the US presence in the Middle East. If we just leave them alone, then the terror will stop.

Alan, sums it better than I can:

This is, as Amba says, a seductive worldview. For one, it puts all the power in our hands and very little in our enemy's hands. It's a worldview where our own actions determine our fate completely. If we want to protect ourselves from terrorism, we need only change our actions towards the societies from which terrorists spring. Our enemy’s actions are merely subsets of our actions. If we change, they'll change.

He also adds that the neoconservative viewpoint of things is basically the mirror opposite:

This is, not surprisingly, just about the opposite of the neo-con worldview which believes that changing ourselves is unnecessary and even pointless. Neo-cons contend that we need to force or at least strongly encourage changes in the societies that breed terrorism.

The problem is, the alternative view, the neo-con view, has been misplayed and mishandled and now seems even more naïve than the standard liberal view. Key neo-cons like Rumsfeld and Cheney have too often minimized the consequences of our own actions while maximizing the villainy of our enemies. To make it worse, this administration chose a very military-centric path towards changing the Middle East. A path that has created a great deal of bloodshed and is still very far from success.

What we have here are two competing ideologies centered around how they view the US: one side, the neocons, view America as the paragon of virtue, the nation that can do no wrong. It can send suspects to nations that torture without worrying about how it will look in the wider world because America is pure and in a just fight against agents of evil. It can use tactics such as waterboarding which, if they aren't torture, dance pretty damn close to the line, because it is America. In this view, America answers to no one and whatever it does, it does for the right reasons.

On the other side is the more liberal view of America that sees the nation as an oppresive bully that seeks to establish a hegemonic empire. This America oppresses people around the world, especially in the Middle East. In their view, the reason 9/11 happened was because of stand towards Israel, or the war in Iraq, or the fact that we have bases in the region. If we just let people in the Middle East or Latin America, just live their lives, then everything will be okay.

My own take is that both views are way off the mark. America has been considered a paragon of virtue because we have held ourselves to high standards not because we are Americans or blessed by God or what have you. What the neocons fail to understand, is that we are in an ideological struggle and we must work to show Muslims worldwide and in the Middle East in particular that America is not the satanic power bin Laden and his ilk say we are. This is not simply a struggle where we can bomb people into submission, but we must work to pursuade. An example is how the US helped Indonesia after the Christmastime tsunami in 2004. The view of America in the world's largest Muslim nation rose several points because of our acts of kindness. If we had more images of Navy helicopters giving good to greif stricken Indonesians instead of those horrid images from Abu Gharib, we would do more to combat Islamic fundamentalism than any "alternative" interrogation techniques.

Liberals, on the other hand, have to start taking the Islamic fundamentalist threat as seriously as they do Christian fundamentalism. Both fundamentalisms seek to roll back the values that we in Western liberals societies hold so dear. Liberals rightly worry about people like James Dobson, who want to put gays back in the closet, but downplay Islamic fundamentalists who frankly want gays executed and aren't too friendly towards women's rights.

Liberals also have to stop thinking that we aren't the cause of everything bad in the world. Yes, America has many sins, I'm not denying that. But it is not as simple that the 9/11 hijackers or Osama or any other extremist is doing bad because we treated them terribly. It was because they bought into a dangerous theology that told them that to be holy and righteous, one must kill innocents whose only crime is their nationality. Liberals have to stop this sort of dualistic think that views America as wholly evil, while viewing others around the world as pure innocents. There is evil in the world and sometimes America is guily of it. But sometimes so are others.

America is neither a saint or a devil. We are a nation that tries to do right but at times makes mistakes and sometimes even big wrongs. We need to develop a worldview that seems America and the world as it is-not as we would like it to be. In this struggle against terror, we need to be clearheaded and not looking with glasses that fit our ideologies.

"They've Already Won."

Andrew Sullivan shared this You Tube link today. It's comes from the movie, "The Siege" that talks about terrorists attacking New York and the American response. The movie came out in 1998, long before 9/11, but the images of the naked Arab man ready to be tortured ala Abu Gharib and Denzel's prophetic speech make this scene ever the more timely.

Iraq: Land of Hacks

A few months ago, I came to the conclusion that history will judge the Administration of George W. Bush poorly, not because of his policies, as much as because of the poor execution of those policies.

One example is Iraq. I opposed the invasion, as did others, but even if it wasn't wise, the president and his administration had the chance to prove people wrong and make Iraq a functioning democracy with a stable society. The Bushies blew that opportunity and as this Washington Post story shows, when it came to rebuilding Iraq, political patronage trumped experience more often than not.

I agree with Justin Gardner: you need to read the whole story to get a glimpse at how the Bushies doling out jobs to people basically knew nothing about the task they were given.

But at least voted they for the President.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, this administration only cares about politics and getting their friends in power. Yes, this happens in all administrations in some degree, but with Bush, it has become an artform. From Katrina to Iraq, we see incompetence on a grand scale.

I'm looking forward to 2008, when we can elect an adult for President.

It's Time for Them (Republicans) To Go

Washington Monthly, (which is a liberal magazine) has an interesting series of articles by conservatives that are looking forward to seeing the GOP lost control of Congress because the movement has lost its way. I haven't read all of the articles, but here a sampling of what I read so far.

The first is by Jeffrey Hart, a former speech writer for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan:

The United States has seen political swings and produced its share of extremists, but its political character, whether liberals or conservatives have been in charge, has always remained fundamentally Burkean. The Constitution itself is a Burkean document, one that slows down decisions to allow for “deliberate sense” and checks and balances. President Bush has nearly upended that tradition, abandoning traditional realism in favor of a warped and incoherent brand of idealism. (No wonder Bush supporter Fred Barnes has praised him as a radical.) At this dangerous point in history, we must depend on the decisions of an astonishingly feckless chief executive: an empty vessel filled with equal parts Rove and Rousseau.

Successful government by either Democrats or Republicans has always been, above all, realistic. FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were all reelected by landslides and rank as great presidents who responded to the world as it is, not the world as they would have it. But ideological government deserves rejection, whatever its party affiliation. This November, the Republicans stand to face a tsunami of rejection. They’ve earned it.

While Hart takes a more philisophical viewpoint, former congressman Joe Scarborough shoots from the hip:

During the 1990s, conservative Republicans and the Clinton White House somehow managed to balance the budget while winning two wars, reforming welfare, and conducting an awesome impeachment trial focused on oral sex and a stained Gap dress.

The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district. Soon, budget negotiations become nasty, brutish, and short and devolve into the legislative equivalent of Detroit, where only the strong survive.

But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.

Finally, Bruce Bartlett thinks a GOP loss this year will good for the Republican party in the long run and also force the Democrats to show its cards:

Divided government has... advantages... For one, it restrains government spending. The budget surpluses of the late 1990s resulted mainly from Bill Clinton’s unwillingness to support the Republican Congress’s priorities and its unwillingness to support his. For another, it improves our foreign policy. We had divided government during 36 of 55 years between 1947 and 2001, which meant that both parties had to take responsibility for the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (the first one). America is much more effective in the international arena when it has a high degree of bipartisanship in its foreign policy. In the not-too-distant past, Republicans including Arthur Vandenberg and Democrats including Daniel Patrick Moynihan understood this. With the current war in Iraq, however, Democrats who support the war are forced to oppose it, and Republicans who oppose the war are forced to support it. This makes other countries unsure of our resolve and commitments.

Those who worry that divided government would compromise our efforts in Iraq shouldn’t be overly concerned. As the minority party, Democrats today are free to criticize our efforts in Iraq without having to offer constructive alternatives. But put them in the majority, and they’ll suddenly have to put up or shut up. Let them defund the war and implement an immediate pullout if that’s what they really think we should do. At least it would force the administration to explain itself better and face some oversight, for which the Republican Congress has essentially abrogated all responsibility. Polls will quickly indicate which side has made the better case.

Finally, on a purely partisan level, I believe that loss of one or both houses will strengthen the Republican Party going into 2008. It will force a debate on issues that have been swept under the rug, such out-of-control government spending and the coziness between Republicans and K Street, home of Washington’s lobbying community. Afterwards, the party will emerge stronger, with better arguments for keeping control of the White House. Also, Democrats may well be placed under so much pressure from their left-wing fringe that they’ll be forced into politically self-destructive acts such as trying to impeach President Bush. Every Republican I know thinks Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the best things they have going for them. Giving these inept leaders higher profiles would be a gift to conservatives everywhere.

Losing might be the best way to get the GOP back to its conservative roots. We will see come November.

In Memoriam

Alabanza: In Praise of Local 100
by Martín Espada

for the 43 members of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 100,
working at the Windows on the World restaurant, who lost their lives in
the attack on the World Trade Center

Alabanza. Praise the cook with the shaven head
and a tattoo on his shoulder that said Oye,
a blue-eyed Puerto Rican with people from Fajardo,
the harbor of pirates centuries ago.
Praise the lighthouse in Fajardo, candle
glimmering white to worship the dark saint of the sea.
Alabanza. Praise the cook's yellow Pirates cap
worn in the name of Roberto Clemente, his plane
that flamed into the ocean loaded with cans for Nicaragua,
for all the mouths chewing the ash of earthquakes.
Alabanza. Praise the kitchen radio, dial clicked
even before the dial on the oven, so that music and Spanish
rose before bread. Praise the bread. Alabanza.

Praise Manhattan from a hundred and seven flights up,
like Atlantis glimpsed through the windows of an ancient aquarium.
Praise the great windows where immigrants from the kitchen
could squint and almost see their world, hear the chant of nations:
Ecuador, México, Republica Dominicana,
Haiti, Yemen, Ghana, Bangladesh.
Alabanza. Praise the kitchen in the morning,
where the gas burned blue on every stove
and exhaust fans fired their diminutive propellers,
hands cracked eggs with quick thumbs
or sliced open cartons to build an altar of cans.
Alabanza. Praise the busboy's music, the chime-chime
of his dishes and silverware in the tub.
Alabanza. Praise the dish-dog, the dishwasher
who worked that morning because another dishwasher
could not stop coughing, or because he needed overtime
to pile the sacks of rice and beans for a family
floating away on some Caribbean island plagued by frogs.
Alabanza. Praise the waitress who heard the radio in the kitchen
and sang to herself about a man gone. Alabanza.

After the thunder wilder than thunder,
after the booming ice storm of glass from the great windows,
after the radio stopped singing like a tree full of terrified frogs,
after night burst the dam of day and flooded the kitchen,
for a time the stoves glowed in darkness like the lighthouse in
Fajardo,
like a cook's soul. Soul I say, even if the dead cannot tell us
about the bristles of God's beard because God has no face,
soul I say, to name the smoke-beings flung in constellations
across the night sky of this city and cities to come.
Alabanza I say, even if God has no face.

Alabanza. When the war began, from Manhattan to Kabul
two constellations of smoke rose and drifted to each other,
mingling in icy air, and one said with an Afghan tongue:
Teach me to dance. We have no music here.
And the other said with a Spanish tongue:
I will teach you. Music is all we have.

The Walmart and the Democrats

My parents and I are a study in contrasts...sort of.

I'm a centrist Republican, they are dyed-in-the-wool New Deal Democrats. I drive a late model Volkswagen made in Mexico, they are retired autoworkers who are proud United Auto Workers members. Where these contrasts get a bit strange is where we shop for discount goods: I tend tend to shop at Target; they shop at Walmart.

Walmart. This behemouth of a retailer is considered basically evil by many people. I've decided not to shop there because of some of their labor practices. My parents are quite aware of this, and yet shop there anyway. In fact, when the visited me here in Minnesota recently from my native Michigan, they got gas at the local Sam's Club because they are members and it's cheaper than regular gas.

I don't understand why my parents shop at a place that seems antithetical to their beliefs, but they do and maybe I don't have to understand.

What's interesting to me is that many of the people who object to Walmart tend to be more middle-class. People like myself like to go to Target which tends to market itself as an upscale discounter. Walmart appeals to the working class folk like my parents who don't care about design, they just want something at a good price.

All of this has led to me to wonder if a lot of the protest against Walmart has more to do with class than it has to do with things like health care or wages. I mean, Target probably pays the same wages that Walmart does in markets where they both compete. Walmart is even getting into the organics business,joining the trend among retailers to offer healthier and sustainable foodstuffs.

The Los Angles Times has a worthwhile editorial about how the Democrats are shamefully demonizing Walmart. Here's a choice quote:

At an anti-Wal-Mart rally last week in Iowa, [Joe]Biden noted that the retailer pays people $10 an hour, and then asked: "How can you live a middle-class life on that?" It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages? Bayh, who appeared at another rally, was quoted as saying that Wal-Mart is "emblematic of the anxiety around the country." That may be true. But if it's the emblem he's worried about, he should stay in Washington and work to make healthcare more affordable for working families.

The gusto with which even moderate Democrats are bashing Wal-Mart is bound to backfire. Not only does it take the party back to the pre-Clinton era, when Democrats were perceived as reflexively anti-business, it manages to make Democrats seem like out-of-touch elitists to the millions of Americans who work and shop at Wal-Mart.

The fact is, many working class joes, like my parents, shop at Walmart. They care about issues, but they tend to want their government to solve those issues. They aren't that concerned about how evil a company is. Which gets me back to class. Are those who rail against Walmart really concerned about worker wages or are they just looking down at a retailer that caters to people that aren't as trendy? And are the Dems making a mistake in taking up a cause that is championed by people who may not really be in tune with the realities of the American working class?

The Times seems to be making that point:

One reason the Democrats may have a tin ear on this subject is demographic. Certainly most of the party's urban liberal activists are far removed from the Wal-Mart phenomenon. The retailer has thrived mainly in small towns and exurbs, which is one reason a Zogby poll found that three-quarters of weekly Wal-Mart shoppers voted for President Bush in 2004, and why 8 out of 10 people who have never shopped at Wal-Mart voted for John Kerry. Denouncing the retailer may make sense if the goal is to woo primary activists, but it's a disastrous way to reach out to the general electorate. Or to govern, for that matter.

The fact is, a lot of my friends who dis Walmart are people like myself: we shop at more upscale places like Ikea and Trader Joe's. These places are precieved as being more upper middle class; Walmart is more working class; and despite all the talk of caring for the less off, I would bet that a lot of those who profess Walmart as Satan and shop at these more upscale places wouldn't want to be caught dead with those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

These days, I still don't shop at Walmart as much. But my opinion of how to deal with them is changing. Maybe instead of demonizing them, we should try to find ways to work with them. It's a good thing that Walmart is pursuing the organic market and that should be praised. Maybe we should also work with them to find ways to provide better living standards instead of always fighting with them. Maybe if politicians are so concerned about low wages and inadaquate or no health care, they should work for a better minimum wage and affordable health care in Washington (and not just bring it up during election years).

I think that if the Democrats want to become a majority party again, then it needs to actually become the "lunch box party" again. When I see more Kerry bumper stickers in more affulent areas than in working class areas, you know the Dems have a class problem.

As for those who detest Walmart; maybe we need to go there once in a while just to see "how the other half lives" instead of sitting in our comfortable areas talking about stuff we don't really know anything about.

Hagel States the Obvious or Hagel Tells It Like It Is

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is one of my favorite GOP leaders. I like him because he calls a spade a spade and he did that on Sunday on the current state of the Republican Party:

"First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. "I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today."

Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined _ fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"

His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs.

"I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable."

If the GOP gets its head handed to them in the fall; one hopes they would come back to the party Hagel knew. That's a party I would be proud to be a part of again.

Late Night Musings on the Middle East

The recent dust-up in the Middle East has brought out predictable responses from people. Some see what Israel did today as being nothing more than a bully. Others think Israel was justified to stop a weapons transfer and castigate the UN. It's oh so simple: one side is the good side and the other the bad side. "We support Israel," says one side, "We support the Palestinians," says another.

Eric Black, a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune summed up nicely how people view the Middle East situation in his Big Question Blog:

If Israel is defending its right to exist against hostile, violent neighbors who reject that right, then using its military strength — even when it kills non-combatants — to defeat those who harbor visions of destroying the Jewish state seems at least understandable, probably reasonable.

If, on the other hand, Israel is an aggressive, expansionist power that harbors visions of a Greater Israel in all of historical Palestine, leaving no possibility of a viable homeland for those who now live in Gaza and the West Bank, then attacks on Israel by Palestinians and their sympathizers, maybe even attacks that Jerusalem and Washington categorize as terrorism, start to seem understandable, maybe even justifiable.

You can get a lot deeper into the details than this. And, as with most X or Y questions, you can start splitting the Xs and the Ys and seeking additional options. But, after years of learning about, thinking about and writing about the conflict, the essential perception that this is a conflict about Israel’s existence, or that this a conflict about Israel’s occupation of land captured in 1967, is the central question from which most of the rest of your perceptions and beliefs will follow.

Couldn't have said it better.

The thing is, it's not so easy. I mean, Israel does have a right to defend itself and there are people who want to destroy Israel. If a terrorist group was making daily life in my town miserable, I might understand the need to strike back. In it's short history, Israel has time and again faced enemies that wanted to basically wipe it off the map, so I can understand it's fear. Throw in a history of being a people without a land and then facing near genocide on the European continent and you've got a people that will damn sure try to prevent anyone from messing with them again.

On the other side are the Palestinians and other Arab states. The Palestinians have lived on the land for generations and they slowly see their land being taken away from them. The live in squalor and face a humiliating life. They long for a place to call their own. Other states like Lebanon want to create thriving societies. Even Syria, who is definitely not a nice country, wants part of the terrorities Israel seized in the '67 war back. There is good and bad on the Arab side, but they have some just concerns.

I think Israel is going to have to negotiate with its neighbors. The Palestinians are going to have to comply and work had to prevent terrorists from stopping the peace process.

I'm not one to say I support so and so. What I want is for Israeli kids and Palestinian kids to not have to live in fear. I want Lebanese kids to enjoy their beautiful country and not have to worry about bombs falling on their house. If there is a side I'm on, it's one that will find a just peace for all sides involved.

There is more I want to write about this, but it's late.

Thoughts on the Liberman-Lamont Smackdown

Here are a few thoughts Connecticut Democrat Joe Liberman's loss against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont:

Note to Centrist Democrats: Welcome to my World. For the past 30 years or so, we've seen Centrist Republicans being driven to the point. The far right has targeted more moderate politicians, like Michigan's Joe Schwarz, claiming they are not true Republicans. I think we are in the infancy of a new movement to remove those Democrats who are not considered Democratic enough. Just as Centrist Republicans are tagged as "RINOS" (Republicans in Name Only) expect Centrist Dems to be considered "DINOS" (Democrats in Name Only). The Deaniac/Daily Kos/Firedoglake crowd has learned a trick or two from the far right: firing up the "base" means requiring purity of thought and purpose. The far left has seen the effectiveness of the Karl Rove tactic and has decided to copy the tactic. Because of Liberman's close association with Bush and his contrarian nature, he was considered a heretic not an indepentdent thinker. It's going to get tough over the coming months and years for moderate Democrats and I expect to see a lot of either marginalized Dems or former Dems in the near future.

This leads to my second observation:

Liberman was but the first to fall. There are commentators like EJ Dionne who say this is not the beginning of a purge of moderates with in the Democratic Party since others politicians who initially supported the Iraq War are not being targeted this year.

Poppycock.

The reason the netroots went after Liberman is because he was low hanging fruit. He was the most visible target and the one that was easiest to pick off. Remember when, Hillary Clinton was booed earlier this year for her stance on Iraq? Centrist Democrats will have to be careful how they deal with issues like the war. Look for the netroots to demand that Democrats in Washington to support an immediate withdrawl or face their wrath. It may not happen this year, but watch 2008. Presidential and legislative candidates might not get the support of the party rank and file if they equivocate on this issue. My guess is that you will see centrists either change their tone to please the netroots or deal with the consequences.

Now, on yo Liberman:

Liberman should give it up. I can understand that he wants to run as an independent and part of me agrees with that. But I think Liberman should just fall on his sword for now and lay low for a while. Maybe join a think tank or some place like the Democratic Leadership Council where he could opine on policy. Maybe even consider an independent presidential candidacy in 2008 (Unity '08, anyone?).

The reason is that however noble his intentions might be, his independent run will burn bridges with the Democrats. Notice that a lot of Republicans are supporting Liberman. Some are good guys, like Chris Shays, but there are also some not so good guys. This will only confirm the suspicions of many that Liberman is really a Republican or at least a tool of the Bush-Rove team. I think right now it would make more sense to "play the good soldier" and step a side for a while and pondering his next moves instead of being tagged (however unfairly) as a quisling.

Look for nothing to get done. It's interesting that back in the days when the two major parties were less ideological than they are now, a lot of stuff got done. The GI Bill, the Interstate Highway Act, the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and the environmental laws of the late 60s and 70s, such as the Edangered Species Act were all passed during this time. Since both parties have become more ideologically rigid, there has been less work done by Congress. It's not that there aren't things that need to be done, but both parties are more interested in rallying their bases and playing "gotcha" with the other party. Take Social Security reform. Yes, the president's plan was terrible, but instead of proposing a better solution, the Democrats played obstruction. The same thing happened a decade earlier with health care reform when the Republicans played the same game. The Clubs for Growth and MoveOn.orgs of the world don't really care about serving the public. What they want to do is attack the other side and expel those who don't hue to their ideology.

Like some others, Liberman wasn't my favorite politician. I disagreed more than I agreed with him. I'm saddened by his loss not because I like him, but because we our political parties are becoming more conformist with less room from tolerance. What we see are people who place party before country and who are more interested in politics than in statecraft.

There are those who say that we need clarity to show what the parties stand for, to give people a choice. For those of us in the middle, it gives us the choice to support neither.

I'm wary about the prospects of a third centrist party, but as both parties harden, that prospect might become more of a reality.

A New Site for Centrist Republicans

There is a new site out there ala Red State for Centrist and "Goldwater Republicans." It's called GOP Progress and it launched today. The editor, Liz Mair, says this is a gathering place for mainstream Republicans:

WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM is an interactive blog site created to give moderate and small “l” libertarian Republicans a forum for expressing their thoughts, discussing policies and politics, and meeting and networking with like-minded individuals.

The site is designed to allow users to read high-grade political commentary, including interviews with moderate political leaders, op-eds by Members of Congress on topical issues, and articles on major policy issues, while also having the opportunity to interact with the editors, moderate political leaders, and fellow moderates and libertarian-leaners through the use of diaries, and comments on stories.

In short, WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM offers mainstream Republicans the opportunity to form a strong, organized, online community capable of influencing policy and politics in our party, and our country—and to have fun while doing it.

If you are a centrist or libertarian Republican, I would suggest logging on getting involved.

Christian Zionism: Not that Innocent

In a recent post about Evangelicals and Israel, Alan Stewart Carl talked about a number of people in the American Evangelical community who fervetnly support Israel. He views these groups as very helpful in supporting Israel:

Pat Robertson claims the support is born of a shared covenant and a common enemy (radical Islam). Of course, others point out that evangelical support for Israel is also heavily influenced by Biblical interpretation. The prophecy of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ cannot occur unless Israel is whole.

It is this aspect that has led many to view the Evangelical/Israeli alliance with skepticism and derision. But I think such distrust is misplaced. Yes, the Biblical tale of Armageddon isn’t particularly nice to the Jews, but there’s no evidence that any of these Evangelical groups are planning to hurry things along. They are sincere in their support of Israel and should not be condemned simply for believing in the Book of Revelations.

History does not offer many examples of overt let alone fervent Christian/Jewish alliances. Anti-Semitism has been the norm for centuries upon centuries. So I, for one, am glad to see such pro-Jewish voices coming from American Christianity—even if I don’t agree with every policy position they put forth.

Given that the Democratic Party has traditionally been and still very-much is a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel party, it appears as if America can proudly claim to be the most anti anti-Semitic nation on Earth (well, outside of Israel). That’s at least one positive unifying belief in today’s divided culture.

I really fear that Alan is not that aware of what has been called "Christian Zionism" and that it has severe implications for peace in Middle East and the war against Islamic fundmanentalism.


First, one should know what these "Christian Zionists" are all about. This

defintion comes from Donald Wagner:

Christian Zionists insist that all of historic Palestine -- including all the land west of the Jordan which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war -- must be under the control of the Jewish people, for they see that as one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus. Among their other basis tenets:

• God’s covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive and will not be abrogated, according to Genesis 12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 7:7-8.

• The Bible speaks of two distinct and parallel covenants, one between God and Israel, one between God and the church. The latter covenant is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The church is a "mere parenthesis" in God’s plan and as such it will be removed from history during an event called the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 5:1-11). At that point, Israel, the nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth.

• Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you") should be interpreted literally -- which leads to maximum political, economic, moral and spiritual support for the modern state of Israel and for all the Jewish people.

• Apocalyptic texts like the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-12, Ezekiel 37-8, I Thessalonians 4-5 and the Book of Revelation refer to literal and future events.

• The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel are among the signs leading to the final eschatological battle and Jesus’ return for his thousand-year reign. The movement looks for the escalating power of satanic forces aligned with the antichrist that will do battle with Israel and its allies as the end draws near. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they "bless Israel."

Christian Zionism, which includes the group Alan, refers to, don't believe in any attempts at peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians. It also tends to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. Here is what Pat Robertson says about a "two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state):

If a Palestinian State is created in the heart of Israel with sovereign power to deploy troops, import modern weapons-even weapons of mass destruction-and operate with full secrecy and diplomatic immunity, the ability of the State of Israel to defend itself will be fatally compromised.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake-the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No-the struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme.


If God's chosen people turn over to Allah control of their most sacred sites-if they surrender to Muslim vandals the tombs of Rachel, of Joseph, of the Patriarchs, of the ancient prophets-if they believe their claim to the Holy Land comes only from Lord Balfour of England and the ever fickle United Nations rather than the promises of Almighty God-then in that event, Islam will have won the battle. Throughout the Muslim world the message will go forth-"Allah is greater than Jehovah. The promises of Jehovah to the Jews are meaningless.


"We can now, in the name of Allah, move to crush the Jews and drive them out of the land that belongs to Allah."


In short, those political initiatives that some have asserted will guarantee peace, will in truth guarantee unending struggle and ultimate failure. Those political leaders who only understand the secular dimension of Israel's existence and who cavalierly dismiss the spiritual dimension will find that they receive the mess of pottage of Esau rather than the inheritance of Jacob.

Some groups like the

International Christian Embassy promote a view that Israel belongs only to the Jews and that anyone who divides the land (which would include the West Bank and Gaza) would fall prey to God's wrath.

In short, these groups do not want to give the Palestinians one piece of land. They have rejected agreements from Camp David, to Oslo to the current "Roadmap." For them, to divide the land is to commit a grave sin.

What is also interesting as that Christian Zionism tends to ignore the Palestinian and Arab Christians who have resided in the area for nearly two millenia. Corrine Whitlach of the Churches for Peace in the Middle East, notes:

U.S. Christians travel to the Holy Land as pilgrims and are a major segment of the tourism industry. They visit the holy sites but most have virtually no contact with Arab Christians themselves. Arab Christians hold strongly negative views of Christian Zionism, which is considered by some to be an instrument of Western colonialism and American imperialism. The zealous support given Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and the building of settlements in “Judea and Samaria” by these Western Christians angers both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Some evangelical churches have supportive relationships with settlements.

Among Palestinians, there are the traditional churches – Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Roman Catholic – and the so-called “reform” churches established in the 19th century – Lutherans and Episcopalians or Anglicans. They work ecumenically through the Middle East Council of Churches. These Christians consider themselves, and are considered by the Muslims, to be an integral part of the Palestinian community, even though they are a minority of less than 2%.

From his Jerusalem office, Bishop Munib Younan, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, has written that “Christian Zionism is the enemy of peace in the Middle East.” The Rev. Naim Ateek, director of Jerusalem’s Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theological Center, has called pre-millenialism a “heresy” and Christian Zionism a “menace.”

Just because they support Israel, doesn't mean these people are good. In my view, they hold views that are rather bigoted towards Arabs. They also will only make the crisis worse not better. Israelis rightly need security and need to not have to face daily rocket attacks or suicide bombers. However, the Palenstians need a place they can call their own. Both are important and negotiators from around the world have to work to hammer out a lasting peace that will honor both sides. The Christian Zionists are an anathema to any peace process.

The Christian Zionists also threaten our campaign against terror. People like bin Laden have used the Palestinian conflict as a recruitment tool to join his genocidal brand of Isalm. We need to find ways to "drain the swamp" and not give bin Laden and ilk a leg up.


Finally, I want to speak as a Christian pastor. The Jesus I worship is one who brought people together. He met people from all walks of life, Jewish, Samaritan and Roman. I don't see how once can merge an ideology that seems to be very narrow in its viewpoint with a God who loved the whole world and sent his Son to bring us all salvation. As a Christian, I believe God loves both the Jew and the Arab, the rabbi and the iman.

Mainstream Americans should not ally with these people. They are not interested in peace. No matter how you slice it, Christian Zionism is just another form of religious fundamentalism.

Paris (of the Middle East) Is Burning

Beirut's Southern Suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, after Israeli airstrikes. Courtesy the Washington Post.

As I see and hear of the devastation going on in Lebabnon these days, I am reminded of the late summer and early fall of 1982 when I was about 12. I was recuperating from a tonsilectomy and basically spent the day watching TV, especially CNN (yes, I was a news junkie way back then). The civil war in Lebanon filled the TV screens, especially the Israeli invasion. I remember seeing damaged buildings everywhere as this once beautiful seaside city was being pummulled from within and without.

Of course, the civil war ended in 1990 and Lebanon slowly tried to rebuild itself. Beirut once again became the "Paris of the Middle East" a cosmopolitian city, trying to put its past behind it.

And now it's all blown to hell. Literally.

As I've listened to the news and read all the blogs, several things have come to mind regarding the situation.


Criticism of Israel doesn't always equate anti-Semitism. Every time a dustup occurs in the Middle East someone somewhere, most likely in Europe, criticizes Israel and predictably, someone somewhere, most likely in the United States, accuses the critics of either aiding and abetting anti-Semitism or calling them bigots outright.

I find such name calling silly to say the least. One can criticize the government of Israel for an action and yet not be bigoted toward Jews. No government, especially a democracy like Israel, is above reproach. In the recent case, I think Israel was right in hitting Hezbollah after the group took two Israeli soliders, but it overstepped its bounds by then attacking civilian centers like Beirut and destroying Lebanon's civic infastructure. That shouldn't make me an appeaser to anti-Semitism. There is a lot I disagree with on the other side as well, that doesn't mean I'm anti-Arab or anti-Islamic.

Yes, there are some people who are downright haters of Jews and Israel and they should be condemned. But those who are cheerleaders for Israel (and to a lesser extent the Palestinians) need to stop painting all who have a contrary view with such a broad brush.

Israel's Unilateral Peace Process didn't work. Very seldom do bloggers say they made a mistake, but this one will. I tended to think that Israel's plan of pulling from Lebanon in 2000 and pulling out of Gaza last year was the best way to ensure peace in the current context. Many supporters who side with Israel are indignant that Hamas and Hezbollah still mess with Israel after they made these moves of peace. But the problem here is that these tactics were made just by one side. The Palenstinians were ignored in the process over Gaza which gave Hamas an opening. One news source I was reading noted that Israel pulled out of the Sinai two decades ago, and the baorder between Egypt and Israel remains secure. The reason? Because the two nations came to the table and hashed things out. In 2000 and 2005, Israel just pulled out expecting the other side to just be quiet. The only way peace can be achieved here is through hard fought diplomacy, not by just going it alone. The past week has taught me that Israel has to get back to the negotiating table with the Palestinians as well as other regional actors to make peace. Taking your marbles and refusing to play doesn't ensure that the rockets hitting Israeli cities like Haifa will stop. Which relates to the next thing I've learned:



The United States needs to go back to being an "honest broker" and acutally use diplomacy. This President seems to think that the way to solve things in the Middle East is through the barrel of a gun. Also, you don't talk to evil actors like Syria or even groups like Hamas. Can the military bring about peaceful solutions? Sometimes. I mean utterly defeating Germany and Japan in World War II did bring about a lasting peace. But the Middle East of 2006 isn't Europe and Aisa circa 1942. Diplomacy means that sometimes you have talk to people that you can't stand. Because the US has this "moralistic" foreign policy where we don't have anything to do with bad people, we have boxed ourselves in a corner and basically have nothing better to do than to watch. In the past, someone like a Herny KIssinger or James Baker would be flying to Damascus or Jerusalem and meet with leaders to get the two warring parties to stop. Now, I don't think James Baker had some kind of lovefest with the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, but Baker knew that al-Assad the elder was a power broker and you had to sometimes deal with a devil for the greater good.

We all know that Syria has pull with Hezbollah. So why isn't President Bush sending Condi Rice to Damascus and talking to Bashar al-Assad?

Elections alone don't make a democracy. The Bush Administration has made democracy promotion a main part of his Middle East policy. So, we have seen elections and Iraq and the Palestinian terroritories and to a lesser extent Lebanon. In all cases, the result have been relatively weak governments unable to perform basic services. When governments are weak, the you have terrorists like Hezbollah coming in and filling the void.

Maybe this is further proof that Bush isn't much of a conservative, but shouldn't he be trying to bolster institutions that make a democracy strong? What good does it do to see people vote for governments that can't secure people or get rid of terrorist organizations?

I need to make clear that I don't have a dog in this fight. While I am criticizing Israel, none of the actors have clean hands. The Palestinians and other Arab states also share the blame and that's why the United States need to be a broker and not taking one side.

I hope the warring can stop and I hope peace can surely come to the region. I don't have much hope with the current actors, but I do have a little hope.

Stem Cells

You know, I've never written about this issue before. I guess there's a first for everything.

President Bush finally got out his veto pen today. After five years in office and saying yes to everything Congress sent to his desk, he decided to say "no" to a bill that would have allowed more research on embryonic stem cells.

While the President has made his far right base happy, you have to wonder what the implications will be for congressional Republicans this fall. With a majority of Americans approving stem cell research, and Americans already in a bad mood towards the Republican leadership, methinks the public will want to punish the President for his veto and sacrifice a few GOP legislators.

For me, this cuts both ways....sort of. You see, just this past week, I found out that my 80-something Aunt Nora was diagnosed with Alzhiemer's. So, this research might prove helpful to her and millions of others who are struggling with this disease. I am upset at those who don't say anything about the unused embryos until they might be considered for stem cell research. If they are so important, why don't they protest these embryos being stored and even thrown out after a time?

On the other side, I feel uncomfortable with those who see embryos as just a bunch of cells. Well, yes they are cells, but an embryo is potential life and should at least be treated with respect. Are they the moral equivalent of human being? No. If I have to choose between my Aunt Nora and an embryo, I would have to choose my aunt. This shouldn't mean that we treat the embryo as something of little value. Because of its potential, there has to be a certain amount of respect in how we use it. The long and the short of is, that an embryo is more than a toenail, but it ain't Aunt Nora either. In our rush to pursue this technology, we have to be careful that embryos don't become a commodity. I think the scientific community has done that and I also think that's why we need federal funding and oversight-to make sure that embryos aren't treated as something to be bought and sold.

Time will tell how the President and the Republican party will pay for today's veto. What I do wonder is what the President would say to my Aunt Nora and her children.

Israel vs. Lebanon: A personal view

I haven't said anything yet about the recent conflagration in the Mideast, though I probably will say something soon. In reading all the press acounts, radio reports, TV news, I get the sense that people look at this crisis with a sense of distance. We take sides and forget that in the middle of all this, there are people on both sides that are scared to death. Israelis and Lebonese are hiding in fear of being hit by bombs. Children are frieghtened.

Slate Magazine linked to this Lebonese blogger who shares a letter between an Israeli and his friend in Lebanon.

Read this and remember that while governments and terrorist groups fight amongst themselves. It is the PEOPLE that are being affected.

A Rainbow of Bigotry or Lady Liberty Sings the Blues

Courtesy the New York Times.



Lady Liberty got an
"extreme makeover" by a Memphis megachurch. The attempt is another scary mixing of church and state. I could wax about the rise of the "Christianists" as Andrew Sullivan calls those who use religion for political ends, but I want to talk about the fact that the so-called Christianists are not as some would believe, a bunch of lilly-white nutcases. For example, World Overcomers Outreach Church, the folks behind this defiling of the Statue of Liberty is an African American congregation. The New York Times piece talks about the fact that the pastor, Alton R. Williams has taken out full pages ads condemning gay marriage. Indeed, if you look at their church website, you can sign a petition to support the Federal Marriage Amendment and you can call the church if you desire to "free" from homosexuality.

My observation is that many pro-gay people, especially on the left end of the spectrum, tend to ignore the fact that the anti-gay movement is not simply a bunch a white bigots singing a second verse of bigotry. Sometimes they say that anti-gay African Americans are duped by whites or that they are being used. The long and the short of it is this: 1)Blacks don't know any better; and 2) Because of our experience with racism, we are more sensitive to how gays are treated.

The fact is, blacks do know better. I grew up in the Black Church. I faced a lot of homophobia. I remember being teased in church. I remember hearing a pastor preach against gay marriage during a Christmas Eve Sermon. I also know that at my parent's church, the pastor (who was having an affair)objected to having a lesbian working with the church choir, even though the congregation loved her.

The fact is, African Americans are human beings. We are as capable as anyone else to love and hate people. The fact that we faced three centuries of discrimination doesn't necessarily mean that we are more loving towards others.

Maybe one of the biggest challenges right now is that the Black Church needs to face up to its own homophobia and the larger pro-gay forces need to stop prentending that we African Americans are the "noble savages" and realize that the anti-gay forces doesn't just include the likes of white preachers like James Dobson. Gay groups need to soundly condemn pastors like Apostle Williams as much as they do the Dobsons, Fawells and Robertsons of the world.

Hate can come in many colors.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Happy Independence Day

Every Fourth of July, National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" does a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence with various reporters and hosts from NPR. It's always a good listen, so sit back and enjoy.

Have a good Fourth.

The Two "Religious Lefts"

Jim Wallis. Photo courtesy Sojourners.


Even though I've been involved in mainline American Protestantism for about 15 years and now, and I'm an ordained pastor of one of those mainline Protestant denominations, my roots are grounded in the traditional Black Church and Evangelicalism. In many ways, I classify myself as a "Liberal Evangelical" a mixture of conservative theology and liberal social action.


Slate has an interesting article on two strains of the so-called "religious left." One is led my Michael Lerner, who leads the Jewish magazine, Tikkun and the other is Jim Wallis who heads Sojourners magazine. The writer talks about how these two social movements could affect the Democrats in 2008. Here's the writers take on Michael Lerner's recent gathering of religious liberals:

There was a strong Christian presence among the 1,200 attendees at the NSP conference, but it leaned heavily toward liberal denominations. Quakers and Unitarians outnumbered Evangelicals and Catholics. They were joined by scores of liberal Jews, fewer Muslims, and a sprinkling of Buddhists, Sufis, Baha'i, Wiccans, Native American shamans, and various metrospiritual seekers. Even secular humanists were welcomed.

Together the attendees all prayed in concentric circles, sang John Lennon's "Imagine" (with the line "and no religion too" tastefully amended), and meditated while eating vegan boxed lunches. At times they seemed like a flock of black sheep. My breakout group of eight—led by a stunning Jewfi woman (Jew + Sufi = Jewfi) in ventilated Crocs sandals—included Unitarian and United Church of Christ pastors, a retired scientist looking to marry faith and reason, and a gay former Christian fundamentalist turned theatrical performance activist. Everyone was highly motivated, but I couldn't help wondering: How big can such a constituency be?

Lerner is undaunted by such concerns. His vision for the NSP is intentionally quixotic, and he doesn't expect to sway elections anytime soon. In fact, he's positively phobic of short-term thinking lest it compromise his vision. That vision, in Lerner's words, is "a new bottom line in American society" whereby policies and institutions are "judged efficient not only to the extent that they maximize money and power but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring." The conference's Spiritual Covenant with America included more concrete proposals on everything from corporate responsibility to foreign policy and the environment. But its scattershot approach puzzled some attendees. I tagged along with one on a Capitol Hill visit at which he handed the list to his Congressman's staffers and urged them to "just pick one thing, I don't care what it is. "

While Lerner is dealing with the more abstract, Wallis is more pragmatic. He wants to affect a change in the heart that will translate to the ballot box:

Wallis, on the other hand, is more focused. He wants to influence two voting blocs that will be critical to the 2008 election, moderate evangelicals and Catholics. His plan is to focus on poverty, an issue he believes all Christians can get behind, rather than ceding the floor to gay marriage and abortion, which the religious right uses to estrange Christians from the Democratic Party.

Wallis may be on to something. A 2004 Pew poll found that most evangelicals support increased spending on anti-poverty programs, rigorous environmental protection, and the fight abroad against HIV and AIDS. Groups like the National Association of Evangelicals (which represents some 45,000 churches and 30 million members nationwide) and the Evangelical Environmental Network have become increasingly vocal in their support of these Democrat-friendly faith issues.

Wallis' conference this week, Pentecost 2006, will bring hundreds of Christian activists to Washington to promote a Covenant for a New America aimed at eradicating poverty at home and abroad. Unlike Lerner's conference, Wallis' isn't going to be dominated by the liberal fringes: Among the speakers are Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas, two of the most prominent voices on the religious right.

I think if the Democratic Party is interested in getting back some of these moderate evangelicals, they would be wise to follow Wallis and not Lerner. Lerner's path is one that I'm familiar with. I've been part of and seen religious coalitions of the left and center that tend to be fuzzy minded and in the end, rather in effective to the onslaught of the far right. However, I think Wallis' track is more in line with past movements like the civil rights movement of the last century. Wallis and many like him are more interested in dealing with the issues at hand; combatting poverty, dealing with HIV/AIDS, and tackling global warming. Wallis' movement also could even change the Republican party as well. There are many religious Republicans who care more about the "least of these" than they do about gay marriage. Notice that among the speakers at Wallis' conference is Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a very fundamentalist Republican who nonetheless is interested in issues like HIV/AIDS and Darfur. Lerner's view is basically a nice gathering of liberals who like listen to each other and sing "kum-ba-yah."

American Evangelicalism has never been monolithic. The problem is that for far too long, the Pat Robertsons of the world have been the loudest voices. There has long been a stream of evangelicals who believed in social change, but they have not attracted the attention of the wider public. I believe that will change.

Hallelujah.

Latin America's Two Left Feet

If you have been paying attention, you might have noticed Latin America's leftward swing. Leaders such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brazil's Lula are dominating the political scene. While some hard core conservatives think this is all bad news and that all of the political left is the same, there are some interesting things going on in the Southern Hempisphere: some good and some not so good. Former Mexico Foriegn Minister Jorge Casteneda writes in this month's Foriegn Affairs about the fact that there are two lefts are taking root in Latin America: one that is more social democratic in the best sense of both words, and the other more populist and authoritarian. It's a good read and Mr. Casteneda gives the US some advice on how to deal with a left-leaning Latin America.

Compassionate Conservatism's Last True Believer

Former Clinton aide Bruce Reed writes in his regular Has-Been column for Slate about the resignation of Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and the true end of a strain of conservatism that had higher ends than lower taxes and fretting about Adam and Steve holding hands. Reed notes Gerson was interested in using government and faith to combat national issues like poverty and after a meeting between Clinton and Gerson's then boss, former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, there was some hope among Dems that there could be a "kindler, gentler conservatism."

It didn't end up that way, and Reed places blame on Karl Rove and the president as well:

I've never looked in Bush's heart, but judging from the way he talks about education or immigration—even without Gerson at the teleprompter—there's enough compassion to have led the country down a different course. The hollowing of compassionate conservatism was a conscious choice—wrong on the merits and even on the politics. Ultimately, Bush decided that the lesson the country tried to teach Republicans in 1995 (do the right thing) paled alongside the lesson he learned from his father's defeat in 1992 (do the right's bidding).

Well, read the whole thing. I'm not one who thinks that conservatives can't be compassionate because I've seen it. There are many good conservatives who spend their time tackling poverty, helping those with HIV/AIDS and protecting the environment. I really believe the president has a compassionate side and if he had listened to that instead of Mr. Rove, we might have a different adminstration and maybe, just maybe the GOP wouldn't be so nervous about losing seats come November.

Reed notes that back in 2000, as Bush and John McCain battled it out for the GOP nod, it was really the Arizona Senator, not the Governor from Texas that was really interested in having the Grand Old Party serve a higher puprose. I wonder if that's still true today. Even moreso than Bush, McCain really believes that conservatism should mean more than being against gay marriage or spending as "drunken sailors." You could see touches of that strain of conservatism in his commenncement address to Liberty University. I want to believe that, to paraphrase a line from a now-canceled TV series, that McCain will be McCain and revive and give real meaning to "compassionate conservatism" after all.

No One is Safe. No One.

I got into a bit of an argument two years ago with a friend who was talking about seminary professor that we both know. The professor in effect agree with the Osama bin Laden's pre-election broadcast that said that Sweden would not get attacked by Islamists because they don't have policies that hurt Muslims. I know this prof wasn't a lover of the terrorist, but he thinks US policies are to blame at least in some part, for things like 9/11. Change policy and they will leave us alone.

Patrick Belton from Oxblog reminds us that this struggle is global and the Islamists don't distinguish between those who supposedly have clean hands and those who don't. We've seen how terrorists have targeted Canada and France, two nations that didn't support the war in Iraq and have been critical with the US on many issues. As Patrick says, someday even Sweden might not be safe.

I'm not saying nations who oppose the war in Iraq have "to get in line" and stop criticizing the US, in fact, I think we need to hear criticism (something this Administration is not good at). What I am saying is that groups like al Queda have a bone to pick with the modern world and they don't really care where you stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the war in Iraq. This threat of terror is something that people from all walks of life must take seriously and work to end because it affects everybody.

On The Republican Party, Part Two

As a moderate Republican (feeling everyday like a "failed Republican") there are days I feel like a spouse who knows their partner is sleeping around with some cheap whore. These days the GOP is sleeping with the far right Christianists and doing all it can to please them with silly things like a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a flag burning amendment and trying to get rid the estate tax (which I will explain in a later post). This "sleeping around" has caused moderates Republicans and independents like myself from not being so crazy in supporting the GOP this fall.

In a worthwhile op-ed Sarah Chamberlin Resnick, the head of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership talks about how the party needs to reach out to independents if they want to remain in power come fall.

She hits some important notes in the op-ed. If the Dems do gain more seats it will be at the expense of those moderates who have stood against the far right on many issues:

In what may be the cruelest of ironies, if Republicans are punished by independent voters in the midterms, it will be the centrist, independent Republicans from the Northeast who will be the most likely victims. For Democratic strategists and left-wing interest groups hoping for a Speaker Pelosi, a Republican legislative agenda that plays only to the conservative base this year is a dream come true.

Resnick suggests the party focus on the basics and less on the wedge issues.

All of this is very good, but don't hold your breath that it will happen. I think the party as it is has welded itself to the far right base and is not planning to change course anytime soon. What's sad is that we might see good moderates like Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and Linc Chafee in Rhode Island be defeated and make the party more radical and less open to change. In a way, this happened to the Dems a decade ago, when the crushing defeat of 1994 sent a good number of Southern, moderate Democrats packing and leaving the party more liberal than it used to be.

With that said, I think the GOP's tango with the Christianists will come at a price. Charging RINO shares a piece in the LA Times (see the "failed Republican" link above) about how many frustrated moderates are leaving the Republican party and joining the Democrats. Now, if there is a state that was incredibly Republican, that was Kansas. However the focus on gay marriage, evolution and abortion has sent some moderates packing. What was once the state that had solid Republicans like Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum, now has a state attorney general that wants to impose his far right agenda under the guise of protecting children.

Jeremy hope this is the start of a trend. While I don't want to see good moderates leave the party, I share that hope. The GOP needs to realize that parties are won by the center, NOT by clinging to a base of nuts. I'm not crazy about big government liberalism, but big government conservatism (in the form of banning gay marriage and other "values" issues) is even scarier.

On the Republican Party, Part One

Jeremy over at Charging RINO has some stinging parting words for former House Majority Leader Tom Delay who exited the House yesterday (and probably off to a lucrative lobbying and speaking career). Jeremy pins Delay with doing more damage to the Grand Old Party than any other person:

Tom DeLay has done more damage to the House of Representatives, the Republican Party, and the political climate of the United States than any other single person in recent memory. I am not sad to see him go, and I hope that his departure will signal the start of a reversal of the trends he perpetuated and exacerbated in recent years.

Good riddance, Mr. DeLay.

As I opined in an earlier post, Mr. Delay was but a symptom of a wider problem. In my view, he was but one slimy pol who was interested in enriching himself and his patrons. While I'm glad that he's out of the picture, don't think for a moment that Democrats and Republicans are going to start holding hands, singing songs of bipartisanship. As I said, in the April post, it's what Andrew Sullivan calls the "Christianists" that are the problem.

While I'm glad that Delay no longer has Congress to kick around anymore, the only way those of us who are interested in bringing the GOP more to the center is by getting more involved in the party. Delay's departure doesn't necessilrily mean the trends he was involved in will reverese automatically. They will only reverse because rank and file moderates in the GOP have had enoough and will work for change.

I leave you with what I said back in April:

If you are a Republican dissatisfied with the far right, then you need to stand up and say something. Get involved with some of the Republican organizations that are trying to change the party. I have links to them on the right of this page. Give money to those Republicans who are working for change. If you are centrist, find some way to support causes that can push back on the far right agenda.

Cheering Delay's demise might feel good, but it isn't worth a plug nickel in changing the party and the nation as a whole. Put down the party streamers and get to work.

al-Zarqawi: Taken Out

While I don't believe in celebrating the death of anyone, even evil people (my Christian beliefs), I do think the death of al-Zarqawi is a necessary step towards trying to bring some order to Iraq. One wishes the US had done this a few years ago.

Gay Marriage: It IS an Important Issue

With no big surprise, the Senate rejected cloture on a vote for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. During this whole debate, I keep hearing people who are against the ban that this is a distracting issue and that government should focus on more important issues like immigration or health care.

I'd like to set things straight (no pun intended): banning gay marriage can be a distracting issue, but the issue itself is not. This is a REAL issue for those of us who are gay and either have or plan to have significant others. Listen to the story of a same sex couple living in Minneapolis:

In the spring of 2002 we experienced a life changing event that made us realize just how many rights and privileges we were denied as a gay couple unable to marry - the same rights and privileges that some married straight couples take for granted.

I was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and admitted with an extremely high fever and difficulty breathing. While the doctors and nurses were working with me, Jim stayed at my side answering the same question, "And who are you?" Over and over Jim explained that he was my partner and yes, we did have the power of attorney and health care directive that permitted him to be there and to make decisions regarding my health care. If we had not signed those papers just 2 weeks prior to my admission, he might have been prevented from being with me as I fought to live. As it turned out, I was diagnosed with pneumocystis pneumonia and AIDS. This was only the beginning of a long struggle to regain my health.

Since that time, we have done a lot of research into the marriage benefits we don't have and how it affects us now that my health is such a large issue. Things like hospital visitation are covered with the health care directive and power of attorney as long as the health care facility has a copy of the paperwork.

If I need to quit my full-time job at DHS, I would not be able to get health care through my partner's employer, also DHS. Neither of us would receive the retirement or death benefits spouses normally receive. If I needed nursing home care, the house we own together could be taken from Jim to pay for my nursing home care. If I die, Jim would not be able to claim my body from the morgue and my family would have the right to contest my will and try to claim my property because Jim is not "next of kin".

I repeat: for gay people, this isn't a distracting issue. It's about life and death.

So to all my fellow bloggers and others: please stop saying things like, "let's focus on other issues." Because for people like me this is an important issue.

Some Questions about the Left

After reading this post on Oxblog, as well as another one by Reason's Cathy Young, I have to wonder: why is it that some (not all, mind you) on the Left are so anit-American? Why are they so quick to compare America to Nazi Germany and yet give truly racist or authoritarian regimes like Saddam's Iraq or even the Soviet Union get a pass.

The United States is not perfect. I'm not one of those Republicans who sees America as God's chosen instrument that can do now wrong. We've done plenty wrong. But it seems to me we need to put this in perspective and to compare the US to a genocidal regime like the Nazis is just plain wrong.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I am not happy with a lot of the Bush Adminsitration's foriegn policy. But I don't think I live in a fascist state with a wimpy media. Even though the Bushies want to curtail our civil liberites, I don't live in places like China where you have to be careful what you say.

I guess I don't get it.

"Rogue Nation"

The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet. This is a policy mandated by the president and his closest advisers. This is the signal being sent from the commander-in-chief to his troops: your enemy can be treated beyond the boundaries of what the U.S. has always abided by. When you next read of an atrocity of war-crime or victim of torture by the U.S., just keep in mind who made this possible. Keep your eyes not just on the troops but on the people giving them the orders.

This is not from some wild-eyed lefty, but from Andrew Sullivan. The thing is, I have to agree. I'm not some crazy anti-American, but it is sad to see how this Administration is weakening the Constitution in the name of security. This President says that the terrorist hate us because of our values.

I agree with the President, but he is doing a damn good job at destroying those values. All bin Laden has to do is sit back and watch.

Throwing Some Coldwater on "Unity08"

The latest chatter in the Centrist blogosphere is about Unity08, an effort to get a Republican and a Democrat to run as "unity ticket" ala the Union Party ticket if Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson in 1864. Jonathan Alter raves about the new effort calling it "open-source politics." He cites the recent success of Howard Dean and John Kerry in using the Internet to rally support:

"Last time, Howard Dean and later John Kerry showed that the whole idea of "early money" is now obsolete in presidential politics. The Internet lets candidates who catch fire raise millions in small donations practically overnight. That's why all the talk of Hillary Clinton's "war chest" making her the front runner for 2008 is the most hackneyed punditry around. Money from wealthy donors remains the essential ingredient in most state and local campaigns, but "free media" shapes the outcome of presidential races, and the Internet is the freest media of all."

In a recent series of article in the The New Yorker Ryan Lizza explains that the Internet is a great tool in getting a third party off the ground. Again, Howard Dean is used as an example:

But then came the Internet—and Howard Dean’s campaign.
The Dean campaign proved many things, but its most enduring legacy may be that it gave us a glimpse of the beginning of the end of the two-party system. First, he showed the next budding Ross Perot how to manage a 50-state ballot-access project easily and cost-efficiently. It is not widely understood, but candidates running in the presidential primaries of the two major parties also must qualify for the ballot of every state they want to contest. Dean was the only insurgent Democratic-primary candidate in history to qualify in all 50 states, a stunning organizational achievement. Using a ballot-access function of the campaign’s Website, Deaniacs in every state had downloadable petitions and details about the rules for their state. Goals were tracked in real time. “Both parties have set up nominating and ballot hurdles, so an insurgency can’t happen,” says Joe Trippi, Dean’s first campaign manager and now an evangelist for a third party. “We blew through that in 2003.”
The second hurdle—fund-raising—also has a technological solution. Dean proved a message candidate could work outside any established infrastructure and raise massive amounts of money. After Perot, the assumption was that only a self-financed candidate could mount a credible third-party challenge. Dean exploded that conventional wisdom.
Dean’s campaign not only suggested that the traditional obstacles to starting a third party are surmountable, but it also raised questions about the purpose of the two parties themselves. What assets, after all, do the Democratic and Republican parties bestow on a nominee? There was once a time when the parties served a policy role for the presidential candidate. The nominating convention was a time when delegates drew up a party platform for the candidate to run on. No more. Candidates routinely ignore the platform—in 1996, Bob Dole famously said he hadn’t read it—and run on their own issues.
What’s left? The other assets parties offer are a fund-raising infrastructure (e-mail lists, donor databases) and an organizational infrastructure (county chairs, precinct captains, local volunteers). But the parties no longer have a monopoly on these two networks. A charismatic candidate can build his own alternative fund-raising base overnight and collect an army of volunteers in a matter of weeks. In fact, with the rise of political groups known as 527s, which raise money (often from billionaires like George Soros), run ads, and turn out voters, the parties have already gone a long way toward outsourcing their core activities. The only assets controlled by the two parties that can’t be reproduced by an entrepreneurial independent are their distinctive brands, the value of which is in steep decline.

The Internet can be a good tool to get ideas out there, but there has to be a whole lot more than this. I have to agree with Weekend Pundit that Unity '08 seems more like a political version of American Idol. There is no platform and no attempt to really build a movement. It seems like it will get a lot of people who are on the computer a lot, but may not do much else.

I know there are a lot of Centrists that are gaga for this and I want to believe that this might have a chance. However, from my background, I'm not so certain. I think the wiser approach is to work and support those centrist candidates that are out there. Give of your money and your time. Volunteer. Write letters to the editor to support your candidate. Volunteer with centrist organizations in both parties. It's not sexy as Unity '08, but I think it will do a lot more than simply putting our efforts in something that at least from my view isn't going to get very far. It's not that I don't think "Open Source Politics" isn't a good idea. It's just that you have to do more than set up a webpage or run a blog. That's the easy part. To create a movement, you need to work at getting your message out to the media, host house parties to get people interested, doing things like door knocking and getting candidates to major events.

In the past few years, I've been involved in supporting moderate Republican candidates. It isn't sexy work and at times is damn frustrating, but in the end, I think this more pragmatic approach will pay off more than some kind of "net convention."

One more note. Some are upset the current moderates or reformers in both parties have to do this balancing act to be presentable to the rabid base. I think some Centrists want this political Jesus that is unsullied by politics. A lot of people loved McCain early on because he seemed to have that Messianic air about him. Of course, he didn't win because of that. People, we have to accept the fact that there is no savior. Political parties are made up of various people and candidates have to try to be all things to all people. All politicians (at least those who want to win) have to bend a little at some point. We might not like it, but that's they way it is in a democratic society.

Centrists have to stop dreaming of the perfect candidate or perfect party and get back to earth and fight for change. It's not going to happen with dream candidates or even a dream third party. I'm not against third parties, but I am saying that if we want something to happen, we need to work for it and know it won't be prefect.

Sorry to be the contrarian.