A video supporting the Matthew Shepherd Act

From The Human Rights Campaign:

The radical right is out in force, spreading lies and flooding Congress with calls and letters against the Matthew Shepard Act. They're out-messaging us five to one.

Don't leave your senators with a distorted view of their constituents' beliefs. Make sure all your friends and family see the powerful video.

You can send a message to your senator from the HRC website.

Di Fi's statement of support for Feingold-Reid

Mr. President.

The time has come for those of us in the Senate who believe that the Iraq war is counterproductive to stand up and make our voice heard. That's why I voted in favor of the Feingold-Reid amendment that would bring this war to an end.

This is not a perfect amendment, nor a perfect resolution to this war. But the outlook for success in Iraq is bleak. And it grows bleaker by the day. This is no fault of the men and women of our armed forces. Our forces have done everything asked of them. They've fought bravely and admirably.

But - as our generals have said repeatedly - this war cannot be won by military means. A political solution is necessary, but there has been no meaningful progress on reconciliation. And the simple fact is failures of the Bush Administration have left our nation with no good options.

Either the bloody status quo can continue indefinitely - an endless string of bombings, IEDs, and sectarian violence. There is no end in sight. No strategy to change course. And no exit plan.

Or our nation can begin to reduce our troop levels in Iraq and remove our soldiers from this cauldron of violence.

The options in front of us might be different if this Administration had shown some willingness to change course, develop an exit strategy, and implement a timetable. And if this were the case, I would not vote for this amendment. But the Administration has signaled over and over and over again the lack of a clear-eyed appraisal of the situation in Iraq.

The American people made their voice heard last November that they wanted a change of course. Democrats in Congress have tried repeatedly to force the Administration to transition the mission. But the Bush Administration has refused. Over and over again. And most recently, President Bush vetoed responsible legislation to set benchmarks and a timetable for redeployment.

So I believe that the time has come for the Senate to assert its will and to carry out its responsibility under Article I of the Constitution "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." The time has come to recognize the reality of this civil war and the inability of an American fighting force to quell hundreds of years of hatred, combined with the view of the Iraqi people that our brave men and women are seen as an occupying force.

The time has come to take the strongest possible position.

The time has come to say this war must end.

Of the vehicles we have available for us to do this, this comes the closest. It may not be perfect in its timing, but it clearly says that the time has come for the Senate of the United States to exert its Constitutional obligation, which after all is the only finite option available to us to signal the seriousness of our view.

This is not a vote that I take lightly, and I wish that I did not have to take it. This situation - the Administration's lack of flexibility, its continuation of failed strategies, and current events in the evolution of the civil war - leave me with no alternative.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

10 mind-boggling reasons for impeachment

From Democrats.com:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina and in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Sign the petition for impeachment at Democrats.com. They're getting close to reaching their goal of 100,000 signatures.

Turks rally for a secular government

One and a half million people protesting the encroachment of religious law into their secular state. Amazing. Who would've thought so many people capable of that?

The protest took place today in Izmir, Turkey, where the pro-Islamic ruling party tried to strong-arm a presidential candidate into office by passing a constitutional amendment allowing the people, rather than the parliament, to elect the president and then by calling for early elections. The current president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, is a secularist who keeps the government in check by vetoing bills and appointments. (Now isn't that a switch?)

You can learn more in the BBC article.

It's encouraging to learn that the judiciary of a Muslim country "fiercely guards" secular law and that there is such a strong will at the grassroots level to maintain secularism. Contrast this to Chief Justice Scalia and to the Dominionist movement in the U.S.

Dear Mr. President

The image links to Pink's page on MySpace, where "Dear Mr. President" can be played. I wanted to link directly to the song, but zey haf vays to keep me from doing zat. Thanks to Jonathan Versen of Hugo Zoom for letting me know about the song.

Listen. Imagine.

My email to Rudy Giuliani

Never ever again will this country ever be
on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack
us if I have anything to say about it. And
make no mistake, the Democrats want to
put us back on defense!

I'm not sure I understand what is wimpy about defending the nation. Keeping a ready military to defend the nation against outside attack sounds like something the Founding Fathers would have encouraged. I think you would agree with that.

But you're wanting the U.S. to be constantly on the offensive. Unfortunately, when you use offense as defense, you will never reach a point when you can stop the waging of war. You will have conflicts, which the U.S. itself provokes, in several theaters at once. The military will be stretched thin and will be unable to contain any of the conflicts effectively. I believe you would agree with this too.

Most likely, the provocative statments in your speech in New Hampshire were simply speechifying, revving up the crowd at a pep rally. Not even the most hawkish of Republican leaders would deny that being constantly on the offensive militarily would be an enormous drain on the economy. The entire nation would have to become employees of the corporations which benefit from the waging of war in order for it to make any economic sense.

The point you seem to miss, or to ignore for murky reasons, is that American aggressiveness fuels terrorism. If the U.S. were to "wimp out" and take a less aggressive stance in the world, the leaders of jihad would find that there is much less impetus for the ordinary guy to become a jihadist. The leaders of jihad could rant all they want about the evils of complacency, but the population would simply want to get back to the business of living, now that the evil giant no longer looms over them. Ask the terrorists themselves. Their primary motivation for waging war is the defense of the Islamic state. When that state is not under attack, they are not motivated to wage war. Ask the terrorists yourself. Go ahead. Ask them.

...

Addendum 5/12: Oh. Giuliani's pro-war rhetoric is intended to compensate for his pro-choice position. Actually, that combination makes more sense to me than pro-war plus pro-life. It's okay to terminate soldiers but it's not okay to terminate barely formed fetuses and stem cells? At least Giuliani's position treats fetuses and soldiers equally, rather than elevating the worth of the fetus and the stem cell far above the worth of the soldier.

A new way to grok Jesus

A sculpture of the crucified Christ made of chocolate and on display during the Easter season? Now there's an image loaded with ironic symbolism. I wonder, of all the people who loudly protested the display of the sculpture, how many of them have received or placed chocolate crosses in Easter baskets at one time or another? Probably a majority.

I remember chocolate crosses in my Easter baskets when I was a kid. My parents didn't like the secular aspects of Easter and chose crosses instead of bunnies to remind me of the real meaning of Easter.

So why all the protests? How does a chocolate Christ demean Easter more than a chocolate cross does? It's because the Christ sculpture is anatomically correct? So, if the sculpture had included the traditional loin cloth, there would've been no protests? But public sculptures have been anatomically correct for some time now. It's the medium? If Cavarallo's sculpture had been cast in bronze, there would be no protests? Is it the color? If it had been made of white chocolate, would that be more acceptable to the protestors? Is it the sheer size of the piece of chocolate? I'm sure chocolate Jesuses on the cross no more than several inches in length are currently available somewhere in the world, but we haven't heard any protests about them.

I don't know. I think the protestors are doing exactly what a very clever, shrewd sculptor intended. His name recognition has just skyrocketed around the world.

I'd like to see a companion sculpture of Christ in chocolate with almonds. Or companion sculptures could be available in plain and peanut.

A giant Pope-on-a-rope on public display would probably cause an equal amount of protesting by Catholics. Maybe that will be Cavallaro's next project. Or has it been done?

An atheist and a blonde walk into a bar...

Dan Newman, a Democratic political strategist, recently said "Anti-atheism remains the last remaining prejudice that a majority of Americans don't mind fessing up to." For most Americans, the atheist/agnostic is in the same category as the dumb blonde. Nobody gets riled when they hear a demeaning joke about a dumb blonde like they would if the same demeaning joke were told about a Jew or an African-American or a handicapped person or a gay person. The same is true if an atheist is the butt of the joke. Who cares? Atheists are just grizzled, muttering, God-hating curmudgeons nobody listens to. We need to tell demeaning jokes about somebody, so telling them about dumb blondes and atheists is still politically correct.

It's significant that Congressman Pete Stark's recent acknowledgement of his agnosticism made headlines. Should something like that have been news at all? Newman said that a confession of non-belief is "political suicide." It remains to be seen if Stark will survive the suicide attempt.

What's even more significant is that, while Stark is the highest-ranking elected official who has acknowledged his agnosticism, Karl Rove is actually the highest-ranking official, elected or appointed, who has acknowledged his agnosticism. And that acknowledgement has not made headlines.

On the Amazon detail page for The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power, Vanessa Bush, in her review for Booklist, writes "Himself an agnostic, Rove has masterminded a strategy that has helped to broaden the Republican base beyond its pro-business, anti-government heritage to appeal to devout evangelicals. In a calculated effort to weaken the Democratic base, Rove has engineered plans to use the anti-abortion stance to attract Catholics, the anti-gay stance to attract black churchgoers, and the pro-Israel stance to attract Jews."

Oww. Information like that hurts my brain. Why did I have to learn that Rove is an agnostic? I thought he was probably an Episcopalean or a Catholic. But even more mystifying is the fact that, according to Larisa Alexandrovna's review of the same book on TheRawStory, Rove's adoptive father, Louis Rove, became openly gay when Rove was a young adult, and Rove loves and admires him and speaks of Louis' unselfish love during Rove's childhood. Alexandrovna continues "One might think that such a sensitive family situation might have kept Rove from using it as a political ace-in-the-hole. Instead, Rove made sexual orientation—specifically, gay marriage—the centerpiece of a presidential campaign aimed at getting out conservative voters in states like Ohio." Oww oww owww! Stop! Stop!

There's a word for the paradoxical divisions in the brain that Rove exhibits: schizophrenia. In looking over the explanation of schizophrenia (Greek for "divided mind") in the medical encyclopedia on the website of the National Institutes of Health, I see that about the only listed symptom that applies (as far as I know) is "delusional thoughts of persecution or of a grandiose nature." That certainly applies to Rove. As Bush writes in her Booklist review: "The authors maintain that these tactics are all part of a scheme to maintain Republican dominance of all aspects of American government for the next 30 years."

Could we have Rove undergo psychological testing? Aren't you curious to know how mentally healthy an extremely influential Deputy Chief of Staff is? Inquiring minds want to know.

There's no question of his intelligence. The authors of The Architect say Rove is "a man of almost startling intelligence." Nobody in his right mind would think that Rove develops political strategies that are in extreme contradiction to his personally held beliefs because he's too dumb to know any better. Naw, he ain't dumb. But it's true that high intelligence is often accompanied by mental illness of some type. A mild, subdiagnostic case of schizophrenia might explain how Rove can focus so exclusively on winning in the political game, to the exclusion of considering how winning affects him personally. If Rove's objective—the ideal, ultimate neoconservative government successfully taking over all three branches of government and nullifying all liberal influence—were to be achieved, Rove himself—the agnostic—and his father—the openly gay man—would be at significant risk.

Can great generals apologize and still be great?

My email to the Dept. of Defense:

Once again we need to remind people that no one chooses to be gay or lesbian. There is no advantage of any kind to being homosexual, and no gay man ever consciously chose to "forsake the natural use of the woman." Homosexuality occurs naturally and runs in families. So labeling as immoral the "acts" "committed" by homosexuals makes as much sense as labeling as immoral the "acts" "committed" by left-handers, those with brown eyes, or the French. A person consciously chooses to have brown eyes? Of course not. People must come to understand that being gay or lesbian arises from the same source as other physical and psychological traits.

I know that Gen. Pace means well in condemning homosexual acts. He simply wants to be a good person, a good follower of Christ and the Church. But the tens of thousands of gay men and women serving in the military also want to be good people, and Gen. Pace's comments demean them and negate their service to the country, service that is as courageous and honorable as that of non-homosexual members of the military.

Gen. Pace needs to apologize publicly for his comments regarding homosexuals. His comments were extremely inappropriate. An apology is required.

A bundle of sticks by any other name would burn as brightly

My email to CNN:

Did I miss this story on CNN? Or has there really been no mention of Ann Coulter suggesting that John Edwards is gay? Only she didn't use the word "gay." Surely this story has been included in a broadcast on CNN and I've just missed it. Surely. The story has been available at UPI since 11:17 pm on March 2, but when I did a search on CNN.com a few minutes ago for "coulter," the most recent of the search results was a story from December. And since the search on CNN.com is powered by Yahoo, and a search for "coulter faggot" on Yahoo produces numerous results, one can't claim that the search engine just hasn't found the story yet. Surely I'm missing something.

Faith founded on solid ephemeral rock

While reading the customer reviews on Amazon for the book God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger, I came across this comment by DB Wilson of Alberta, Canada: "Where is the Inquisition when you need it? Their work is obviously far from done. There are many souls that are still in need of corporeal correction." Whoa, dude. DB wants to see me burned at the stake?? Burned at the stake because I'm questioning the validity of religion?? Okay, now I'm scared.

I'm baffled and demoralized every time I come across the comments of the faithful regarding those who question their faith. What is it? Why is it like this? The Keepers of the Faith have the most ephemeral of foundations for their beliefs, and they become uncompromisingly militant when someone points this out. Why is an ephemeral foundation—simply tradition and religious writings—sufficient for them? Why aren't they looking for a more solid foundation for the beliefs that affect almost every aspect of their lives? And take a good chunk of their incomes? When I think about the money people spend on religion, I'm mystified. Would they deposit their paychecks in a bank that has no more foundation than literature consisting of the history of the bank, some poetry, and letters to account holders and a centuries-old tradition of everyone unquestioningly depositing their paychecks there because everyone else does even though no one has ever been able to make a withdrawal? I don't know. Wouldn't a bank with no more foundation than that seem a little dubious?

I'm currently reading The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman. Amazing. It's possible that everything we know from the Bible up through the middle of the 7th century BC was fabricated by Josiah, the King of Judah (639-609 BC), in an attempt to unify Judah and Israel and relocate the center of power to Jerusalem. Archaeology has turned up no evidence of a grand Solomonic kingdom or temple in the 10th century BC, and archaeologists are now concluding that David and Solomon were simply tribal chieftains. The excavated layers that do reveal grand architecture were originally attributed to the time of Solomon, but those layers are more accurately attributed to the time of Ahab and Jezebel and the Omride Dynasty in the northern kingdom of Israel in the 9th century BC, a time when Jerusalem was still not much more than a small town.

Finkelstein and Silberman explain that, in 720 BC, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V captured the capital of the more powerful northern kingdom and relocated the Israelites of the northern kingdom to Assyria. A century later, with the withdrawal of Assyrian control in the north, Josiah, the king of the less-powerful, agriculturally based southern kingdom of Judah, saw the power vacuum as an opportunity for the southern kingdom finally to emerge from the shadow of the northern kingdom. He vilified the Omride Dynasty of the northern kingdom—especially Ahab and Jezebel—as completely corrupt and elevated David and Solomon of the southern kingdom to mythical stature. Since the people didn't have archival news footage or public libraries to check the facts, they accepted the new history and we have the current perception of the founding of Israel.

The vehicle Josiah used to present his new history to the people was a "book of the law" that was "found" in the temple during renovations.

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. (2 Kings 22:8)

One wonders how a book of such importance could have been lost in the temple in the first place, but I suppose that, in order to protect it from being destroyed by an invading army, the book could have been hidden in a wall or under a floor and its location subsequently forgotten. It's plausible. But it's just as plausible that the book, which has been identified as an early version of Deuteronomy, could have been created so that it could be "found." Finkelstein and Silberman note Deuteronomy's uniqueness from the other books of the Pentateuch:

Deuteronomy is the only book of the Pentateuch that asserts it contains the "words of the covenant" that all Israel must follow (29:9). It is the only book that prohibits sacrifice outside "the place which the Lord your God will choose" (12:5), while the other books of the Pentateuch repeatedly refer, without objection, to worship at altars set up throughout the land. Deuteronomy is the only book to describe the national Passover sacrifice in a national shrine (16:1-8). [p. 280]

Finkelstein and Silberan also state:

It is important to note that the book of Deuteronomy contains ethical laws and provisions for social welfare that have no parallel anywhere else in the Bible. Deuteronomy calls for the protection of the individual, for the defense of what we would call today human rights and human dignity. [p. 285]

The result of the appearance of the book was the methodical destruction of sites of polytheistic worship and the establishment of monotheism, the development of a unified statehood, and the segregation of Israelites from Canaanites. The real polytheistic, Canaanitic Israel was replaced with a fabricated monotheistic Israel whose origins were said to be in Ur on the Euphrates.

Amazing. If that isn't an ephemeral foundation for all the People of the Book—Jews, Christians and Muslims—then what is? As a result of how Finkelstein and Silberman read the archaeological data, there was no Abraham. No Isaac, no Jacob. At least as they are described in the Pentateuch. F & S theorize that the stories of the Patriarchs were woven together from the legends and folk histories of different communities throughout Israel and Judah in order to merge their separate identities into a single national identity. So "Abraham" (the person or persons out of whom the community legends grew) may never have even met "Isaac," much less been his father. "Isaac" and "Jacob" may have lived in widely separated eras and locations.

If you are a thinking person, this will shift the tectonic plates of your world. Every part of Scripture is built on what came before it. Islam and Christianity are both outgrowths of Judaism. Each era of Jewish history is a result of the preceding era, back to the founding of the Jewish nation with God's covenant to Abraham. But there is a conspicuous absence of evidence for a powerful, united kingdom of David and Solomon. There is also an absence of evidence that, on entering Canaan, Joshua led the people on a clean sweep of the cities of Canaan in order to take possession of the land. Archaeologists have been trying for a century to find evidence of the Israelites' desert encampment at Kadesh-Barnea in eastern Sinai, but they've found no evidence at all of any encampments dating to the time of Ramesses II (during which the Israelites would have labored on the construction of the city of Raamses [Exodus 1:11]), much less evidence of 600,000 people encamped there for thirty-eight years. So it's not unreasonable to wonder if there actually was a covenant between God and Abraham, promising the land to his innumerable descendants.

What this means is that there's a very tall office tower that is now missing its ground floor. We can expect the office tower to continue floating a floor above the sidewalk indefinitely?

Maybe. Faith can move mountains.

Dialing for De-escalation

From MoveOn.org: Can you sign up for a time to call your senator this Thursday? Here's the sign-up link: http://pol.moveon.org/virtualmarch/?rc=iraq_moveon_bloggers.

This nifty Virtual March link allows you to see what times others signed up for, so calls can be spread throughout the day. Also, you can opt to get a text message reminding you to call.

We're not just calling Congress. All through the week, the Virtual March has been pushing forward on many fronts—building energy towards the big day:

• Blogs such as Daily Kos, MyDD, Firedoglake, and Digby have raised awareness and encouraged people to join the Virtual March.



• People can download an anti-escalation Instant Messenger icon, join an anti-escalation Facebook group, or sign up to help stop escalation in other tech-savvy ways by clicking here:
  http://pol.moveon.org/virtualmarch/innovation.html



• Folks can use MoveOn's one-of-a-kind call technology to contact MoveOn members in target states—whose senators most need persuading—and invite them to call their senator tomorrow. People can make calls by clicking here:
  http://pol.moveon.org/virtualmarch/mem2mem.html



• MoveOn members are pledging to get our friends and family involved in the march.



• We're organizing MoveOn members in Washington, D.C. to deliver close to 600,000 messages to the Senate opposing escalation in person on February 1.

Passing a bipartisan resolution opposing escalation will be the strongest stand Congress has taken on the war since it began—and it will give our leaders in Washington the support they need to take future actions to stop the war.

Thursday is going to be a huge day of action all over the country. MoveOn members, along with members of True Majority, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, USAction, CampusProgress and many others are working together to make sure Congress gets the message: Americans not only oppose escalation, but are counting on Congress to block it. And if enough of us get involved, we can really win this vote. [End quote]

Peace and joy, now and always

Tickle-Me Jesus

In case there aren't any TMX Elmos left when you hit the stores, check out this hot toy, Tickle-Me Jesus, for your trend-conscious kids. He's 12 inches tall and fully articulated, and when He's tickled He quotes Scripture. But He also performs miracles—He can make blind dolls see and can raise dead dolls back to life. He will also be an important teacher for your developing children—if your little girl's fingers wander up inside His robe, Tickle-Me Jesus will admonish her: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." If your little boy's fingers wander inside His robe, He will admonish him: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." What better way to start shaping young, impressionable minds than with Tickle-Me Jesus!

$20.00   Order now!

For more information, click on the image above.

Water2wine jugs, loaves and fishes, crown of thorns and cross sold separately. Also available: Tickle-Me Moses, David and Mary.