TailOverTeaKettle.com

Yesterday I wrote how ashamed I was of the anti-Bush protesters who turned out to make noise during President Bush’s memorial at Dr. Martin Luther King’s gravesite in Atlanta. Now that another day has passed, the AJC happily reports War protesters proud they got to jeer Bush.

"No protester has ever been that close to Bush," crowed organizer Kelli Potts on Friday afternoon as she recalled the Thursday protest when about 1,000 people shouted "Bush Go Home" and waved antiwar placards as the president laid a wreath beside the crypt of Martin Luther King Jr.

"They tried to move us back — but there were just too many of us," said Potts. The group got within 100 yards of the president.

The solemn minute the president spent in silent prayer became a photo opportunity for not only the president but also those who opposed his policies.

It wasn’t the biggest anti-Bush rally in recent months. In October 15,000 people marched in San Francisco demanding Bush pull American troops out of Iraq. But the Atlanta protest echoed nationally.

In Friday’s New York Times, a picture of Bush laying the wreath ran above this headline: "Protesters Chant and Boo As Bush Honors Dr. King." USA Today’s headline read: "Bush Gets Booed During His Visit to MLK’s Grave." The Chicago Tribune reported: "Crowd jeers Bush at M.L. King’s Tomb." Local TV stations and networks covered the protest.

State Senate Majority Leader Tom Price (R-Roswell) said Friday he recognized protesters’ right to speak their minds, but, he added, the timing was suspect: "It was disappointing that people take that type of opportunity to tread on something that ought to be more solemn."

The protest bespoke the division between the city of Atlanta, historically Democrat and liberal, and the rest of Georgia, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1992, when Bill Clinton carried the state. In 2002 the state elected Sonny Perdue its first Republican governor in 130 years.

The organizers called the demonstration a strategic coup for their ability to rally so many on short notice.

They were able to do that, they said, because the wreath-laying united opponents of the war with civil rights groups who were offended by what they perceived as Bush’s exploiting King’s legacy.

I’m certain that it made Ms. Potts so happy as to ‘crow’ that they were able to shout at the President. Perhaps the groups feel some validation that newspapers reported their presence instead of focusing on the President.

The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition was one group singled out as leading the anti-war protest. Their website gives some explainations about their group:

We, the people, are certain that a better world is possible. We believe in a future where all people strive to live in harmony with each other and the natural environment; where conflict is resolved non-violently; and where the root causes of social and economic injustices are eradicated. We believe there can only be peace in the presence of justice, so as we oppose war, we also work for justice and the protection of human rights for all. We believe that peace and security at home are linked to peace and security abroad. We welcome a diversity of ideas to help us see the connections between our government¹s propensity for war and the injustices
that afflict our communities. We welcome all who strive to create a better world.

Also, the main page gives the following invitation:

The Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition is a diverse group of community, faith-based, and student organizations and individuals from across Georgia working for global justice and peace. We call for foreign and domestic policies leading to true social and economic security. WAR IS STILL NOT THE ANSWER. OCCUPATION IS NOT LIBERATION! We call on our government to end its occupation of Iraq, to reject its policy of pre-emptive war, and embrace International cooperation through the United Nations. Rejecting U.N. inspections, our government launched a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq killing and wounding thousands of Iraqis and devastating their country with bombs. Our military is now an occupying force, and the lives of citizens of Iraq and of our military, if not the entire world, are at risk every day we continue this occupation. The Bush administration makes frequent threats against what it calls ‘rogue nations’ in the region, stirring anti-American rage while risking worldwide terrorist attacks. We call on our government to shift Federal budget priorities from the war machine to urgent domestic social needs and to restore basic Constitutional rights. The Bush administration is pushing both a military spending increase and tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing funds for education, health care, and veterans’ benefits. Several administration actions threaten further erosion of fundamental U.S. Constitutional guarantees.

I hope that we all look forward to a world where there will be war no more. Where there would be no violence. I am fairly confident the the United Nations is not the body that will see things through to that time, but that is irrelevant. If you are a true pacifist, then be a pacifist. Do not confuse pacifism with ‘global justice and peace’. No matter what you think of WMDs, or George W. Bush, or socialist agendas, please do not for a moment delude yourself into thinking that Saddam ever dispensed ‘justice and peace’.

The gathering outside of MLK’s grave were not about convincing President Bush to change direction on Iraq or to have your opinions heard. After all, you do have the right to free speech, even though ‘justice and peace’ only occurred to you in December of 2002. He is a man of resolve and character, and for that I truely believe that we can be thankful. No, this tacky display was meant to get publicity for yourselves and to attempt to seek justifcation and relevancy of your actions by seeing your ‘protests’ reported in the press. It’s may be fun to be an idealist, but please then try to be people of action, not mearly of slogan.

In contrast to your words, let me offer some thoughts from Tony Blair about war given in a speech on February 15, 2003:

Every time I have asked us to go to war, I have hated it. I spent months trying to get Milosevic to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, delaying action while we negotiated endlessly. I agreed with President Bush not to strike Afghanistan after September 11th but instead to offer the Taliban, loathsome though they were, an ultimatum: yield up Al Qaida and we will let you stay. We used force in the end, but in Kosovo only as a last resort, and though I rejoiced with his people at the fall of Milosevic, as I rejoiced with the Afghan people at the fall of the Taliban, I know that amid the necessary military victory there was pain and suffering that brought no joy at all.

At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored. If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism, they will not disappear. They will just feed and grow on our weakness.

When people say if you act, you will provoke these people; when they say now: take a lower profile and these people will leave us alone, remember: Al Qaida attacked the US, not the other way round. Were the people of Bali in the forefront of the anti-terror campaign? Did Indonesia ‘make itself a target’? The terrorists won’t be nice to us if we’re nice to them. When Saddam drew us into the Gulf War, he wasn’t provoked. He invaded Kuwait.

So: where has it come to? Everyone agrees Saddam must be disarmed. Everyone agrees without disarmament, he is a danger.

No one seriously believes he is yet co-operating fully. In all honesty, most people don’t really believe he ever will. So what holds people back? What brings thousands of people out in protests across the world? And let’s not pretend, not really that in March or April or May or June, people will feel different. It’s not really an issue of timing or 200 inspectors versus 100. It is a right and entirely understandable hatred of war. It is moral purpose, and I respect that.

It is as one woman put it to me: I abhor the consequences of war.

And I know many in our own Party, many here today will agree with her; and don’t understand why I press the case so insistently. And I have given you the geo-political reason - the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction and its link with terrorism. And I believe it.

If I am honest about it, there is another reason why I feel so strongly about this issue. It is a reason less to do with my being Prime Minister than being a member of the Labour Party, to do with the progressive politics in which we believe. The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the United Nations mandate on Weapons of Mass Destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.

Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

But there are also consequences of "stop the war."

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five - 70 percent of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Where 60 percent of the people depend on Food Aid.

Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam’s jails and are routinely executed.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn’t a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this. I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:

If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

Please don’t promote weakness with peace. The absence of conflict is not peace, but simply the absence of conflict… for the moment. And when you demand us to "End the U.S. occupation of Iraq, reject preemptive war, and reaffirm the multilateral authority of the United Nations." - think for a moment about what this means, and how you reach this choice of words and conclusion. Do not be ruled by jealousy and blindness of class warfare. Do not be ruled by the sins of others.

              

Patriotism is treated by some as a dirty word. I don’t believe that at all. I submit for your approval a sermon from Rev. Jack W. Baca of The Village Community Presbyterian Church, Rancho Santa Fe, CA. I don’t know how to say it any better:

Just a few days from now our nation will pause a moment to celebrate that day, on July 4, 1776, when our original thirteen colonies declared their independence from the colonial rule of Great Britain and their intention to form a new national union quite unlike anything seen in human history, one based on the fundamental principle of freedom. Some of the nearly 300 million citizens of this land will hardly notice, some will celebrate by shopping at the sales, some will celebrate with cookouts and a few hours of relaxation, and some will mark the historic moment with speeches and fireworks and perhaps even a few moments of serious reflection on what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America.

Several months ago I read somewhere that there is a movement afoot to begin calling this holiday not by the more popular name "the Fourth of July," but by its more historically and descriptively accurate name, "Independence Day." It seems that a disturbingly large percentage of the American citizenry is largely unaware of what this day actually commemorates, and so rather than refer to it by its calendar designation, we had best go back to the older term that reminds us of that revolutionary moment when a handful of the colonies’ leaders signed their names to a document that put them at war with the most powerful nation on earth at that time.

This particular Independence Day finds our nation in perhaps its most patriotic mood since the days of World War II, primarily due to the fact that last September we endured a devastating attack not just on our homeland but also on our national ideals. We are a nation at war, granted, a war unlike any we’ve fought before, but a war nonetheless. Events of the last several months have also revealed that this war for the soul of America is being fought not only against foreign forces. Huge scandals in the business world fueled by sheer criminal greed have shaken our economy and our trust in the great American experiment in free enterprise. And just last week one of the most beloved expressions of our national identity was declared to be unfit and even illegal for schoolchildren to recite. The United States of America, not so much in its physical or legal manifestations, but in its manifestation as a political ideal founded in the desire for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," seems to be under attack from without and from within.

And so here we gather today in this house of worship, dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual life as we learn to follow Jesus. Today we who profess allegiance to Jesus must deal with the fact that we also live in this nation, at once so strong and yet so fragile. And we must ask ourselves, as have our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the ages past, what does it mean to be both a follower of Jesus and a citizen of a nation? In the midst of so much patriotic ferment and fervor, is there something we can identify and perhaps appropriate for ourselves that can be called a Christian patriotism? I believe that there is.

As we ask that question we must be aware that there are those who absolutely refuse to allow any consideration of a relationship between faith and politics, between the church and the state, between the world of religion and the world of government. And there are those, on the other side of the spectrum, who see essentially no difference between patriotism and faith, who admit no conflict between being a loyal American and being a loyal Christian. There are non-Christians who would build an impenetrable wall between God and country, and there are Christians who think that God and country are the same thing. But it is somewhere between these two poles that you and I must negotiate a serious and thoughtful approach to patriotism that takes into account our religious convictions.

For those who believe that it is never wise to discuss religion and politics, it must come as something of a surprise or a disappointment to recognize that the Bible is an incredibly political book. From the first pages of the book when we hear that the world belongs to God to the last pages of the book that say essentially the same thing, the Bible deals with all the important human questions which are inherently political. Two pivotal passages are those that we’ve read from the book of the Acts of the Apostles and from Paul’s letter to Rome. In the latter passage we have the affirmation that government can be a good thing and should be accepted and supported by those who seek to do good. Good government is a gift from God, we believe. In the former passage we have the opposite sentiment, however, as the first apostles rejected the authority of the government when it came to government’s attempt to silence their proclamation of Jesus. Good government is a gift from God, but sometimes government can oppose God’s purposes, and then it is another matter entirely.

These two passages [Romans 13:1-6, Acts 5:27-29] outline the opposite poles between which a responsible Christian approach to patriotism is lodged. A Christian patriotism supports and encourages the good things that government can provide. A Christian patriotism fights for those ideals of states and nations that embody the ideals of our faith, things like freedom, equality, law and order, and the provision of a context in which people can freely worship. But a Christian patriotism is never blind to the limitations of government, or to the failings of states and nations. A Christian patriotism is always aware that no nation, no matter how lofty its goals or successful its people, is superior to God. A Christian patriotism always understands that our ultimate citizenship lies in a nation not of human making, but in the kingdom of God.

There are some who feel very uncomfortable with any acknowledgement of the nation within the context of worship and faith. I understand the concern. But I must insist that, in the spirit of both Paul as he acknowledged the good government can propagate, and in the spirit of Peter as he refused to allow the state to usurp the proper authority of God, it is an appropriate and Christian thing to do to celebrate our national heritage, especially as that heritage itself acknowledges the higher role of God.

I believe that Christian people should look beyond mere flag waving, and look deeper than blind allegiance, and look with greater wisdom than pure nationalistic pride, and see the deep connections between our faith and our nation. I believe that Christian people should never cease to remind our fellow citizens of the priority of God over country and the ways in which our country indeed is grounded in a love for God. I believe that Christian people should sing with great pride those national songs that recognize that God is marching on in the great quest for freedom, that God is the Author of our liberty, that God has shed his grace on us and that we must pray for God to continue to bless America. I believe that Christian people should remind our nation of the second verse of our national anthem:

O thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just;
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust!"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Several months ago on a trip to New York City I visited the site of the former World Trade Center. After standing for over an hour at a vantage point high over the site and contemplating the incredible meaning of that place, I walked through the streets of the city. Just a few blocks away is the New York Stock Exchange, and across the street is Federal Hall, where, on April 30, 1789, George Washington gave his first presidential inaugural address. In his speech, Washington said, "there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." President Washington knew and acknowledged that the strength of the new nation lay in its dedication to the "rules of order and right" that God himself has established. He ended his address with this line: "I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend." President Washington understood that whatever good would come of the new nation, would come from the blessing of God.

There is such a thing as a Christian patriotism. It is a patriotism that celebrates the best of our nation while calling our nation always to be better than it is. It is a patriotism that thanks God for our success and prays to God for the will to right what is wrong in our nation so that we will truly be his instrument on earth. It is a patriotism that will never shrink from proclaiming that, whether some believe it or not, we are "one nation, under God," the God whom we have met and whom we even now follow in his son, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

              

After weeks of speculation, campaigning, and debate, the Democratic candidates finally reach a crescendo with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Some will drop out of the race. Some already have. And yet I’m left to wonder why these are such important events. Their importance is mostly defined by appearances. Media-fueled pronouncements that certain candidates have ‘momentum’ and so forth. So flows money, and so goes the campaigns. But aren’t these the same Iowa and New Hampshire that gave us Democratic primary winners of Paul Tsongas, Gary Hart, Edmund Muskie, Tom Harkin, Richard Gephardt, and even Pat Buchanan & John McCain. I don’t think it’s so much for the real predictive power of the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire, but rather the culmination of weeks and weeks of focus that generates the buzz. And usually a front-runner is soon annointed.

But this year we had an early sprint out in front. Howard Dean, who did everything but announce he would try George Bush for war crimes to the delight of his fans, secured the early endorsements and the media frontrunner nod, before even a single primary was held. But Dr. Dean must remember that this is a long race and a quick sprint does not endurance make. So while he tried to go for the knockout, the honeymoon ended. Time and Newsweek simultaneously ganged up on him. Not to mention that his own mouth produces enough grist for the other candidates to mill when they go on the attack. In fact, it made their job easier - giving them something to put down rather than having to build themselves up. So now we have an Iowa race that’s too close to call between Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards. In New Hampshire, Clark is camped out alone waiting for Dean and the race to come to him. But let them all remember, the media wants a close race. Get too far ahead, and they will bring you back together. That’s the main reason why anyone can win the Presidential Election once they get the nomination. It doesn’t matter that Reagan destroyed Mondale in a landslide, in the days before the election it was perceived, predicted, and reported quite differently. And I think the heady days of 1992 (and with special thanks to Ross Perot), finally proved to many in the media that they actually had done more than report and subtely influence, they actually had the power to move the election. Don’t think it will be any different this time. The entire flock of Democratic candidates, with the possible exception of Lieberman and Gephardt, seems to suffer from foot in the mouth disease or worse, a distressing relativistic approach to positions - a political Zelig.

I am not so much interested in the results from Iowa or New Hampshire. But it does signal the beginning of critical days ahead. And I know it will make my blood pressure rise through the process.

              

Yesterday I was at the Atlanta International Airport. Little did I know, but someone else was going to pass through there shortly, although I doubt I would have seen him walking through the South Terminal. George Bush came to Atlanta to pay his respects at the gravesite of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. here by laying a wreath at the site. At a time when most people will be happy simply to take a day off of work and school, it was an appropriate gesture from the sitting President. He did not give a speech. He did not use images of the civil rights leader in a campaign ad. He asked for nothing.

But I am ashamed. Ashamed of my city.

I hope the fact that protesters tried to disrupt the moment really did not bother him. He did not appear let it distract him. I guess they felt they were making some sort of statement by trying to turn it into a politcal moment, all the while accusing him of doing that very thing.

As reported in the The Oklahoma Daily:

Though anti-war protesters, environmental groups and human rights activists were among the demonstrators, many in the crowd were blacks who said they opposed Bush’s visit because his policies have gone against most of the values King stood for.

"He is desecrating Dr. King’s grave by placing a wreath there," said longtime civil rights activist Billy McKinney. "It’s all political. Why else would he come here when he was not invited?"

Bush, accompanied by King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, and other family members, appeared unfazed by the demonstrators, who were barricaded across the street and blocked from view by several large city buses. Still, their chants and boos could be heard throughout the area.

I certainly don’y have to be the one to tell anyone about the ravings of Billy McKinney, a former Georgia State Senator who once tried to explain away his daughter Cynthia’s election woes because "Jews have bought everybody." But others were quoted expressing similar disgust at his presence.

I don’t know how many people were there. 400? 700? 1000? Reported to have been carrying signs with original slogans such as ‘Peace, Not War,’ ‘Bush Zionist Puppet,’ ‘Bush You Stink,’ ‘Impeach The Liar,’ and ‘Money For Jobs And Housing, Not War.’

Nevermind that in past years, politicians like Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the occasion for speech making and made no secret of their intent of trying to mobilize black voters to their cause. But I guess it is different. They are Democrats. And apparently only Democrats are the only ones ‘invited’ to this party. Republicans need not appear, because their very appearance brings contempt. I suppose he could have skipped this… and I’m sure would have been accused of ignoring Dr. King altogether.

Instead, this visit was summarized by Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition as "Georgians are expressing outrage at the transparent opportunism and hypocrisy in President Bush’s decision to lay a wreath at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s crypt on what would have been Dr. King’s 75th birthday, Thursday, January 15. In an administration characterized by hidden agendas and the exploitation of fear for partisan gain, most Americans recognize this King birthday photo-op as nothing more than another election-year ploy to improve the president’s polling numbers with African Americans.&quot.

I guess it is impossible for some people to let go of their agendas for even a single day. If the votes of black voters are so easy bought, simply for the price of a single wreath, then I suppose there would be much for the Democrats to worry about. I don’t think that is the case, or even the intent. But I am ashamed it had to happen in Atlanta. People need to grow up.

              

I don’t have first-hand knowledge of Howard Dean’s personal relationship with God. So I really can not comment whether or not he is sincere when deciding that it’s appropriate to sprinkle a few references to the Bible and Jesus when he wants to impress a place called ‘the South’. If you want a good summary of Dean’s new path, read Ann Coulter’s latest column (The Jesus Thing). Whether or not Dean can properly place Job in the New or Old Testiment is not what bothers me. His past church affiliation is not my concern. I will be happy to accept him at his word and believe that he is a commited Christian. Now unlike characterization of ‘the South’, being a Christian does not automatically stamp out a complete set of positions on every issue. But with that acceptance, there is an expectation. An expectation that it’s not just pleasant to read some stories about a nice man named Jesus who gives us some good ideas to think about, but that this is a force that truely shapes your life and your actions and how you think and behave.

So that is why my stomach turns when reading the story in the Washington Post (Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions).

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

All I can do is echo the sentiments attributed to Diane Knipper in the Washington Times (Dean ‘vulnerable’ on same-sex unions):

"If Howard Dean wants to talk about religion with most Christian Americans, and in fact most religious believers, then homosexual unions is not the issue he wants to talk about,&quotl she said. "He is espousing issues that only a tiny minority of the church support, and he’d be better off not talking about religion."
She said Mr. Dean gets himself in trouble when he tries to make such a theological argument, because most churchgoers attend churches that teach that homosexuality, or at least homosexual behavior, is a personal choice. "If you want to use religion to connect with people then it needs to be one
people respect or recognize or identify with, and Mr. Dean’s theological views only represent a tiny minority of American Christians," she said.

But even more troubling is how his faith is applied in his life. Back in the Post article, some interesting trends continue:

Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did. "My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

Earlier Tuesday, when he and the other candidates were asked at a debate whether religion has influenced any of their policy decisions, Dean was the only one not to respond.

In the interview Wednesday, Dean said, "I don’t go through an inventory like that when making public policy decisions."

If your personal faith does not influence your policy making as a politician, what good is it? I’m not talking about championing religious persecution or elimination of other religious viewpoints (that is in fact what the Bill of Rights protects), but rather it should shape you as a person, be the basis of formation and understanding of absolute truths. It’s called a Christian Worldview, and everyone has a Worldview - whether they know how to express it or not. A great definition from carm.org:

A world view is a set of presuppositions and beliefs that someone uses to interpret and form opinions about his humanity, purpose in life, duties in the world, responsibilities to family, interpretation of truth, social issues, etc. A Christian should view all these things, and more, guided by the light that is shed upon them by the Bible.

The secular world exalts man to the apex of evolutionary development, the sovereign over all he dominates, though only another animal. God is relegated to the belief systems of the uneducated and superstitious. Such opposing views will clash.

If religion does not influence his political life (expect in the singular case of ‘civil unions’ (don’t say ‘gay marriage’ for some reason!), then exactly what good is it? I very much hope this is not the case for Mr. Dean.

              

Why does it have to be so obvious and disgusting each time it’s done? What it it? Racist attacks. Except these are done when a member of a minority group accuses another member of that group of not being a true group member, because they disagree with them.

In one of the few reports of the issue, FOX News (Dean Backer Calls GOP Candidate ‘House Mexican’), it was reveiled that Steven Ybarra issued an email calling GOP California Senete candidate Rosario Marin a "house Mexican for the Republicans.". Apparently he like Harry Belafonte’s characterization of Colin Powell as a "house slave" so much that he couldn’t resist his own take on it.

However bad it might have seemed, Ybarra seemed to make it worse by clarifying his statments:

In a statement to Los Angeles’ Univision, Ybarra said that Marin should be "proud of being called a house Mexican" in the same way as he is "proud to be the house Mexican for the Democratic Party." He added that his remarks were not meant to make reference to African-American slaves, but to suggest that Marin is a Hispanic "owned and operated" by a company or group.

So let me get this straight. She shouldn’t be offended because he is one too, or is it that he is owned and operated by the Democrats but she’s got the wrong owner and operator?

Whatever it is, it’s wrong. It will also go unpunished and be exactly the thing that makes other phantom accusations of racism ring hollow.

              

Ever since Tom Ridge stood for the photo op at Hartsfield/Jackson/Young/Campbell International Airport here in Atlanta on Monday, there have been numerous reports of unhappiness surrounding the new US policy to fingerprint and photograph foreigners upon extry and exit at airports, seaports, and border checkpoints. Standing with the indigant government of Brazil were a number of ‘man on the street’ quotes:

• "It was too bad," said Mrs Suzuki, the discomfort of a 12-hour flight compounded by the indignities of the new security measures on arrival. "I felt like I was being treated like a
  criminal. " (Guardian) [I guess this Mrs. Suzuki is not from Japan, because they are one of the countries that are exempt from the regulations, unless she was travelling on a special visa. Note to Mrs. Suzuki: Going through any of the processes at the end of a long international flight is a pain. Putting one’s finger on a sensor should be the least of your worries. If you arrive in Atlanta, after you clear Immigration, claim your baggage, and clear Customs you have to give your luggage back and go through another security checkpoint so you can ride the train back to the main terminal. Much worse than any finger scan!]

• But Sagandhi, a student from India returning for the winter term at Duke university in North Carolina, could not shake off a niggling suspicion. Could the information recorded yesterday come back to haunt her? "It definitely made me feel like I might do something or that it is possible that I
  could be tracked down," said the literature student. As a precaution she refused to give her last name. "I feel like now I could get caught for anything like under-age drinking." (Guardian) [Note to Sagandhi: Are you kidding me? Perhaps the Literature program at Duke is not recruiting the ‘best and the brightest’, but how exactly is the fingerprinting exercise tied to being caught for underage drinking? Perhaps you had the unexpected ‘breathalizer’ version of immigration checks.]

• Former Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says she believes post-September 11th immigration programs have unfairly targeted visitors from Arab countries. (VOA) [Note to Ms. Oakar: Since 1992 the US government required fingerprints for nationals of several Arab countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria. The program expanded to more countries and now is taking the next step to apply to even more. Doesn’t this target Arabs and Muslims less and make things more fair?]
• Meanwhile, Ms. Oakar says U-S hospitals are losing billions of dollars because of a decrease in the number of foreigners — many from the Middle East — coming to the United States for medical treatment. "I just talked to an attorney here who was stationed in Riyadh — and he said, "what happens if someone has an emergency, needs emergency open-heart surgery, from Kuwait or Lebanon, or wherever? Are they going to make them go through this whole process and so on?" [The 15 second process of having your fingerprint taken will disuade someone from traveling for emergency surgery? Must not be too much of an emergency! I’m sure that someone will demand a federal ‘bailout’ of hospitals.]
• This is all part of a vicious circle of fear. The more security measures you take, the more fear you create, the more people demand security measures etc. The Bush administration is cleverly exploiting that vicious circle, because it is much easier to implement security measures, than to fight poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. Don’t let them fool you: despite 9/11 (and despite the NRA) the USA are quite a safe country, and they have no need for security checks like these. John, London, UK (frequent visitor to US) (BBC) [Note to John: So let me get this - Bush is providing extra security to make people more fearful so that they demand even more security measures? He sure must be pretty clever because I doubt that anyone else could have come up with such a scheme!]
• "It’s very embarrassing for us," said Carlos Pimenta, a 36-year-old Brazilian who arrived at Washington’s Dulles International Airport. "I don’t think it’s appropriate to do this kind of stuff." (channelnewsasia.com) [Note to Carlos: What is it appropriate to do - continue to ignore visa overstays? Forged or incorrect documents? What?]
• "It’s a horror, it’s terrible. I can’t believe it," said an exasperated Natalia Gomensoro, a three-year US resident, returning to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from her native Uruguay. (channelnewsasia.com) [Note to Natalia: This is not ‘a horror’. September 11th was a horror. A 15 second fingerprint scan is the least everyone can do.]

So while everyone was moaning and groaning about getting fingerprinted and feeling bad about themselves (and no one even had the good sense to criticize airport parking!), President Bush went forward and blundered into another illegal alien amnesty program. I guess that ‘reform’ and ‘overhaul’ sound so much better than amnesty, but it’s still a big mistake. "the administration hopes to better secure the nation’s borders and the homeland by making sure even illegals are documented.&quot. Sounds like a good idea. But how about securing the borders by actually deporting someone who is discovered here illegally instead of turning a blind eye, and rationalizing it all away by saying that they work in jobs that no one else will take (and meanwhile trying to compaign to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses, in-state tution, and voting rights).
There have been multiple amnesty periods since 1986. All this is serving to do is to encourage people to come to the US illegally, waiting for the next time that amnesty will be given. It has got to stop.

              

Not that you asked, but if you want to know my thoughts about Pete Rose’s sudden confession about gambling in baseball, you need not look further than the column by Phil Sheridan. There is a nice summary at the end:

Allow Rose to be put on the Hall of Fame ballot. If he is elected, insist that his plaque tell the full story of his career and downfall. Then tell him he is free to pursue a job in major-league baseball - in 2018.

That will keep him ineligible for exactly as long as he continued to smear baseball by lying about gambling. Rose will be 78 by then. That’s only a few years older than Jack McKeon and Don Zimmer are now. If that sounds harsh, good.

Pete Rose hasn’t changed. Only his story has.

              

The Washington Post ‘reported’ that Howard Dean is working to avoid the "mudslinging" of the other Democratic candidates.

In recent days, he has been dismissive when other Democrats go after him, sending staff members — or even a nurse from a local hospital — to rebut the attacks so he can stay away from the bickering. In Sunday’s debate, Dean was uncharacteristically calm as he brushed off criticism about his record as governor and his penchant for making controversial or contradictory statements. "As you know, I have a reputation for saying exactly what I think. And while the words may not be precise, the meaning is not hard to figure out," he said.

We hear you loud and clear Gov. Dean. Could you imagine the media reaction if George Bush (or any Republican) were to have uttered just one of things that have come from his mouth? All we heard before the election in 2000 was just how stupid George W. Bush was, and how he couldn’t possibly handle foreign policy.

• The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t — think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is …
• The president spent 30 months destroying our ability to defend ourselves against terrorism.
• "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer. If we are safer, how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert?"
• "I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I’m going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don’t have health insurance, either, and their kids need better schools, too."
• In regard to Osama bin Laden’s connection to 9/11, "I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found." and "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama we should do our best not to prejudge jury trials."
• Dean said Bush was pursuing a policy that will "allow North Korea to become a nuclear power"
• Regarding sealing the records of his Vermont governorship: "We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."
• "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world," he said. Nevertheless, he added, "Let me be clear: my position on the war has not changed. The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the Administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam’s ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

But not to worry, maybe Britney Spears has done something terribly interesting with Micheal Jackson and the woman who claimed to lose the lottery ticket in the parking lot in Ohio. There must be something else on.

              

With the amount of vote-buying programs launched each year by members of Congress, it would seem like a pretty safe scheme. If millions of voters are going to make their voting decisions based mainly on who gives the best handout, then why not give it a try. And if you can take an issue away from the opposition party at the same time, well then, all the better. Right? And so it was with the recent addition of prescription drug benefits to the Medicare program.

So the Republicans ran with a Democratic plan. It’s certainly not to say that seniors couldn’t use help with the costs of prescription drugs. But it was about time (every four years for sure) for the dire warnings about a new Republican attack on Social Security and Medicare in time for the elections. (And hasn’t it been refreshing not to haver to hear about a ‘lockbox’ for the last few years). Amazingly the warnings, more dire each time, never seem to materialize or translate into any action at all during the non-election years. But the Prescription Drug expansion was run through Congress at incredible speed and signed by President Bush. True fiscal conservatives are outraged at the massive cost and the idea of the Federal government invading yet another aspect of the health care system, since it has yet to prove at being adept in managing money in any other area well.

So kudos to all, right? Wrong. The Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation (or "’you can go-f- - - yourself, Grandma’ bill" as it was referred to by Janeane Garofalo during a Howard Dean fund raiser) doesn’t seem to have many friends. The AARP endorsed the bill, and then said it had an unexpected backlash from members. (Of course, statements like "We are through with AARP. I’d rather burn it up!" really provide meaningful dialogue.) The idea apparently had two main flaws: (1) it just wasn’t a sweeping shift to complete socialized medicine and (2) it came from the wrong political party, and that just wasn’t fair. Ted Kennedy(!) provoked with "What happened in the House of Representatives in the dead of night was Florida 2000 all over again. It was a rigged vote. Republicans are playing politics with Medicare, and our seniors will pay the price." Let the red flags fly. Forget whatever this it about. Forget any specifics. This is bad and must the uneducated seniors must be re-educated that this benefit is a bad one now. It would be almost laughable (it’s certainly not logical), except that it will work.

Even yesterday, Cynthia Tucker wrote the following criticism of Bush’s policies: "So, we see tax breaks for the wealthy, prescription drug benefits for the elderly and trade barriers to protect certain industries (and their workers) from competition abroad. None of those is good for the nation, but they do tend to satisfy certain narrow constituencies."

Republican’s can never put on the spin the way that liberals can. When all of the ‘word-smithing’ turns things into outright lies, there’s nothing more left. It’s all so hollow.

So remember that when we are stuck paying for this prescription drug bill, which apparently is simulataneously hurtful and ‘rigged’ and ‘narrow’. We’ll have to see how many seniors opt out of the coverage because it is so bad for them.