The Deal: Cry "Wolf" But Let the Beast In. Extraordinary Indeed!

"Trust, mutual respect, extraordinary circumstances, working together, saved the Senate," and all the rest of bullcrap we've heard from both sides on Monday night when the U.S. Senate reached a compromise on the filibuster. Of course, no one has bothered to define those "extraordinary circumstances," and Frist was quick to say that he hadn't given up his "right" to go ballistic and bring back the "nuclear option." What were those people thinking? Were they pleasuring each other in their chambers? The president and the Republican-controlled Congress have been in a free fall in the approval ratings. Was this a way to stop the bleeding? Or, was it a case of wool-over-the-eyes?
As it is today, the Republicans are getting those extreme judges, Owen and Brown, and a few other ultra-conservatives through the Senate. Weren't these people way out of the mainstream? Of course they were! By giving in, the Dems now have set a benchmark of what's acceptable; this is a big mistake. Maybe they wanted to reserve the big fight for the Supreme Court. Yet, the Dems lost some respect if they said that Owen and Brown were not qualified to be on the federal bench but the Dems let them in anyway. Well, aren't the Dems in the Senate supposedly safeguarding not only the rights of the minority but also the interests of the country? Why is it OK now to allow those extremists to serve life-time appointments on federal courts? It sounds very wishy-washy to me.
Secondly, I don't think president Bush will hesitate to nominate someone, even the most extreme judge, to fill the anticipated Supreme Court vacancy this year. Dubya is an advocate of "in your face politics!" When the last Congress rebuffed Owen and Brown, he promptly re-nominated them this year! The only qualification Bush cares for is how good the nominee is in promoting the neo-con, far-right agenda. This is a president who rewards people that have failed miserably! Just think of Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Franks, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Gonzales....to name a few.
The Dems made a mistake in accepting the compromise. If nothing else, there is no guarantee that the other side will be reasonable in the future. The Republican leadership is far to the right, not interested in compromising, not interested in checks & balances, not interested in a general consensus. It wants to implement an extreme agenda as dictated by the theocrats and their buddies of the fat corporations. It wants to built a totalitarian society according to their apocalyptic, rapturist views. They are not interested in "working together" as they have no respect for anyone who disagrees with them. Haven't the Dems realized this? Delay and Frist, the two leaders of the majority in Congress, have been usurping power, changing the rules at will, silencing dissent, and having their ..flock vote on bills without even reading them! It was only last week, when a serious bill, the so-called Real ID Act, that was attached to a spending bill and was passed without any debate. A Big Brother bill with serious implications on privacy and security and wasn't even discussed in the people's House! Need to say more?
The Dems cried "wolf" in the cases of Owen and Brown. They correctly identified the beasts, but they let them in anyway. That's twice already. Are the Dems going to be believed the next time?

Does Armageddon Begin With The Nuclear Option?

Most Americans are confused about the Republican-coined phrase "nuclear option" but this week there will be a showdown in the U.S. Senate. Basically, the Repubs want to eliminate the filibuster, that is, the minority's option to object. Presently 60 senators are needed to end the filibuster and to proceed to an up-or-down vote on the nominee. Senator Frist, the majority leader, wants to reduce this number to 50 (remember, Cheney, the VP, can break a tie).
The filibuster is not new. It has been used by both sides effectively, some to prevent Civil Rights legislation. Members of both sides have expressed hostility to this senate rule and wanted to end it--surprise, surprise, they took this position only when their party was in the majority! So, there are hypocrites in both parties. However, it is now that the Repubs are dead serious in altering the senate rules, because they have no respect for democracy, civil rights, and the rights of the minority. The few mainstream Repubs are an endangered species and usually don't have the guts to stand up to the totalitarians in their party.
Why should the minority have rights? Shouldn't the majority always prevail? Well, in a democracy, what is a majority today may not be tomorrow, but certain rights and the interest of the country should be safeguarded. Can the democratically elected representatives pass laws and turn the country into a totalitarian state? Of course, not, but that's what the far right, the theologs and the powerlogs of the Republican party want.
In college, in addition to reading De Tocqueville's Democracy in America and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, you needed 60 as a passing grade. Why can't we have the same standard especially for the federal judges with life appointments? Laws can be revised by the next Congress, but a federal judge can stay on the bench for the next 30 or 40 years, and, any judge who's not qualified can be very harmful when ruling on issues that really matter in our lives.
The current president, despite his whining, has a greater number of nominated judges approved by the Senate than president Clinton had in his 8 years in office. Out of Bush's 215 conservative judges, 205 have been approved, no filibuster used. Ten, the most extreme and unqualified, were not, though he re-nominated most them anyway! The Dems are not giving in and the Repubs want to change the rules of the game to get their way. Actually they've already done so, little by little, but they now want more power so they're going ballistic, er, nuclear! I guess they have to hurry up, because they realize that by the end of next year, they may not be in such a strong position again. The country is largely dissatisfied with the performances of both the Congress and the president.
We have to discuss the issue on principle here regardlesss of partisan interests. One party rule is not good for the country, especially when this party is so utterly convinced that it's doing "God's work" and that the opposition is not worth anything. Anyone who's appointed for life to perform a very sensitive job should be under greater scrutiny.
The U.S. Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, it's members elected to a 6 year term, and theoretically not subject to the passions of the day. The framers of the constitution sought to safeguard the interests of the minority by having 2 senators from every state regardless of its population. So, California with 35 million people gets to have just 2, as many as Vermont with a population of only 600,000. And, if you want to be technical about it, the 55 Republicans in the Senate today represent fewer voters than the other 45 Senators!
John Stuart Mill advised us that our freedoms may not be taken away by a social revolution, but that there is a greater danger our freedoms may be usurped by the majority. It has happened before, you know, like in pre-WWII Germany--Hitler was democratically elected and then parliament passed all the laws he wanted to turn the country into a Nazi state!
Unfortunately, the national press hasn't clearly explained the issue to the public. Most people want the Senate to scrutinize the president's nominees, but the workings of the senate is an esoteric matter to them, not realizing that the outcome of the impending battle will hugely affect all Americans. We had the Armageddon election in 2004, and I advised the liberals and all progressives (now it should include all moderates and non-apocalyptic religious people) to be prepared to get stoned. What's at stake here [someone will be tied to the stake if this trend continues] is the future direction of our country. I'm talking about judges who will decide whether science prevails over superstition, whether consumers need protection, whether the environment deserves preservation, whether individual privacy should be safeguarded, whether civil rights (including minority rights) are not taken away, and whether our government should be held up to the rule of law! Ultra-conservative and radical judges appointed for life is not common sense. We're not appointing judges based on life stories, as the conservatives are arguing, but people with long judicial records. Here are the two most controversial Bush choices, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers . The neo-cons always talk about activist judges, who instead of basing their rulings on a ..dead legal document, they promote their own agenda! Really? If it weren't for an activist judge on the Supreme Court--Cheney's hunting partner, A. Scalia--G. W. Bush wouldn't be president today. Both Brown and Owen are activist judges who, like their mentor Scalia, don't see any conflict of interest when deciding cases involving their benefactors! The Dems must do a better job explaining that it is possible for a person (ie. Justice Clarence Thomas) to benefit from certain laws and social programs and, once ontop, turn around and pull the ladder up so others can't follow. Judges like Brown and Owen have ruled against the rights of workers, the environment, but for fat corporations, and have been seeking to impose the views of the fringe fundamentalists on the private matters of individuals.
The winning strategy may be that since the Dems can make life very difficult for the Repubs in the Senate in the nuclear fallout stage. Business can grind to a halt thus preventing the neo-cons from passing other legislation beneficial to the socio-economic elite. Perhaps the pressure from the money-hungry social Darwinists may be enough to tip the balance and prevent Frist from coming up with 51 votes to end the filibuster. The Dems have limited choices given their numbers in the Senate so they can't prevent all bad legislation. Heck, they couldn't prevent the far-reaching and anti-privacy Real ID law--attached to a ..military spending bill and passed with no debate in the Congress! Despite the damage bad laws can inflict on the country those laws can be reversed someday, hopefully sooner than later. However, federal judges if inept and radical can ruin America for decades to come. That's too high of a price to pay.

Bill Moyers is Certainly Biased! He's a Damn(ed) Liberal.

The buzz about the attacks on public broadcasting is getting louder, and this is a good development lately. The current administration and the Republican Congress prefer to act in secret, especially on issues that do not have the support of the public. In the past ten years, there has been a strong effort by the radical far right to control if not eliminate public broadcasting. First, they argued that public money shouldn't go into public broadcasting. Then they said, the latter had a "liberal bias." Never mind that the ..public wants to support a free-from-government institution and that the vast majority of Americans don't think there is a bias in news & programming in PBS! The Republican hack, Ken Tomlinson, has been appointed as chairman of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) and is hell-bent on carrying the far right's barbarian policy ! So, the hordes have descended on PBS.

Bill Moyers, whose PBS's NOW program was targeted by Tomlinson, came out swinging in his much-anticipated response. "The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," he explained. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth." Well, this rings true to me! Of course, the far right doesn't like criticism since it believes it has a total grasp of the truth--by divine revelation no less. Link to Free Press for media clips, including Bill Moyers' speech, from the National Conference on Media Reform that just concluded in St. Louis.

This is the crux of the matter: Do we need a broadcast medium where we can freely debate, learn, and exercise investigative journalism? Or, should we let the market forces decide this, as many conservatives have been arguing? I'm assuming that everyone wants a better-informed public. Or, do they? You see, some political agendas need the cover of darkness to be implemented. There is also a need for a substantial mass of unconscious people who are easily manipulated in order the socio-economic elites to maintain their power and privileges. How else can you win elections by convincing so many poor people to vote against their economic interests?
You need to foster intellectual laziness, to encourage superstition, and exaggerate personal biases. Add an element of fear and wedge-issue politics and you have the recipe for success. Why allow PBS to investigate the rulers, bring facts to light, discuss consumer issues, create a public record of our social discourse, and bring science & the scientific method closer to the public? Only those who are threatened by such activities need worry. PBS has been a thorn to them with its "liberal bias." But, as the top header of this blog suggests, "Democracy is as good as its participants. An informed & engaged citizen is the lifeline of a healthy society. A liberal citizen is vital to our American democracy!"

We can safeguard our democracy by being informed and active in the public affairs of our country. If a "liberal bias"-- as alleged by the far right--means that we want an open and free debate, more facts about the important issues of our times, then, yes, this kind of "bias" is good to have. At least, our bias does not preclude that our opinion is the universal and absolute truth to be imposed on others. We are comfortable with people having varying opinions. Yet, the facts are what they are; everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts. We are not scared of the facts, we do not want to be fed partisan rubbish in order to satisfy a lazy brain. We think, and, therefore, we are!
Care to join us? All you need is a critical mind, have a love for the public interest, and, maybe, a few bucks to support PBS. Check out the definition of liberal to see if it's a good "bias" for you to have. Above all, don't surrender your mind--that's what the barbarians at the gate are after!

lib*er*al \Lib"er*al\, Adj. 1. Favoring political and social reforms tending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc. 2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted. 3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 4. Describing Democratic forms of government.

A Species Under Extinction: Reasonable Republicans?

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Now, this is a very sensible view! If I were an insider or a talking head, I'd be repeating this every time Bush and his henchmen in Congress propose to destroy Social Security, eliminate consumer protection laws, repeal laws that protect the environment, and generally push for ways to transfer our national wealth to their wealthy friends and big corporations.
These principles as stated by the author of the quote have remained as valid as they were back in the 1950s! As a matter of fact, they should be more important today since America's safety net has been torn to shreds by the Republican leadership in our one-party government. I think reason itself is under attack in this country. Not only our rulers are talking Newspeak , but they're trying to convince the nation to follow their own perverted perception of reality. They are for social Darwinism: whereas the survival of the fittest means that the rich and powerful deserve to be so, and the poor and the weak deserve their fate because of their own moral failings. This is, in my estimate, not very Christian-like. Not what Jesus had in mind. Of course, no one who has reached, or inherited his position in the socio-economic elite bothers to mention that the cards are marked, and the game is fixed. Yes, the elites are not stupid. They know how to use wedge politics, push "hot buttons", and use issues that are really irrelevant to the actual quality of life of most people in order to make the latter vote against their own economic interests!

Some traditional Republicans will object to this criticism, but since their party has been hijacked by the theologs and the powerlogs, they better take into advice the quote above and then take action. Instead of the nation having a debate between reasonable people as to how to solve our big problems, the present rulers have been directing the country to go back to the past and to re-examine whether evolution is scientific, whether the laws of physics should apply to ..this country! They also want to teach our children that there is an "equally credible theory" out there which proposes that the Earth was created in a couple days and it's probably ..flat, and in the center of the universe! Talking about dumbing down our country...
Are there any reasonable Republicans left in the party that controls the power today ? Do they have the guts to stand up and reclaim their party? Can we move this country forward? We've been through costly battles, paid the price, but we've arrived at the 21st century. We should be choosing among the best-qualified and able persons to do the job at hand regardless of party affiliation; the best CEO if you like. The Repubs seem to buck progress and want to steer us to their own version of the Dark Ages. I don't know if being in power is good enough for some people regardless of what policies are followed, but there have to be some people on the other side of the political spectrum that are fed up with their current leadership. Aren't there any Eisenhower Republicans left?

By the way, the author of the quote above: President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 . My thanks to David Sirota who dug up this gem. Check the Sirotablog for more links.

Ignorance Is Strength, The Far Right's Motto

I watch PBS. I like it for the most part. I don't like the begging, which occurs with increasing frequency nowadays, and I don't like those boring shows, bought cheaply, to fill time slots. I don't appreciate the shows included just to appease the conservatives either, but I'm willing to live with programs that are boring, stupid and proposing an opposing view to mine. Yet, PBS is the place to get serious news and information about important current issues, and for developing a greater understanding of the world we live in.
We all know the conservative right wants a simple-minded people and a simplistic message, a kind of "bumper sticker" mentality. We also know that PBS and everything else that makes us think, understand, question our one-party government, is despised by the radical right.
With the national press collectively lying down and failing to fulfill its obligation to check on the rulers, public broadcasting must be defended against this latest onslaught. Unfortunately, the PBS leadership has not been brave enough, and it's being slaughtered. Admittedly, it is caught in a rough spot, but being silent and not taking the fight into the open and into the enemy, it helps the sinister, back-stubbing, corporate loyalists, far-right, anti-intellectuals and conservative hacks who've taken control of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB). Since the days of the disgraced House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, the far right has been trying to kill PBS, or, at the very least, bring it under control of the conservatives. CPB gives about $30 million a year with many strings attached ever since Republican hack, Kenneth Tomlinson, became CPB's chairman. He wants to "eliminate the liberal bias" from PBS, he says. Never mind that the vast majority of Americans believe there is no bias in news and information programming by public broadcasting.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist/believer, but there has been a long and coordinated effort by the extreme right to impose their narrow views on the rest of us, to change America according to their own rapturist, fundamentalist and microscopic views. But, they are right in this regard: a monolithic mentality by the public is easier to manipulate.
Anyone, who has watched Frontline, Wide Angle, Nova, Independent Lens, NOW (with & post-Bill Moyers), and all the other wonderful programming, knows that we thinking citizens need as many windows to information as possible; heck, we don't have enough of those. On the other hand, the far right wants to incarcerate us in a windowless environment. For our own security of course! Being fair and balanced, according to Tomlinson and his secret agents, is to include any cookie idea, baseless argument from his pals (Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh,Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Dr. No, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, TwoFace, the Jocker, and so many other characters), and, for good measure, give a chat room to the The Wall Street Journal to counter-act the "liberal bias" of the News Hour! Incredible. Literally, in-credible!
Even if there were far fewer people who watched PBS, it still would've been worth preserving it for the simple reason that we need: a means to expose the wrong doers, a platform for open exchange of ideas & information in depth, and a ..public record.

This time taking our checkbooks out in order to support public broadcasting is not enough; we must act in order to put the Public back in PBS. Signing the petition is one step, but,please, get ready to follow up with further action, locally and nationally. Check with Free Press* frequently on the latest news and how to get involved.

Ignorance is strength, as Winston was constantly reminded in 1984. In the politics of fear in the early 21st century, we can clearly see that strength, and, sadly,even ignorance have quite an appeal. Why, feeling strong gives you a sense of security, doesn't it? Of course it does! However, you do understand that you have to give up a few "things" in order to be safe, secure, and ..undisturbed. In addition, why would you want to feel the anxiety of the unknown, the cacophony of disagreement, the stress of being challenged in your beliefs? Who wouldn't want to be powerful enough to withstand all sorts of biases and proselytizing voices? Who needs the ideas advocated by those "liberally biased" people who have a tendency to question things, who admit that the search for truth must be un-ending, who challenge the status quo, who want to change the world by infusing it with more reason, scientific inquiry, consumer protection, liberty & civil rights, and protecting & enhancing our common treasure--the environment?
Who needs those people and their biases indeed?

*Free Press is a nonpartisan organization working to involve the public in media policymaking and to craft policies for more democratic media.

Dumb and Dumberer. Fox Picks Paris, Shaves Bush

I've got a hangover from a rare event last night. No, it wasn't drinking or partying--I wish. It was a presidential press conference, a rarer than a blue moon, in his lordship of G.W. Bush. Well, let's be fair, the guy is just wrapping up a two-month tour touting his Social (in)Security plan. He spoke to many Americans, planted by the Repubs in those fake "town hall" settings. Even last night, our leader couldn't give a straight answer. Anyway, I won't lose sleep over another Bush press conference in prime time for a while now. Hey, did you notice that FOX (in New York at least) cut Bush short towards the end of his conference because it wanted to run The Simple Life with Paris Hilton! Well, I don't really blame Fox News for doing this; Bush wasn't saying anything relevant or illuminating (that would be the day).
I was primed today to write something about the non-news Bush would made last night, but today on a second thought, I'll just let you have a few morsels to chew in your mind during the rush hour on your way home this evening.
The House relented and voted to go back to the old standard of ethics. In the last Congress, the Repub-dominated Ethics Committee had admonished the corrupt Repub leader Delay. That didn't sit well with the leadership, so in the new Congress (emerged after last election in 2004), they threw out the Repub chairman who dared to enforce the ethics rules & punish Delay, and for good measure, they changed the rules to shield Tom "The Hammer" Delay! That was under the Repub plan to establish, first, one-party rule, and then a theocratic state.
But, the pile of dung kept getting bigger and stinkier and now the Repub Majority leader Delay is so filthy that the Repubs are realizing that holding on to someone who's covered in elephant dung is not a good thing.
I expect things to return to normal as the Ethics Committee will now be used to go after those Dems who started the whole thing against Delay. As any zookeeper would say, incompatible animals will soon attack each other, especially when the food is scarce. Let's keep it that way, otherwise those omnivores will turn on us for fresh meat. This has happened before. Actually, this was the expectation of the Repub leadership: don't attack us, we won't attack you. Sure, we'll have an ethics committee! Wink, wink, ya know what I mean?

Benedictus Catholicus: A Pope for the 21st Century?

I've been debating with myself whether to post an essay about the election of the new pope, but, in the end, I couldn't resist. No other church has such a world-wide identifiable figure at its leadership like the Catholic Church while having a big influence in people's lives. The last pope arguably was the most identifiable person on the planet. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is not as famous but he is a known quality. If the past is a guide for the future, he will be a very conservative pope.
But, what does this mean? Should the church change because of the times, or just because its members don't follow all of its doctrines? Is religious dogma true for ever and ever? How about the infallibility of the pope? There are many questions that we get to ask on this historic occasion. I think any authoritarian institution has little room to wiggle on the basic tenets, but the pope's own views and sensibilities can shape the Catholic Church's policies. These policies are the result of Vatican Councils, papal edicts, tradition and the pope's own interpretations.
For example, why is the use of condoms or birth control against Catholic dogma? Is in written in the holy book somewhere? My answer is that the church is still uptight about human sexuality. While condoms have been proven to prevent deadly diseases, why is the church against them? And, it's against them even within the confines of marriage! In Africa, the most dangerous act a woman can do is to get married! Most HIV-infected African women are married and the culprits are their husbands! Yet, the Catholic Church and the Bush administration are against condom distribution, any sex education that mentions birth control and HIV-AIDS.

Amidst the litany of praise for the new pope, it's worth taking a closer look at Cardinal Ratzinger's views and actions. Once the church wants to play a role in our political discourse, we have every right to engage it in critical discussion. Remember last summer when many church leaders came out against John Kerry and every Democrat who supported a woman's right to choose? In 2004, the Vatican's guardian of theology, Cardinal Ratzinger, ordered bishops to refuse communion to politicians who supported abortion rights. In a letter that was obtained by the Italian magazine L'Espresso, Ratzinger wrote that abortion supporters "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present themselves for holy communion." I wouldn't care as much if this were kept strictly within church membership, but when the issue became about not voting for anyone who favored a woman's choice then it became a whole different matter. Anyone can believe in the devil and that Kerry was Satan's pupil, but a religious view can't be imposed on the rest of us. Not that the argument about "cooperating with evil" was particularly convincing if I may say so. Zeus, for one, told me otherwise! Now, back off because my religious claim is just as valid as yours!

Something that was way too obvious to me since John Paul II fell into his death bed was the absence of women in the whole process--in the funeral, the religious ceremonies and the eventual selection of the new pontiff. Not even ..altar girls were allowed. Well, I did see lots of nuns in St. Peter's Square, but like women elsewhere they were just observers. Women have been kept subservient, second class if you like, and out of leadership positions in the Catholic church. Don't expect this to change soon. Ratzinger has written a letter to bishops worldwide decrying a sort of feminism that makes women "adversaries" of men! I wonder if he's in favor of any other sort of feminism? I doubt it.
The new pope is a very convinced man for he believes in the absolute truth; a truth that apparently has been discovered by his church. On Monday, in what was essentially a keynote address for the conclave, he delivered his last homily as a cardinal, attacking "the dictatorship of relativism," which he said denies absolute truth. He took a shot at critics who regard views like his own as out of the mainstream. "To have a clear faith according to the church's creed is today often labeled fundamentalism," he said. I suppose that he's even more certain now since his stance was confirmed, no doubt by divine intervention, when he donned the cloak of papal infallibility! That's another resounding "no" to liberation theology. Dissent won't be encouraged, and the take-it-or-leave-it will be the order of the day during his pontificate.

OK, we agree, Ratzinger is not a modern guy. This brings me back to sex! The Catholic Church forbids priests from getting married. I know that this is not written in the holy book. Originally, this had nothing to do with celibacy--though celibacy was added as a reason later--but it had to do with land rights and inheritance. You see, the early church was losing property and wealth when its married priests died. Get it?
Of course the biggest hang-up is about recreational sex, you know, sex for pleasure. It might be the self-indulgence aspect of it that bothers the church, though supposedly a person can be celibate but gorge himself in all sorts of indulgent excesses not explicitly forbidden by the dogma! So, recreational sex is no good, hence the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and to proper sex education by the way. Not only you're not supposed to do it, but you shouldn't be exposed to the proper academic/scientific knowledge of human sexuality. President Bush agrees on this one. No wonder why teenage pregnacies and abortions have been steadily increasing under his tutelage! Oh, yeah, you've guessed it, the rates are higher in the so-called red states and the Bible-drenched South.
Ratzinger has called homosexuality a tendency toward "intrinsic moral evil." I wonder if active homosexuality is considered grounds for excommunication? Probably not! Getting divorced or having an abortion are. The latter are considered greater evils than the sins of Catholic priests (all male remember?) who sexually molested thousands of young boys! I haven't heard that anyone of those perverts being excommunicated. Have you? Hold your breath, not because it'll happen soon, but because it stinks!
As the Vatican kept in the limelight the disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law (read the earlier post, Cardinal Sin) it reminded the American Catholics that their recent most painful experience barely registered in the Holy See. Would you guess that Cardinal Ratzinger played a role in this? Three years ago, when the clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in the United States, he blamed the resulting uproar on a media conspiracy! "I am personally convinced," he told reporters in Murcia, Spain, in 2002, "that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the U.S., is a planned campaign." Ratzinger's Vatican office was in charge of reviewing cases of priests charged with sex abuse. I wonder if he's changed his mind since. Just the other day, the Vatican claimed "statehood" to escape culpability in a sex abuse lawsuit and urged Condi Rice to intervene on its behalf.

I understand that many people feel uncomfortable or turn hostile when their faith or church are being criticized, but once their beliefs and their organized religious institutions become part in the shaping of public policy, then I believe it's fair game. Why is it OK to debate and ask for proof,use reason to reach a conclusion in other matters, but when a religious argument is put forth the treatment should change? When they say that abortion should be illegal--even if it only leads to millions of unsafe abortions (especially in South America and the developing countries)-- then we do have a fight in our hands.
When they say that homosexuals are evil doers and shouldn't have equal civil rights, then we liberals have to object. If a woman is being excommunicated from the church for having an abortion it's one thing, but we have to object to the church's drive to influence public policy on this issue and restrict a woman's right to reproductive choice.

Take for example what happened in Argentina recently. Bishop Antonio Baseotto suggested in March that a high Argentine government official should be subjected to the biblical punishment of being "cast into the sea" for suggesting abortion be legalized. In response, Argentina's president, Nestor Kirchner, refused to recognize the bishop, prompting the Vatican to make the odd and unexplained charge that Buenos Aires was restricting religious freedom! The issue, while mollified slightly in recent days, challenged relations between Buenos Aires and Rome and reopened the abortion debate there. Activists and organizations have been making public appeals for legalization, while dozens of pro-choice supporters ran ads in major Argentine papers calling for legalization of abortion.

In Brazil, the world's largest Catholic country, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has come under fire from the church for proposals to lighten restrictions on abortion. In an interview published in early April, Rio de Janeiro Cardinal Eusebio Scheid charged at the left-leaning president, saying "a real Catholic cannot be in favor of abortion." Lula has defended his faith while refusing to back down. Pope John Paul II himself fell at odds with Lula's government and many Brazilians on issues such as contraception, abortion and "Marxist liberation theology."
Actually, there is a study done by Catholics For A Free Choice regarding the views of people in Latin America regarding traditional church doctrine. It's an eye-opener! Well, maybe not for Pope Benedict's Vatican, but for those who realize that the times are leaving the Catholic Church behind.

There was a time when the church was the sole authority, it explained the universe, but that was then. Now there has to be a debate within its fold about the direction and the role the church should play in the 21st century. In Europe, very few people attend religious services any more and church membership is rapidly shrinking. In the U.S. the Protestants and Catholics are losing to the more fundamentalist versions of Christianity. The Vatican is hoping that the Third World will bolster the ranks of the faithful. Yet, Ratzinger thinks it's a good idea to have mass in the Latin language! [no, Latin Americans don't speak Latin as the former VP Danny Boy Quale once told us!] It seems to me that the church has to think hard about its conservatism. Too much change within a closed, authoritarian system can result in everything falling apart, I do realize this. As a matter of fact, closed systems that are more rigid and offer a more absolute truth seem to have been attracting new converts, the "born-again" and the rapture right in this country! Perhaps an accommodation can be reached without undermining the foundations. After all, what's good about a foundation when it stands supporting something with no one in it?

I don't understand, for example, why Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that communion must involve wheat (gluten) and therefore, in essence, denying communion to a person with celiac disease! The new pope probably subscribes to the slippery slope theory--once you allow a revision, god knows where it'll stop. Yet, it was Jesus who challenged society and whose gospel message was radical. Has everything been settled since? Have the Catholic Church and Benedict XVI found the only path to heaven? You may choose to believe so, but I prefer a more humane and flexible church, because the church does provide comfort and moral guidance to those who need it or can't find it elsewhere.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean that life should be viewed only as a catharsis stage before a person enters heaven. The church has to be a bit more practical and try a bit harder to enhance the quality of life for the most underprivileged persons here and now. There has been a symbiotic relationship between the lay people and the hierarchy because both needed each other in order to survive. But, the equation is changing, so the question for the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict is: which is the needier party today? One of the two apparently has more choices than the other.

Andrew Sullivan, who's a devout Catholic, conservative, and openly gay, is been following the deeds of Cardinal Ratzinger for the last 10 years. He writes along the same lines of this blog on the issues, but has some additional "gems" regarding the views and policies of Ratzi, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI.
4/26/05: I watched Wide Angle on PBS tonight titled White Smoke on the selection of the new pope. I urge you to read the articles on PBS's web site, especially the interview of James Caroll. He is also a devout Catholic advocating progressive change in the church. For those who feel threatened or insulted by a secular person like myself when I ask questions and offer criticisism, it may be easier to hear views from people who have accepted the basic doctrine but also think that some changes are necessary if not overdue already.

A Case of Nuts and Bolton

In the last couple weeks, it seems that every day there is a new disturbing case regarding Bush's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is clearly unfit for this position. The Republican leadership is pulling all strings in the Senate to push him through, but we need more time to uncover all the torrid details of this man's "diplomatic" career.
Call your Senator (Senate switchboard, 1-877-762-8762) and urge a vote against Bolton. You can send an email to your senator too. Note those senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who are conducting the hearings now.
Bush's in-your-face politics continues to irritate thinking people with a cosmopolitan world-view and those who care about our country's policies and its effects on people and the environment. The U.S. cannot be the bully of the world, but it has to be the leader because it commands respect. Fear and brute force won't get you very far, especially in the 21st century when many battles will be decided on the economic, scientific and cultural fronts.

ADDENDUM
It seems that Condi, our new ubber-alles secretary, is telling her subordinates at her Dept. of State not to release any information that could "adversely affect the nomination." This is, of course, illegal, but, hey, it's not that much of a big deal in Bush's reign. By the way, the ..liberal media buried this nugget in a story in today's (4/20/05) Washington Post. (I should do a story on the so-called liberal media one of these days.)
Please don't be harsh on Ms. Rice! She's only obeying and protecting her "husband" like any sensible woman should do. No?

Keep your activist form in shape, because next week there will be a huge fight to save minority rights and our democracy from the Repubs. They're getting ready to use the "nuclear option" in order to promote their radical agenda. Someone has to stop the slide back to the Dark Ages,and that someone is us!

Cardinal Sin

The Vatican Doesn't Get It, Or, It Has Adopted a Page from Bush's Playbook
I don't claim to fully understand religion, but the concept of forgiveness is well within my grasp. However, it seems that the Vatican has borrowed a page from G.W. Bush's playbook of in-your-face politics. You know, the concept of rewarding failure, appointing unqualified persons to high office, not taking responsibility for mistakes, distorting the truth, lying, and ..forgiving oneself for past (and why not, future) sins!
Thus, the Vatican is sticking to these Bush principles while talking about moral values from one side of its mouth. Over the weekend, I've heard several religious figures, some speaking on behalf of the Vatican, who told us that forgiveness is a good thing to dispense. I agree. Forgiveness is necessary sometimes but should not be given blindly; not to repeat offenders and the unrepentant. Some people deserve a second chance, some people simply deserve shame & punishment.
What infuriates me is the way those "pious" people talk about forgiveness. Excuse me, but it is up to the victim to forgive! It is not up to the perpetrator to invoke forgiveness and move on! Let's apply this concept in the case of the former Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law who resigned due to the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, particularly in Massachusetts.
To put it bluntly--as we should, to make the harsh point--many priests, in many districts, for many decades raped many boys and sexually harassed god-knows how many thousands of children. Cardinal Law resigned, not out of shame or self-critique, but only after a judge decided to unseal court records that included a letter from the cardinal commending priests even though he knew there was so much evidence of them being child molesters! Law stubbornly refused to resign for a year, until he was pushed out by public outrage and pressure from ..below, including his parishioners!
Similar sex crimes took place in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and I'd bet in every other state. What did the Church do? First, it tried to deny and hide it. Finally, it admitted that its priests sexually abused the children of its faithful, and it is now paying millions of dollars to the victims. The amazing thing was that, although the church hierarchy knew about the abuses, it did nothing to protect the children! For the most part, it just shuffled the perps around when the rumors got out of hand in the local parish. So, the wolves got to chew on some fresh meat elsewhere. And, they did, because those sick persons couldn't stop, and the church didn't stop them.
Which brings us to the big brother, the pope John Paul II and his cohorts at the Vatican. Instead of acting quickly, like God striking down a sinner (as if this ever happens!) they remained publicly silent. Actually in private, many cardinals expressed their dismay at those Americans who blow things out of ..proportion and have the "audacity to sue their own Church!"
Like Bush, the Catholic Church doesn't punish anyone, no matter what their crime, as long as they pledge allegiance to the chief and follow the official line. Not only they don't punish the failures or, at the very least, shoo them away, but instead they reward them!
After Cardinal Law resigned in 2003, he was given a spacious apartment and a prestigious post in the Vatican! His pompous title? Get this: Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major! Wow! Well done brother Bernard! Bring your expertise to Rome now! Oh, and since you're here, why don't you take a high-visibility role in the pope's funeral? Good boy. You're the kind of image we want to project to the world, especially to those Americans back home. We might confuse them a bit more...
As the New York Times observed, by permitting Cardinal Law to take the limelight in Rome just when the church is mourning the death of John Paul, the cardinals have reminded American Catholics that their most painful recent chapter barely registered in the Vatican!

By conservative estimates, like the John Jay study, there have been at least 10,000 sexually abused persons within the Catholic Church since the 1950s. The number of incidents is many times higher that that since many children were abused repeatedly for several years. Many parishes and other church officials refused to participate in the study. The Catholic Church in the U.S. has paid anywhere between $600 million to over a billion dollars to the victims. Sexual abuse should be dealt as one strike and you're out! Unfortunately, too many Church leaders,like Cardinal B. Law, failed to exercise their authority to correct the problem. They, instead, revealed a vacancy in the moral department.

The Pope Has to Be Catholic. But the Times Have Changed

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, we take the opportunity to peer into the legacy of this extraordinary man. Obviously, there are varying evaluations of his pontificate for the things he tried to change and for those things he wouldn't. Much of the talk centers around this pope leading the Catholic Church into the new millennium, the "new springtime of Christianity," as he called it. That he did. But, a church is not a very flexible institution. Actually, its positions are dogmatic since they represent values and ideas inspired by God and are not relevant to space and time. Or are they? At least that's the concept behind a system of beliefs that are based on divine revelation; it's a take it or leave it proposition.
I do not hold such view, I confess. I do not believe that truth is found by divine revelation. It is rather found by research, examination, rationality, science, and it's based on human experience. It allows for the possibility of revision once something better comes along. Errors in judgment should be corrected. It's a Catholic tenet that the pope is infallible, at least when it comes to interpreting religious doctrines, but this applies only to those who choose to believe it.
I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the basis of human morality and human behavior--especially the need for religious dogma and institutions. There will be other opportunities for such. This is about John Paul II, and one thing certain about him is that he acted on principle. He, like any other pope, had to fight secularism and, to some extend, modernity. Granted, the church isn't there to explain the physical universe any longer, but it has to draw upon its tradition and centuries-old authority to maintain its leadership among the faithful. Arguably, closed systems must remain authoritarian to survive, otherwise revisionistic tendencies usually bring the demise of them.
For example, Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost didn't improve the communist system but brought about its collapse. China will follow too. [its economic reforms are not matched by political reforms so it's more stable right now, but inevitably it will have to surrender some political control to continue its economic growth; plus the Chinese are getting more educated, more in touch with the rest of the world, and having increasing expectations]

When Karol Wojtyla was elected pope in 1978, many, especially American priests ordained in the 1960s, hoped that he would break with tradition and bring some change in the Catholic Church. He didn't. On the contrary, he embodied religious conservatism. Under his leadership, there was no elevation of the position of women in the church--ordination of women wasn't seriously discussed, if at all--and he locked in the church for many years to come by appointing almost all of the cardinals and by his actions as the pontiff.
The question is how much a pope or any church can change religious doctrine to accommodate for cultural changes. The pope has to Catholic, in other words, he must adhere to long-established principles and religious traditions. However, there is some room to wiggle. In my opinion, John Paul II had his best years earlier on, when he pressed for change in the communist eastern Europe and even in countries with right-wing dictatorships. I think he played an important and positive role in transforming some of those cruel societies. His church benefited from that change, but a change from oppressing regimes was good nevertheless.
Later, he wrote and spoke about the harsh face of capitalism, and tried to illuminate the role of Jesus and his efforts to elevate human dignity, promote social justice for the society's less fortunate. He was against the death penalty, opposed the war in Iraq and condemned the human rights abuses at the Abu Graib prison. He was critical of the crude materialism exhibited by the U.S. and our lack of a social net for the underprivileged and the sick.

Yet, he remained largely silent about the huge scandals in America regarding the sexual abuse of thousands of children by Catholic priests. This abuse most likely has been going in other parishes all over Europe and the rest of the world, but only in America we make such a big stink over it, and we sue too! This view has been the unofficial reaction in the Vatican, something that most certainly has put any American cardinal out of contention for the papacy. The American Catholics are considered "too liberal" in the eyes of the Holy See.
Sex is a big taboo with organized religion. This pope wasn't much different in his approach. He insisted on a strictly male and celibate priesthood. He opposed abortion (the right of a woman to choose), and birth control.
When dogma doesn't allow room for reality, then we have a problem. If you think that sex is not to be used for pleasure, but only for procreation, then you have a big problem. Most Catholics want birth control. Even within the confines of marriage, Catholic women want options, including abortion and, if all else fails, a divorce.
The issue of contraception is a big one, especially when considering the HIV-AIDS pandemic that has been killing millions, many of whom in Catholic Africa where the Church is gaining most of its new converts.
The stubbornness against the use of condoms in preventing the spread of this horrible and incurable disease is almost criminal. This is a clear case when religious dogma--as expressed by an "infallible" pope--is allowing millions of people to die because they either don't get the proper sex education or are denied access to condoms. Today in Africa, the most dangerous thing a woman can do is to get married! The vast majority of women with HIV-AIDS in Africa are married, infected by their husbands! In Mother Teresa's Calcutta (one of the many cities in Asia where prostitution flourishes) teenage girls are being infected by killer diseases because condoms are not available and sexually active persons are not aware of disease-prevention methods.

John Paul II's pontificate obviously has many meanings. As a non-Catholic, I can only evaluate him from the outside. There are big philosophical differences between the secular humanists and organized religion, almost as many as among the various religious doctrines and their followers. Perhaps we can find common ground in the respect and enhancement of human life which should be examined and fully enjoyed. As a liberal, I would like all religions to be more humanistic, more in touch with real-life issues of the common folk. To do whatever possible to help people here and now. To alleviate fear, disease, poverty, and to help people avoid life-wasting predicaments. To elevate human dignity of both sexes, and, frankly, to make the world a better place to be.

Hippocrates and Hypocrites Are Not the Same

There is a worrisome trend (among others that threaten our civil liberties) in the healthcare system. It pits pharmacists' moral beliefs versus women's legal rights. The Michigan State House passed a law giving pharmacists immunity if they refuse to fill prescriptions based on moral grounds. This, in practical terms, means that these people, who object to a single woman's birth control right, are allowed to practice their religious moral beliefs instead of fulfilling their professional and explicit obligations!

Anyone can believe anything he wants, including that birth control is immoral, even a form of abortion! Now, if someone fails to meet the secular standards under which he's licensed to practice, and is allowed to discriminate based on religious grounds, then why stop there? How about refusing treatment & prescriptions to homosexuals? And, can the moral/sex police be far behind? I mean that's the case in many countries, ie. Saudi Arabia, our ally. Practicing medicine, working in the healthcare system under any capacity denotes certain inviolable obligations: to treat everyone and dispense care without discrimination. Otherwise, anyone who objects to this humanistic rule, should seek employment in other fields.

Why should I be subjected to religious discrimination? Why, say, their religious version is superior to your Hellenistic mythology (which gave us the Hippocratic Oath, still taken) or to your girlfriend's wiccan? This is obviously absurd!

That's why every time a bigoted numbskull is elected to public office, it's a blow to reason, modernity and science. The president, for example, holds the biggest, loudest magaphone, and, thus, can shape public opinion and move the country in a certain direction--in Dubya's case, backwards to the Middle Ages.
The Michigan law has provisions to bar discrimination on racial grounds. That's hypocritical. I don't think it is OK to give me my prescription because I'm white, but then, I suppose, I have to show some ..marriage certificate before I get birth control items.

As a liberal, I believe in choice and responsibility. I'm the guardian of my body. Any medical treatment, even life-style choices, should be a matter of privacy, between my physician and myself. Any woman who doesn't want to, or it's dangerous for her to get pregnant, should not only have the legal right to her choice, but she should also have unfettered access to all legal drugs and treatments! Having a right without being able to exercise is utterly pointless.

Moral choices give us imperatives on how to live our lives. It is my belief that not all arguably moral values are equal, so it would be best if they were kept as a private guide and not as an excuse to be forced upon others. It seems to me as a moral obligation for those who object to birth control not to become practitioners in healthcare, especially in places were such an objector is the only pharmacist available.
I can't resist but offer the following point as food for thought: Can Rastafarians, who smoke pot as part of their religious rituals and beliefs, act with immunity like the Christian pharmacists who think birth control is a sin? Shouldn't we legalize pot on religious grounds?

Unless, you're of the Pat Robertson frame of mind(less)... that thinks all other religions and even Christian (ie. Protestants!) denominations are servants of Satan! Did I mention that God told Rev. Falwell that we--the ACLU, the feminists, the lesbians/gays, the secular humanists & atheists--brought the wrath of his god to us on September 11, 2001? I wonder how his people would react to Falwell's last visit to the ER--funny, they all seek science to save themselves from death-- if he were met by a doctor who thought Falwell was a sinner and refused to treat him....

Two states - South Dakota and Arkansas - already have laws protecting pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Ten other states, including Wisconsin, are considering such legislation - Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. For Information, visit Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
Want to compare statements by Falwell, Robertson, and ..Osama bin Laden? Click here.

One Year Anniversary For Air America Radio. Congratulations

Find your AAR station here

Being Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Is Not an Oxymoron

I totally agree with the following statement issued by the White House after president Bush signed a law intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, "our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." I wish this were the case in the U.S., but it isn't! We don't have a comprehensive public policy that reflects this. Life is, well, valuable. But, we must also ask, what kind of life?..
Liberals are pro-life! We believe in protecting life and enhancing it with quality, and individual choice! We are humanists and therefore we hold the presumption in favor of life when it clearly matters. When the self-appointed guardians of human life worry about when two cells meet in early stages of gestation, or when there is no brain activity/identity,while they do little otherwise to enhance people's quality of life, then they are clearly missing the point. Intentionally? You decide.
The Republicans circulated a memo in the Senate which said that the Schiavo case would "excite" the conservative base and would be "a great political issue!" This president and Congress have not acted with such expediency before. For example, Bush didn't rush to Washington after getting the PDB in August of 2001 (a month before 9-11) which said that AlQueda was planning to attack in the US using highjacked airplanes, and when other terrorism warnings were "blinking red!" He didn't come back from his vacation either when the tsunami killed 150,000 people recently.
Had the Schiavo case happened in Texas, it would have been over by now since the then governor Bush signed a law giving the spouse and the patient's doctors the final say in matters of life and death. Want more of hypocrisy? Let's see, Bush signed a law in Texas that the state can turn off life-supporting devices in cases like Schiavo when the patient has no insurance to pay for the indefinite extraordinary care, even if the family wants such care to continue! How's this for having double standards?
Oh, could the White House please explain to us how the president's statement applies to his record of executions as governor? "Take, for example, the case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Washington's plea for clemency came before Governor Bush on the morning of May 6, 1997. After a thirty-minute briefing by Gonzales, Bush checked 'Deny' just as he had denied twenty-nine other pleas for clemency in his first twenty-eight months as governor".[Mitigating circumstances included] the fact that Washington's mental handicap had never been presented to the jury that condemned him to death."- NY Review of Books,1/13/05.

My contention is that those conservatives, the rapture right, and president Bush don't really care about human life after it exits the womb. I simply don't understand how their religious morality makes them fight so hard against abortion--assuming that the fetus at any stage is a human life worth defending--but as soon as it's born it's not much of their concern any more! I wonder how many Americans have died in the last few weeks, while the Schiavo case is being fought over, because these poor souls didn't not have adequate, or any, health care.... If we, as we should, defend life, shouldn't we do whatever we can to protect it and enhance it? Many Americans die because they're poor--they cannot afford even basic medical care. In addition to promoting democracy the president should also try to reduce the 20,000 deaths that occur every day around the globe because people are poor--no access to clean water, vaccines, medicine, and, because this president has cut off funds to any international agency that gives out condoms, talks about family planning, AIDS prevention, etc.

Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for 15 years. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid, in other words, her brain is gone. It cannot be reconstituted. In the last seven years, all the impartial courts and the doctors involved have consistently agreed that she's in "a persistent vegetative state ...with no hope of a medical cure", and the courts have backed her husband's decision (based on Terri's own expressed wishes) to end the artificial life-support treatments. The federal courts have the power to intervene had a fundamental right been abrogated. Last Friday, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal to intervene.
The so-called compassionate conservatives, again, are using a wedge issue to gain political points, though it seems they've miscalculated on this one.
An ABC poll showed that most Americans oppose, by broad margins, the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. However I don't think personal choices and medical decisions should be made by popular polls. A responsible adult should have the right to his own privacy, including to choices of medical treatment, and use his person in any way seem fit to himself. Furthermore, a person should have the right to end her life in a dignified manner, even with professional assistance, when confronted by a terminally dilapidating disease.
The good thing this case has brought to us is that so many people are talking about the subject and taking the time to think and express their own preferences when confronted with a similar situation on their own. Everyone should have a "living will" [obtainable easily, like this form from the NYS Bar Association] which makes clear what a person wants done in his last days. Talk to your family, friends, your doctor about your wishes. It may be unpleasant to confront one's mortality, but it's the responsible thing to do, for you and your loved ones. Responsibility and choice go together, and this is liberalism.

Every human life is precious, has the same value and dignity. Our society, our laws, our courts, our elected officials should reflect this. We can debate when human life begins, but we have to use the best tools at our disposal--the scientific method & knowledge-- to understand and make decisions in the personal and public spheres. Religious beliefs (which are many, varied, and often contradicting each other) may serve as the believer's moral guide, yet, such beliefs are not facts and therefore shouldn't be imposed on others who don't share them.
The defenders of life, liberals among them, also care about the quality of life after birth, and in the final stages of our physical existence. Being a free person also means having the liberty of choice, especially when it involves one's own self. It is indeed a matter of life and death!


ADDENDUM TO THE ORIGINAL POST
Because several people and the irresponsible media have been throwing around accusations and claims of conspiracy, I'm adding this "footnote."
The US Supreme Court declined, again, on 3/24/05, to take up Schiavo's case, which means all courts have consistently ruled in agreement regarding the course of action and who acts on behalf of Terri Schiavo. There have been over some 20 state and federal judges who have examined all evidence in the last 7 years and heard hundreds of hours of testimony, pro and con.
Every neurologist testified in the case has said Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS, which I realize is different that coma) and every physician involved has concurred that she has no hope for recovery. Removing the artificial life support, again, won't make Terri suffer. This article explains what happens to the body of a PVS patient.)
This brings us to the sphere of the ridiculous claims: There is this former Schiavo nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, who claims that Michael Schiavo had been abusive towards his wife, and other allegations about Michael's motives. The judge in the case dismissed Iyer's claims as "incredible!" Even Terri's parents (who are fighting against the tubes removal) did not seek Iyer's testimony! But you wouldn't hear this on any self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" network.
You will hear this, though: the claims of a convicted crook and a charlatan, Dr. William Hammesfahr, who says that he can help Terri Schiavo. He thinks Terri is not in a coma! You wouldn't hear that this doctor has been disciplined by the Florida Medical Board. You wouldn't hear that he had earlier advocated that Terri Schiavo didn't need a feeding tube! You wouldn't hear that this doctor is a member of a religious group that does not accept an individual's choice not to be kept alive by artificial means! Ten years of court decisions have upheld the findings of many neurologists who all have testified that Terri is in PVS.
This begs the question: are those people, who are opposing the removal of the tubes, also against a person's right to choose her treatment under a terminal/irreversible condition? I know the answer, do you?

The U.S. Living Will Registry can provide you with lots of information and forms for the particular state living wills, organ donation, and health care provider/community partners.

"Fair & Balanced" But Hardly Truthful

I don't know how many of you noticed the fuss about ABC's censorship of Boston Legal last Sunday, but it's ironic, the show was about free speech. The Disney-owned ABC asked the writers to remove a reference to FOX News Network. Who could ever think that Fox News is biased? Horrors! So, ABC played it safe by censoring the script of Boston Legal! Yet, we, fans of the show, noticed the writers' jibe at ABC, that censorship is alive and well and it's applied even on a ..drama show! Also, they left in the script the reference to new documentary Outfoxed (on R. Murdoch's war on journalism and the distortion of the truth). Smooth!
I've worked as a journalist, and I've never pretended that I didn't have an opinion. But opinion is one thing and distorting the facts is another matter. Journalism is about the hunt for the truth. Is it not? As usual, the Boston Legal writers made some excellent points. In the Cronkite days, you could turn to the news to find out what was going on if you didn't trust what the government was telling you. Not anymore. News for the most part is seen as another purely commercial, entertaining activity. Give the people what they want, a character on Boston Legal argued. Why not?, Over at FOX News there is a better world--we're winning the war in Iraq (with hardly any casualties), the economy is performing beautifully for every American, and you do feel that you are in the company of fellow patriots!
On the same day, The New York Times reported that at least 20 federal agencies have made and distributed pre-packaged, ready-to-serve television "news segments" to promote President Bush's policies and initiatives. Congress' Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that these "video news releases" were illegal "covert propaganda" and told federal agencies to stop. But, last Friday, the White House ordered all agencies to disregard Congress' directive! Expect nothing more, or less. The Bush administration is using hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to manipulate public opinion. This is illegal, but this also is in your face politics--the ethos of the neo-con Republicans and as practiced by Bush. Just take a look at his judicial appointments and his rewarding of the liars and the incompetent people of his praetorian guard to see this concept applied.
Send a message and tell them to stop using our money for mindless covert propaganda. Media Matters is another excellent site that monitors distortions by the media, especially those who don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The self-proclaimed "fair & balanced" network is indeed right: it's fair both to the neo-cons & the traditional conservatives; and, it's balanced between promoting intolerance and ignorance. We have to admit that Fox's been very effective! Its viewers, who also tend to be Bush supporters (surprise?), still believe that we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Sadam & Osama are blood brothers! [editor's note: Let me check on the tooth fairy thingy and I'll get back to you]
As the late Senator from NY, Patrick Moynihan, used to say, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts!

We're Losing a Great Friend in the Senate: Sarbanes to Retire

Senator Paul Spyros Sarbanes (D-MD) won't seek a 6th term and will retire next year. This is a sad day for us because we're losing a true liberal and a people's representative of the utmost integrity in the highest elective offices of the nation.
"It was not my ambition to stay there until they carried me out,'' he said plainly and added that his decision to retire wasn't due to health reasons, though he acknowledged that his age, 72, was a factor. Paul has been a reliable liberal voice and an activist on economic and social issues. Just last week, he was one of only a dozen Democrats in the Senate to vote against a bill that would make it harder for ordinary Americans to go through bankruptcy.
I've met Paul several times, had the chance to talk to him, and I can say, without reservation, that this fellow Greek American impressed me--and I'm not easily impressed by politicians, stars or other people of dubious fame. Sarbanes has led by example. He is a true intellectual and a great public servant. The man deserves a break, especially because he's been one of the most hardworking elected officials, but his ethos, I'm sure, will keep him engaged as a contributor to liberal causes and to the public discourse. We'll be watching you Paul.

Squeeze an Elephant Into Your Frame

Having good political positions isn't good enough. Having a clear message is a must. As a matter of fact, the way a message is crafted and presented to the public is more important than the validity of the claims and the soundness of the argument. I'm not for dumbing down, nor I am for an Orwellian newspeak.
I used to think that "the truth shall set you free, " but even being armed with a truckload of facts you won't very far in the sphere of politics where, unfortunately, impressions dominate over the facts. The good news is that the progressive base of the Democratic party today is very active in the debate over the party's future, and that, finally, they're setting up think-tanks and grass-roots organizations to establish a two-way communication.

The Democrats seem to have a problem formulating a clear message and picking the right messenger to deliver it. Richard Margolies from the Maccoby Group suggested to me that the Dems, from a personality standpoint, are attracted to obsessives: Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry. These messengers are confusing because they get lost in the details. They make lists, they love the complexity of issues and love explaining them. I couldn't agree more. It's intellectually honest to have the facts on your side, but they can serve as a support, not the focus themselves, and should be available for whomever is interested in looking into them.
Dr. Margolies added, Clinton was not an obsessive, he is a narcissist, as was Johnson. Narcissists tend to articulate, when they are really talented, a clear vision. Bush is not a narcissist, he is our first president with a marketing personality, a person who has little ideas of his own but knows how to play to his market. To that I'd add, Bush came out as good as he did because he was compared to an obsessive. Having so many objective negatives (approval ratings, direction of the country, jobs, economy, etc) against him, Bush nevertheless got more Americans to vote for him than Kerry! Look, I am not looking for the ideal candidate. Maybe they don't exist, and certainly they don't run. Yet, Kerry would have had a good chance of winning if he had never hired the usual losers (read recent post on the consultants) who perpetuate the same stale message and wooden language.

I've been thinking about his for a long time, ever since I realized that too many Americans hold false beliefs on important issues. Yes, it has to do with human psychology, but also it has to do with the images & messages available to them. Even simple things like WMD in Iraq. Further, anyone with a little effort and minimal critical skills could determine that there was no connection between AlQueda and Iraq, and that the latter had nothing to do with 911. Unfortunately, as high as 30-40 % of Americans still maintain those beliefs!
I worked for the Kerry campaign in Ohio, and throughout my stay there I talked to many people. Even those who voted for us admitted to me that Kerry was too confusing! They thought his message wasn't clear enough, and they even held (unfounded) views of him as defined by the other side! Bush's simplistic and emotional message was better received. This is the puzzle we have to solve.

We don't lack the facts or the ability to confront the other side's talking heads. This is important, and we're learning to do so, unlike in the past when we didn't bother to discuss or debate ridiculous arguments. That was a big mistake, because we gave the impression that the Repubs were right! So, again, the impression mattered a lot. Therefore the problem lies elsewhere. The question is how to reach these people. The ones who control the language also tend to win the debates. The Dems must go to school and learn how to frame the issues. I would urge everybody to read George Lakoff's, Don't Think of an Elephant!,which is a blueprint on how the Dems and progressives can win. Lakoff, a linguist, also explains how to frame the issues and use the appropriate language.

We always have to be thinking about the intended audience, because we, thinking progressives, tend to include too many details (which is OK if we're in search of the truth/facts), but we have to craft a powerful message on a few pillars and promote it relentlessly! The details can be available to anyone who cares for them, but too much information, even if correct, often confuses and distracts, making the message less clear. I'm a polisci guy, but like a good comedian I know that if you lose the audience you bomb!

Protection for the Wealthy When They Screw

But the Unprotected Will Have to Pay
The proposed law on bankruptcy has some peculiar provisions, namely the wealthy could shield most of their assets in trusts. Before 1997, they had to hide their assets outside the country, but since then, many states have made it easier for the rich to keep much of what makes them ..comfortable after a bankruptcy! The Sarbanes-Oxley law made the executives personally liable for the illegalities of their companies. Yet, the current bill doesn't touch this topic. The rich can cover their ass(ets), claim bankruptcy and pay no hefty fines for their wrong doings.
Yes, but how about the shame you ask? Surely you understand that the wealthier a person is the more he needs to ..cover his shame, you know, like frequent trips abroad and estates big enough to hide himself from the public! Please, don't ask me to dignify the remark about the "double whammy:" the directors of the bank/credit corporations who screw the public, are themselves the ones who get preferential treatment! Yeah, and the point is?

It is truly obscene to see Republicans and Democrats in agreement ready to screw the American consumer. For example, they voted 74 to 24 not to cap the APR at 30%! I guess that's not high enough. [After all, the creditors would say, you seem to be a very high risk debtor, because you let us push you into that predicament... So, shut up and pay, or else!]
Other amendments that were defeated: to protect old people from losing their (only) home, and meager savings; to require the credit card companies to fully disclose the actual interest amount the consumer has to pay, and the exact terms & conditions under which this can change! You did know that if had a problem with one creditor, all the other creditors could dramatically raise your APR, right?

If you charged someone, say, a 35% interest, it would be considered "loan-sharking," but usury fees & other charges seem to be just fine to our elected "wise guys." Contact them, and voice your concern now. This bill will affect all of us who use credit; it's not only about bankruptcy and perks for the rich people/corporations. This administration has been duping the public for a while now (remember the WMD). You know what the crooks say about the oft-fooled: stupid people deserve to be mugged.

Using the excuse of ending the abuse (read: by the average person), the banking industry, through the Republican one-party-rule, is pushing this bill. Some consumers do pile up debt with reckless spending, but the truth is that most of the people end up in bankruptcy court because of unforeseen or dire circumstances: like a job loss, medical (yes, because of the travesty of our health care system) expenses, and divorce. These are the same people who have no big assets to protect. It's the super-rich who have houses, money, and investments to protect, and the current bill in Congress provides for them in spades. It is also an obscene payback to the credit card companies that made $30 billion in profits last year.

When are we going to stop this mugging? It's puzzling to me that a nation of consumers--and, boy, we do consume--doesn't seem to understand ..consumerism! This proposed bankruptcy law is shameful, no ifs, ends or buts. Don't want to use protection? OK, but at the very least you must say, NO, to this monstrosity!

In an earlier posting on this blog, there was a discussion about the rewards the credit card and banking industries have been getting from the Bush White House. Molly Ivins, Suzan Douglas have written excellent articles on this topic, and PBS's Frontline did a story on the secret history of credit cards last month. If you use money, read and act.

PS>I wanted to elevate a point made by SK (NY) in the comments section here..."What everybody has to understand is this: THE RICH WHO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY DO NOT DO IT FOR MONEY PROBLEMS! They do it to PROTECT their assets and KEEP their money!" Also read Elizabeth Warren's interview; she's a Harvard professor and an authority on the subject.