For my whole life I've heard the phrase "Bless Her Heart" applied in case after case like the one dear Senator Clinton seems to have found herself in right now. Saying BHH meant that when something went wrong you gave some credit to the person, usually measured by their sincerity or courage. It's very 19th century. One can easily imagine Kierkegaard or Flaubert dropping such a line at those grand occasions that found some socially fragile person's makeup smudged or worse, when the news came that a romantic affair had been exposed by some clumsy coachman. Two would get the BHH at that point.
In my experience I've seen BHH acknowledge sincerity as a means to the end of ridicule or as some now say "truth-telling." Like this, "BHH, she needs to be in jail."
It often went with what has been for me a particularly southern habit of ogling politicians, preachers and salesmen. Especially the ones that hadn't quite fallen and still had a full supply of vim and vigor. We'd say, "BHH, I sure don't want to be there when __________ (insert appropriate embarrassment) happens.
But I've had a hard time saying this about Senator Clinton. Not everything she did seemed born of sincerity and courage. There was some spoilage there and it just didn't smell good. But the end is near. Senator Obama needs less that 43 delegates to come his way and HRC is leaking her plans to call it quits. Nowadays candidates just suspend their campaigns. I think that has more to do with their money than with their chances. Of course, she has $20 million owed to her by own campaign. BHH.

This may take a while so bear with me. Another of my constant peeves is the misrepresentation of the first amendment by hard right fun-damn-mentalists and those of the political right using religion to seize power not meant for them by our constitution. One of the consequenses of this manipulation is that a soldier in Iraq hands out coins embosed on one side with John 3:16 translated into arabic in answer to the question posed on the other side, "Where will you spend eternity?"
After I stop screaming I screamed some more because I remembered that this methodolgy masquerading as a theology has been the musak of my life of southern religion. John 3:16 which promises salvation based on God's love of the world has been spun for decades as if it only contained its latter half, the part that says "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (KJV) Believing gets elevated to a position at least equal to God's love and becomes the guarantee of one's eternal habitation. Believe first and then you can say you are saved.
Over the years two scripturally based correctives have grown in my understanding since those naive days of my childhood when John 3:16 was as commonplace in its assurance of safety as knowing one's phone number. The first is the reminder spoken by Jesus himself in each of the synoptics:

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Matthew 16:25“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.”Mark 8:35“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” Luke 9:24, KJV.

I have come to understand this caution to be against basing one's faith/belief/religion on getting one's life saved. Indeed it is more than a caution. It is clearly saying that the appeal made by that young soldier was at least misguided, probably a waste of time, certainly suspect. Nothing thwarts salvation better than trying to cover one's a**.
The other corrective is the idea found in Ephesians:

“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:4-9, KJV.

In short, faith is not the work that earns eternal life, because there is no "work" that can save us. So why hand out coins with John 3:16 on the "answer" side? Except that this young soldier believes that belief saves. Not God in mercy but belief in Jesus.
I'll admit this is too fine a matter for this simplification. Indeed, salvation -- whatever it really is -- deserves better discourse than my diatribe or a soldier's coin. But it is not enough for me to complain simply on the basis of constitutional concerns. As far as the first amendment is concerned things have been handled properly. Something much larger than a misguided soldier is amuck here.
One of the consequences of what I call "first amendment abuse," is that actions like this coin evangelization will give another undeserved public hearing to what is always and sadly so just very bad theology.
Its bad theology to worry about the salvation of your own life when the world is starving and thirsty and oppressed and imprisoned.
Its bad theology to get others to believe like you so that they can be saved. Unless the world becomes a better place you have to ask, "saved from what?" Its bad theology to try to save your own life, especially if that effort thwarts another's salvation. Its bad theology to turn faith into a righteous work, to turn human believing into an eternal guarantee.
No wonder the religious right wants to undermine first amendment protections, it allows for propagation of bad theology.

But you will have power, when the Holy Spirit has come on you; and you will be my witnesses
in Jerusalem and all Judaea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Acts 1:8

I just love this photo. It was our homepage artwork for the 10 days from the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord to the Feast of Pentecost. The woman is actor Heather Graham. It must be from some film promo. It exemplifies the themes of God's power in us gained by way of the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as it is sustained for us by the Holy Spirit. That's what I think!

This is incredible (pun intended.) The Florida legislature has begun to consider production of a vanity plate that would look like this.

I'm pretty sure this is another wolf in sheep's clothing move by some "conservative" legislator. Pandering to people's wanting choices like that's what freedom is and using it to back door conservative christianistic power mongering into the mainstream. Want to test the freedom of choice claim? Try to imagine the state painting the symbol for an atheist vanity tag. Think also about how strained a thing it is for the legislature to "just be making this available" without crossing the no state support of religion line.

The Bill of Rights says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say "a religion" it says "religion" That seems to me to be very clearly prohibiting the State of Florida providing a service that paints a cross and stained glass window with the words "I believe" on a state required auto license.
Even worse is the argument equating belief in a religion with "belief" in a team (one assumes some of the teams are of the several athletically active institutions of "higher learning" in the state). It once again proves the point that on the spectrum of religious expression that extends from vacuous to enlightened (and you can pretty much put the religious among the founding fathers on the enlightened end) conservative is often at best one notch from vaccous. Who elects these people?

Salary in the highest tax bracket is taxed at 35 percent, but profits from stocks held long enough to be called “long-term capital gains” are taxed at 15 percent. A hedge fund manager making $100 million in a year would pay $15 million to the government if he is able to take his income as capital gains, not the $35 million he would have to pay if the income was considered salary.

A pet interest of mine has been the need for a cultural recovery of the "sabbath." Not "blue laws" but a generally held and working "expectation" that would precede any civil statute and inform our definitions of things like: fair wage, fair tax, benefits, poverty, earned income, income from interest and dividends, estate income, etc. It's important to avoid a repeat of the past and confuse this cultural sabbath keeping with the blue laws of the past. Blue laws were forced on minority populations to support the personal - lifestyle - religious choices of the majority. I remember when the theaters were not allowed to operate on Sunday. I remember as a child asking my mom when the Jewish kids got to go to the movies. We still have vestiges of that era with the fairly widely practiced bans on the Sunday sale of alcohol.
Mind you, my interests have always been governed by a moderate libertarianism. I don't like the "gubment" telling me what to do when those actions would impinge in no way on the rights of others. Vestigial blue laws are not the only intrusion of the government into the free market (goods and ideas). Our "current occupant" and his regime have so supported the upper class in this society and protected the portion of what cannot honestly be called the free market in which are vested their interests less than 10% of the population can afford to "take a day off."
To develop a sabbath expectation in culture just start with thinking exploitation of the lower class, of minorities, of immigrants, of the environment, of the economy, then back up one step and you still have a strong case. Why do bank computers run "realtime" 24/7 but customer access to those same computers does not? Why do public schools charge fees for required materials? Why is access to public lands and waterways so often limited to commercial/corporate interests seeking a profit? These are "sabbath" questions.
Sabbath standards wouldn't allow the wealthy/powerful to force a pace onto the economic lives of lower income persons. Heck, even the banks could afford to turn off the computers one day a week. Once civil authorities undertake education and make attendance compulsory, required fees limit only the access of the poor by forcing them to choose between necessities and not between options. Sabbath standards would protect land, sea and air for all, including nature itself.
Blue laws are inadequate but stripped of their religiosity and directed toward the benefit of the poor or -- even better -- the middle class they would be a start toward the sabbath our culture craves.

I was poking around the news of John David Schofield's just desserts and I came across the web pages for Common Cause Patnership. I saw a couple of things that saddened me: college pal and fellow house church brother Norman Beale is listed among clergy members, and in their foundational documents they - I hope inadvertently - redefine Christian Communion to a new level of understanding. Item 10.4 in their Articles of Incorporation (Confederation would be more honest) states "Communicant members of any Partner shall be received b y a congregation of another Partner on presentation of a letter of transfer." I hope that this was only meant to establish a consistent method for movement of lay members from parish to parish. It could just as easily be read "a letter of transfer is sufficient to establish membership in another parish." How are members of non-partner congregations to be received by a Partner parish: exam? testimony? first born? And what role does the rector play in making a determination?
Later I was still surfing my regular stops and remembered this wonderful recounting of Sara Miles and her introduction to episcopal worship a la St. Gregory of Nyssa. I don't believe a CCP parish would accept her letter of transfer. As a rector I would.

I have some questions thanks to the wake-up call I received in reading Ray McGovern of Common Dreams and Matt Taibi of Rollingstone.
Why have none of the moderated debates for either party questioned the candidates about:

• 
  
• reversing Bush's unitary executive office?
  
• impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al
  
• reversal of No Child Left Behind
  
• ending to corporate welfare
  
• the false piety of the Republican Elite
  
• the hypocrisy of the Evangelistic Leadership as non-questioning supporters of Bush
  
• etc., etc., etc
  

Why wait for a debate? Why haven't any of the candidates asked these questions of each other? By not making known what they believe on these matters and countless others that don't make the manufactured news, each of the candidates -- regardless of party -- leaves us ready to assume that come January 2009 nothing will change but the White House letterhead.

Even Huck the Bible Thumping Bee can't pull it off with his (not so) Fair Tax but given the chance so far NONE of the Republicans have mentioned any long term direct help to the middle class in their economic plans. And we all know the current "stimulus package" will not come so enough for most -- read April the 15th -- and be roughly equal to a "Title Pawn" as a boost to the economy. With too many Democrats joining them they sing, "Let's spend our way out of this recession." Here's what Jeremiah said,

"For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a basket full of birds, their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?"" Jeremiah 5:26-29, RSV.

and before you think I'm out of line check this info from PBS' Frontline:

10 Reasons America's Two-Income Families Aren't What You Think
(According to Harvard Law professor and bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren)

• Two-income families today make 75% more in inflation-adjusted dollars, but have less money to spend than one-income families did 30 years ago.
• Two-income families today spend: 21% less on clothing, 22% less on food, and 44% less on appliances compared to one-income families a generation ago.
• Every 15 seconds an American family files for bankruptcy.
• This year, more kids will live through their parents' bankruptcy, than through their parents' divorce.
• 1.6 million families will file for bankruptcy this year, 9 million more are already in credit counseling.
• Home mortgage foreclosures are up more than three-fold over the last generation and car foreclosures have hit record levels.
• More than 62% of families say that they worry about making ends meet.
• The average family spends 69% more in inflation-adjusted dollars on their home mortgage than their parents spent a generation ago.
• The average family spends 61% more on health insurance, than their parents spent a generation ago.
• Credit card default rates are at a record high.

From FrJake: unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity by David Kinnaman, President of the Barna Group, and Gabe Lyons, founder of the Fermi Project. Their research project involved interviewing "outsiders" (those who are outside the Christian faith) and young Christians, focusing on the 16 - 29 age group (identified as older "Mosaics" and younger "Busters"). The perception that they discovered of how younger generations view "Christians" is a real eye opener. Here's a few of the top descriptions from the "outsider" group:

Question: Here are some words or phrases that could be used to describe a religious faith. Please indicate if you think each of these phrases describes Christianity.

91% - Antihomosexual
87% - Judgmental
85% - Hypocritical
75% - Too involved in politics

Here's some of the responses to the same question from young adults who are church members:
80% - Antihomosexual
52% - Judgmental
47% - Hypocritical
50% - Too involved in politics

Oh, to see ourselves as others see us!
frDann

Thanks to David Brooks for the opening but even more thanks to Barak Obama for his depth of understanding and demeanor. These are the things that interest me in his candidacy. I picked this up via Slacktivist, but do follow the links to the whole interview, Brooks' remarks, Casey Blake's remarks and the comments. All in all it is the kind of thinking and reflection sorely missing from the Bush side. Duh! Which is not the point of the original or the first few commentators.
I remember having a conversation with one of my colleagues in the Diocese of Atlanta, rector of a large downtown Atlanta parish. It was in the days following the Trache debacle. We were considering a new batch of nominees and thinking about the basics, the one or two things that "our choice" must possess. Without cue we looked at each other and said together, "She has to be smart!" We voted and the election found a very smart, very bright man.
Since then I've had my experiences with J. Neil Alexander be nothing if not strong confirmations of the role that intelligence and enlightened thinking play in a progressive church like ours.
So here's my take on the Presidents I've known:
Kennedy - smart and bright, I never minded that he was so very patrician.
Johnson - smart but too much a the Texas Senator and Majority Leader instead of being presidential
Nixon - smart but nefarious, very, very dark!
Ford - Honest but not bright and not presidential
Carter - smart but too Southern Baptist
Reagan - not smart (senile?) and too presidential.
Bush - more patrician than smart (CIA, Saudi $$, Daddy's $)
Clinton - very smart and very bright but horribly narcissistic
Bush - not smart, not bright, not much more than stubborn.

Think about how these men answered tough questions. Kennedy would not show perturbation. Carter would get impatient at times but he would still answer the question, often "upping the ante." Clinton would answer too much or too well. (Remember Slick Willy!)
Now think about how frustrated you have seen Reagan and Bushes become at questions that were often screened in advance! Ford does not rank here but does balance Johnson's short term. Neither was presidential. Both were Hill toppers in the White House. Johnson was a Senator from Texas. Ford was a multi-term Congressman.
Somewhere around Nixon, Carter, Reagan the mythic responsibility of the Presidency began to loom over whoever sat in the Oval Office. Think how grandious some of their ideas became. Carter's Olympic boycott. Reagan thought big of himself in that old romantic cowboy way, as if he could ride over tell that Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. And the worst was Nixon with the tapes and Plumbers. Who did these people think they were? Only Clinton after them "reigned from on high."
The Bushes have pretended. Gentiles.
The only rub against Obama - youth. But boy is he smart AND bright!

St. Gregory's Rector, Beth Long, joined a state-wide gathering advocating for Georgia's assembly to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage as they met at the Presbyterian Center in Athens. She rocked the house! Here's what she said:

Why do people of faith need to raise the minimum wage?  Because Moses led the Hebrew people out of slavery in Egypt!  He received a covenant which empowered living life as a free people: physically, socially, economically and spiritually. There is hardly anywhere you can open the Bible that you will not find true religion equated with social and economic justice, and idolatry equated with injustice and oppression. 
Jesus of Nazareth said plenty about money.  It was one of his favorite topics, second only to the kingdom of God.   For almost 200 years after his death, the people who followed his way lived with equality, sharing and non-violence.  Love God with all your heart and life and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Do you want to work like a slave and still not have enough to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family, and never enjoy a Sabbath rest without worry and anxiety for the future?   Would you want that for your own children?  Would you want that for anyone you love?  God certainly doesn’t want that for you.  That’s why God led the people out of slavery in Egypt and sent the prophets to the kings every time they began to make it hard for ordinary folk to survive.  So if we love this God, we will want for our neighbors the same good things that God wants for us:  to live in health and safety with enough to eat, and a day of rest to enjoy and give thanks for all our blessings.  Right now we have a perfect opportunity to live this out by supporting the increase in the minimum wage in Georgia and to continue to do so until it becomes a living wage!
Maybe some of us think this is impossible.  We imagine that institutional and economic realities are absolute constraints on our creativity and what is possible for us to accomplish.  But the good news of God’s love is not a luxury or a fairy tale. Where we see scarcity, Jesus and the prophets see abundance. 
The living God tells us there is enough, and in fact, there is more than enough.  When we stand by while others are hungry or enslaved, we are starving and imprisoning our own souls because deep down it is our joy to love our neighbors as ourselves! 
Why do people of faith need to raise the minimum wage?  Hear the words of the Prophet Isaiah:  “If you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness. . . The Lord will satisfy your needs in parched places and make your bones strong. . .your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.. . .Go through the gates, prepare the way for the people, build up the highway, clear it of stones; and you shall be called Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken.”
 
The Reverend Beth Long
St. Gregory the Great, Athens

|

Better to ask: Is there a law that limits speakers to telling the truth? or at least names lying as an punishable offense? W can falsely assert the following without consequence but Cindy is arrested for wearing a T-shirt that says: 2,245 Dead — How Many More??

". . . It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
Let me break it down:
1. It is said - By whom?
2.

Gore Vidal has been there, done that. I like what he has put together from his many many years of observation and critical thinking. His development of the "Closing of the American Mind" speaks volumes about the cumulative effect of fear -- and just as significantly, despair -- in the service of power.

Vidal's work is done with what appears to me to be a relentless hope grounded in an honest memory (thus the correct reading of Tiberius' history.) I understand hope to be the opposite of despair and thus the divining of history and current events offered by those without hope is a much more cynical hermenutic.

Cynicism as it projects despair is popular because it takes little or no courage at all, requiring only the strength to fend off altruism while one is allowed to put on the guise of tough realism. Think of Rove's latest criticism of some democrats he claims are reading the world through “pre-9-11 eyes.” He only sounds tough. But his realism is not tough or realistic at all! It is cynicism with all the incumbent misinterpretations of history, all the false rhetoric, all the fear-mongering, and all the abuse of power to maintain power of an apocalyptist without hope.

Cynicism is the canary in the coal mine of any generation's "closing." But behind it there is a deep despair. Whatelse allows a 20 year old Georgian to support Sen. Frist's threat of nuclear option as the "best option" allowed by the politicization of "advice and consent?" Does the Constitution encourage us to understand as rubber stamp what is really the high authority of "advice and consent?" Frist et al would have it portrayed as a duty at best to "give the president's nominees the up or down vote they deserve." No high callings around. How audacious of the Kennedys and Kerrys to presume otherwise!

I understand consent in general as the action of a parent or board of elders like the Senate. Who were originally unlimited in the number of terms they could serve and elected on a slower cycle than the other offices of national import and thus privileged to an honest memory. Remember term limits? or perhaps more pointedly said "will the real originalists please stand up!" Later on I'll get my rant about term limits and the need we have to repeal that freakish legislation. We forget the role it has played in accelerating change, in making elections more easily purchased than contested and in concentrating power toward the top of both parties and away from the grass roots. But like I said, that's later.

For now read Vidal.

Published on Saturday, January 28, 2006 by TruthDig
President Jonah
by Gore Vidal
 
While contemplating the ill-starred presidency of G.W. Bush, I looked about for some sort of divine analogy. As usual, when in need of enlightenment, I fell upon the Holy Bible, authorized King James version of 1611; turning by chance to the Book of Jonah, Read more

Time was when we understood the biblical refrain ''fear not" as a comfort spoken to those suffering unjust oppression. Now there may another reason to follow this holy imperative: to protect ourselves from our own leaders. BTW "fear not" appears 39 times in the RSV translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and 5 times in the Christian Testament. Eugene Robinson has a great take on the latest fear-mongering from the White House.
DBB

Using Our Fear

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, January 27, 2006; Page A23

Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents. (Read more)

This from the comments to The Carpetbagger Report January 25 article on Roy Blunt supporter in a business that provides services for a phone sex business. JoeW has spoken the truth. Isn't interesting how blind to our own "contradictions" us religious types can become when power is in play.

C'mon CB! 'm sure Dobson and his ilk will applaud it along this line:
Blunt heroically outfoxed the godless fornicators. He took their ill-gotten booty and cleansed it in the light of the baby Jesus. Taking money from these filthy secularists and turning it to God's cause shows how deeply he cherishes his Christian convictions.
With the Christian right, if you talk the right talk, you can do no wrong.
Comment by JoeW — 1/25/2006 @ 10:46 am

Personally, I do not care from where Blunt's money comes. He is dangerous to the nation -- not just Missouri -- as a top dog in the Republican machine. It's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him . . .

Talking Points Memo by Joshua Micah Marshall
(January 26, 2006 -- 11:59 AM EDT)
. . . So, here we have it that the president of Reflections admits that she removed photos of Abramoff and the president from their online database. If what her employee told me on the 11th is accurate the photos were also deleted from the CDs they keep on file in their own archives. So the scrub seems to have been pretty thorough. (Read more)

Turns out the company's president is a Bush contributor. Read it on Public Campaign Action Fund: Clean Money, Clean Elections in their Thursday January 26th blog. How else did they get the contract in the first place? Either pay to play or just join the regime. What other institution works this way and on this scale? . . . 3,2,1. . . The Mafia.

By Molly Ivins

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

AUSTIN, Texas -- We live in interesting times, we do, we do. We can read in our daily newspapers that our government is about to launch a three-day propaganda blitz to convince us all that its secret program to spy on us is something we really want and need. "A campaign of high-profile national security events," reports The New York Times, follows "Karl Rove's blistering speech to national Republicans" about what a swell political issue this is for their party. (Read more)

This is a wonderful essay/review of two TV shows I have watched and enjoyed for the very different reasons this author lists here.
frDann

Jesus, 'Daniel,' and 'Earl'
by Donovan Jacobs
SojoMail 1-25-2006

It's no surprise that a range of conservative Christian organizations and commentators criticized NBC's recent TV series The Book of Daniel, canceled this week by the network, which blamed low ratings around the country. Between the title character - a pill-popping Episcopal priest who regularly talks to a vision of Jesus - his gay son, pot-dealing daughter, and martini-swilling wife, the show featured enough hot-button topics to rile up virtually anyone on the Religious Right. (Read more)

I've pasted a Truthout translation of Gaudemar's essay as it appeared in Liberation. This is a sobering reminder that our government is digging holes on too many fronts to count. I almost forgot about this horror of illegal detention. It is depressing to realize that Abramoff's troubles like all the other crap W's methods and madness have brought us to contemplate have only diverted our attention from bad news with more bad news.

Oh to be diverted by the truth that we have stopped spinning and corrected these wrongs!

Defeat 
    By Antoine de Gaudemar in Libération Thursday 12 January 2006
    Four years after its creation, Guantánamo prison camp remains faithful to its sinister reputation. More than five hundred men of about thirty different nationalities are still rotting there, and not all of them were made prisoner in 2002 in Afghanistan during the American military intervention in that country. Some of them were arrested in the course of illegal kidnappings in third countries. This scandal is only the first in a long list: as of today only nine detainees have been charged; not one has been tried. In spite of a decision by the United States Supreme Court - which has still not ruled on the legality of the military tribunals headquartered on the Cuban base - arbitrary action and abusive treatment continue to reign there: although a few prisoners have been able to meet their lawyers, they denounce the inanity of procedures that change constantly. Neither the families, nor NGOs - with the exception of the Red Cross - can visit the precincts where hunger strikes are on the increase. This opacity makes us fear the worst about the conditions of detention inside the camp, fears confirmed by the new testimonies of torture Amnesty International published yesterday. The only glimmer of light in this nightmare is the drip drop of detainee releases after months and months of imprisonment, most of the time for nothing. Along with the tortures practiced in Iraqi jails and secret CIA prisons, Guantánamo symbolizes what is most hateful about the George Bush regime: the desire to be above its own laws as well as international law and a total sense of impunity. Because the fight against terrorism does not require that we use the same weapons it does, the very existence of Guantánamo is a most serious defeat for democracy.
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

Published on Friday, January 13, 2006 by the Chicago Sun Times
Blogger Buys Presidential Candidate's Call List
by Frank Main
 
One of the nation's top political bloggers purchased the cell phone records of former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark on Thursday to demonstrate the growing privacy concerns highlighted in a Chicago Sun-Times story last week.
John Aravosis, publisher of AMERICAblog.com, said he bought Clark's records for $89.95 from celltolls.com. Aravosis said he obtained a list of 100 calls made on Clark's cell phone over three days in November -- no questions asked. Read on

Published on Friday, January 13, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Play It Again, Sam
by Richard Hendrick
 
Play It Again, Sam.
It looks like Sam Alito will be a Supreme Court Justice. Before he gains whatever credibility inheres in this lofty office, let me record my objections to his contributions to the revision of Sixties history and point out the glass house from which he has lofted a few stonesŠin my direction.
It has been a rough thirty years since the end of The Sixties. Not least because The Sixties has taken such hits in its rewriting. What was (among many things) a time of almost childish naivete, innocence, and idealism has been slowly, purposefully and completely robbed of its virtues. It is now depicted as a time of confusion, irresponsibility, self-indulgence and unwarranted violence (on the parts of demonstrators, not the military and police!). Read on . . .

I'm trying to figure out the mind set of someone who can campaign espousing smaller federal government -- like Patrick Basham recalls in his Cato Institute piece after Bush was elected over Gore by a 5 to 4 Supreme Court vote -- and then work so hard to expand his own power as if two centuries of "checks and balances" were some so-called "liberal fantasy." I am left with just a couple of logical conclusions.

One is that W is a liar. This is my less cynical conclusion BTW. It is less cynical because I have tried in my evaluation to give him credit for what he said in public throughout the two campaigns and while in office as President. I consider it less cynical to assume that W knows what he is saying when he is saying it. I am also assuming that he believes everything he says. Not to would require that we admit for him higher levels of intelligence and mental acuity than he has ever demonstrated in public discourse or by official/institutional testing. He does demonstrate a degree of "good-old-boy" street smarts at times looking much like the former Clemson football coach Danny Ford. You know, "he's as a dumb as a fox." It seems to me that Molly Ivins has asked us to understand W this way. So . . . let's give him credit for what I want to call conscious expediency. Another way to say it is: Saying or doing what he thinks he needs to say or do so that he can say or do what he thinks he needs to say or do.
CE is W's part in what Paul Waldman calls Fraud. This how he outlines it in his book.

How to Build a Fraud:

• Portray son of one of America's most influential families as down-home Texan
• Berate media as "liberal" until they stop asking tough questions
• Take advantage of reporters' tendency to not check the facts
• Mask reactionary policies in compassionate words and pictures
• Push false stories from right-wing media into mainstream media
• Extol the virtues of workers while systematically pushing an anti-labor agenda
• Propose a series of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, but sell them as a boon to ordinary Americans
• Disguise destructive initiatives with friendly sounding names
• Befriend media with "genuine guy" routine
• Keep the public from accessing information
• Maintain message discipline at all times
• Question patriotism of anyone who disagrees
• Repeat above until it all seems true

At some point, George W. Bush took a good long look at who he was and what he wanted for the country and decided that the American people would never buy it if he gave it to them straight. So Bush and his political machine made their decision: the American people would have to be lied to.

I couldn't agree more. As I said, he believes what he thinks he knows. Belief is important because ultimately some vision -- of which W is simply an ordained recipient (in cahoots with other fellow travelers) --becomes the sole/soul and -- this is important --purifying motivation for everything that he says or does. With the deluding indignation of a self-appointed martyr and a pronounced comfort with contradiction, he lies. How can you tell that he is lying? Read his lips. If they're moving, he's lying.

The more cynical outcome is to conclude that he is being duped -- like the Emperor with no clothes. Interestingly, we focus on the gullibility of the subjects through out our retelling of the age-old tale. Blaming them for their succumbing to a lie. We do the same with the American public today. But doesn't the fairy tale contain the truth that publics "under the power of a "despot" -- puppet or not -- do not know what they do not know? "Tell them over and over until they believe it is true." Eventually "they" don't know. Only someone who has participated in that which is the subject of the lie, the whistleblowers like Russell Tice or who have not yet been hypnotized by the droning, the child whom I've always thought was a little girl, can dispel the lie for what it is in its dissonance and incongruity. Bush appears at times to be horribly ignorant or at least susceptible to his own droning. Like an emperor so enamored by flattery that he never questions the source. Gullible is as gullible does "a heck of a job."

Part of not knowing what we don't know is that we can not tell the difference between the person who is President and the Presidency itself. The rhetoric flattens these two into one. So that we can no longer speak of how W has dishonored the office without being accused of dishonoring the office ourselves. The doublespeak of the puppet plus the doublespeak echoing back via a hypnotized media and public equals little or nothing of consequence recognized as utterable. Think of Bill Murray going Japan to show us what living in the US with a mind of your own was like. Oh that W had an inking of Bob Harris' self consciousness.
See what I mean about this being the more cynical conclusion?

I guess it doesn't matter which part of the doublespeak comes out his mouth or whether he is conscious of it as doublespeak or not. We are in trouble, of Orwellian proportions. Because neither an imperial presidency or a drownable government will be our salvation. We already have a way of doing things in this country that could rescue us from either of these false Saviors. It has the potential to inform us so that we can honestly join the little girl who utters the truth from her innocence and hear the prophetic voices of whistleblowers like Russell Tice. It is the Constitution. But I best be careful otherwise I do dishonor to W which he has not already done to himself.

01/10/06 20:50
Published on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 by the Daytona Beach News-Journal (Florida)
What Numbers Aren't Saying About the Economy Most Live In
by Pierre Tristam

. . . From 1947 to 1979, family income for the poorest 20 percent of the population grew by 120 percent, and by comparable rates for the next two-fifths of the nation's households. Income for the top fifth grew by 94 percent. Since 1979, household income for the poorest 20 percent has risen 0.7 percent. Total. It has risen between 7 percent and 8 percent, total, for the next two-fifths of the country's households, or about 0.3 percent per year. For the richest 10 percent, household income grew 61.2 percent during the same 25 years. And for the richest 1 percent, it grew a staggering 111 percent. Wealth had been becoming a more equal opportunity. It's now a privilege again. . . . Read more

Published on Sunday, January 8, 2006 by the Toronto Sun (Canada)
The 'Fin de Regime'?
An Out-of-Touch George Bush Now Presides Over a Lost Foreign War and a Morass of Influence Peddling
by Eric Margolis
 
WASHINGTON -- China's Taoists philosophers warned that you become what you hate. We see this paradox in Washington, where the current administration increasingly reminds one of the old Soviet Union.
The U.S.S.R. went bankrupt after spending 40% of national income on the military. President George Bush's administration will spend a staggering $419.3 billion US on the military this fiscal year. An additional $130 billion US has been budgeted in 2006 for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's $10.8 billion a month -- 40% above previous estimates -- and somewhat more than the monthly cost of the Vietnam War at its height. Add to this huge sum an estimated $1.5 billion in monthly secret expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan by CIA and Pentagon intelligence.
Astoundingly, U.S. military spending in 2006 will equal the rest of the world's total combined military expenditures. (DBB's emphasis) I just saw an ad for the new, $115-million F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, trumpeting how its radar can "intercept communications of insurgents." Using a $115-million aircraft to listen to cellphone calls by a bunch of jihadis in Waziristan staggers the imagination. . . . Read More

I want to be careful because I am not an Orthodox Jew as Mr. Abramoff claims to be. But I am attentive to the use of religious language in the public sphere. In particular the invocation of the Almighty by Abramoff.
Here's what he said as reported in the Washington Post
"Standing before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in Washington yesterday, Abramoff looked sheepish and sad. "Your Honor, words will not be able to ever express how sorry I am for this, and I have profound regret and sorrow for the multitude of mistakes and harm I have caused," he said softly. "All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done. I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer."
What caught my attention was his idea the forgiveness was something to be gained or earned -- that's what merit means in most dictionaries. Likely the Almighty -- even as understood by this redneck Episcopal priest -- is interested, perhaps on occassion even impressed by sincerity, but mostly when attached to real action, especially the restorative kind so needed in this case. In other words, just how does Mr. Abramoff intend to shift the balance in favor of those he has caused to suffer and then "to merit the forgiveness of the Almighty?"
His plea bargain is a weak attempt at that at best. He will have to endure approximately 10 years incarceration. Ask Martha Stewart how that went for her, . . . after her next show. He must pay a $26 million restitution to IRS and his Indian clients. In other words he has to pay the taxes he has already owed and not paid and he will have give back the money he kept for himself or used for purposes other than the ones named to solicit the donations. Then he has to snitch on the others mostly politicians -- of whom the best evidence says "politician equals republican" -- he courted via St. Andrew's, skyboxes, and trips to the beach. Oh darn. Is that what Mr. Abramoff means when he imagines what he'll do to merit forgiveness from the Almighty? Which one of these requirements is punitive? Which one of these is restorative? Does the Casino part of the $26 million fund them to the level they'd be now based on when the money was first collected by Abramoff?
If the Almighty is waiting on Mr. Abramoff to earn forgiveness, I'm afraid he'll have to work through more agencies than the Federal Government's District court. But really my hunch is that the Almighty is not going to wait and will not even intervene to coerce any of the parties involved toward restoration for the sake of Mr. Abramoff's merit. If Mr. Abramoff covets -- among the many things I'm sure he has at least once coveted -- the Almighty's forgiveness he need only acknowledge that it is God's property always to have mercy. In other words forgiveness is a result of God's mercy and not our merit. If there is anything for Mr. Abramoff to hope to merit it ought to be our respect -- another word for the reduction of revulsion -- but understood exactly in terms of his ability to restore the balance he tipped so unmeritoriously in his favor. He can start doing that by getting out of Washington, entirely. His chances are just better somewhere else. Like Lame Deer, Montana -- yes, the Cheyenne have a casino but they're still broke -- where he could paint houses for the tribal council. At the rate he charges per hour it'll only take him a summer.
I would also suggest to him that he avoid speaking of his crime as causing "others to suffer." For his clients, apparently he delivered, there was no suffering because they thought they'd received their money's worth. Yes they are victims of a crime -- it's called fraud -- but have they suffered due to his action? Has his family suffered? Hard to imagine that, given his wife's 6 figure political donation sum. And what about those politicians he was funding? President Bush had to give to charity $6000 out of the more than $100,000 that made Abramoff a Bush Pioneer. Since W is not running for re-election I can't imagine how they'll suffer from what si now a charitable donation. Just who is it that has been caused to suffer? If any one it will be those who are implicated by his testimony -- I called it snitching earlier. But if they're guilty of a crime Abramoff's not needed to explain their suffering. Unless it's only "wrong" to get caught.
For me Abramoff's apology is made hollow by bad theology. Because of who the Almighty is, Abramoff has already been forgiven. Abramoff should stop apologizing and actually do somthing restorative, something that really helps make the world a better place. Only after a long time can he start talking "merit."

Lobbying Plan Was Central to GOP's Political Strategy 

By Janet Hook and Mary Curtius
 
The Los Angeles Times 
Wednesday 04 January 2006 

. . . According to a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, 296 members of Congress since 1999 have received contributions from Abramoff, his Indian tribe clients or SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff and his wife contributed $204,253 - all of it to Republicans. 
    In addition, Abramoff also leaned on his Indian clients to give to key lawmakers. The center found that Abramoff's clients gave almost $4.2 million, more than half to Republicans. . . .

Follow these two links for the officially reported contributions from Abramoff (and his wife) to political figures. Here and here. Word is that there are NO Democrats on those two lists.

And check out the chart below which lists the distribution of campaign contributions from Abramoff's Indian Casino Clients.

Let's do the math
$ 843,209 to 33 members house/senate
$ 651,393 to 26 Republicans = ~$25,000 per person (9 were at or above the average)
$ 191,816 to 7 Democrats = ~$27,000 per person (4 were at or above the average)

From the Daily KOS
Out of Republican talking points as quoted by Bloomberg- hitting the streets today comes this 
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.


Let's do the math using Republican talking points
1.40 million to 171
-.94 million to 110 Republicans = $8566 per person
_____________________
.45 million to 61 Democrats = $7500 per person

Also from the Daily KOS
And the LA Times reported more Abramoff donation facts: 
Abramoff, a once-powerful lobbyist who is the subject of a federal influence-peddling investigation, is considering a deal to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors, according to sources familiar with the probe. That could open the prospect that Abramoff will implicate any number of lawmakers and aides who were part of his vast network of access. [snip] 
"Washington is holding its collective breath," said one Republican lobbyist who did not want to comment for the record on a scandal affecting his profession and political allies. 
The concern is widespread because Abramoff's reach into the Capitol was so deep. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, 210 current members of Congress have received contributions from Abramoff, his Indian tribe clients or SunCruz Casinos since 1999. 
Most received less than $10,000, but 25 lawmakers received $21,500 or more. Twenty were Republicans and five were Democrats, but none of the Democrats received money directly from Abramoff. (Emphasis mine, DBB) 
Jack's lobbying firms and some of his clients gave to Democrats as well the GOP. While those are Abramoff-connected donations, they are not the same as Jack's personal checks to candidates. 
It is only true to say that some Democrats received donations from co-workers of Abramoff and/or his clients, but that is different than an direct donation or connection to Abramoff. 
And all Democrats are auditing all their connections and purging any funds that they find to be connected to Jack by the thinnest of threads.
(Thanks to Daily KOS for this excellent compilation)

Every time but one the Republicans try to paint Abramoff as an equal opportunity lobbyist they end up "more equal." The only time Democrats were "equal" to Republicans as recipients -- and this was campaign contributions from Abramoff's clients, not Abramoff himself -- are the 3 from Louisiana (John, Landrieu, Breaux) and the one from Nevada (Reid). Incidentally, the Republican leader "enjoyed" ~$36,000 more than his Democratic collegue. Several of these folks have redirected some of these funds. Dennis Hastert is telling folks that he gave his Abramoff $$ to charity. I wonder who got it.


A mini-screen shot from Saxby Chambliss' web site at http://chambliss.senate.gov/


Like there weren't some other choices. Oh well. Looks like the republican party wants another year based on lowered expectations.

I've been reading again on James Fowler's Stages of Faith. Google "Fowler's Stages" and the first five or so links will be good summaries of his profiles. Fowler, while at Emory in Atlanta, sort of synthesized Piaget, Erickson, and Kohlberg as he saw their work explaining faith development. Faith being more broadly defined than the "just believing in Jesus" that I grew up hearing about. I like Fowler's work and take it with the grain of salt, a grain Fowler himself offers. it is a careful appreciation for the vague territories between "stages." The way I see it, transition is the work of faith and when we are faithful we will be moved beyond the comforts of familiar thoughts and beliefs. Either you move through faith or you stall in bitterness and fear.
It seems to me that part of our faith development is eventually to grow more comfortable with and to be more forgiving of our limitations. Or said another way, part of faith development is remembering that we take our childhood with us wherever we go. Fowler talks about this as one of the constant "edges" that makes each stage "penultimate." We are stirred by the dissonance of, we are stretched in the tension between the way things are and the way things us to be. The tension is always with us but our recognition and appreciation of it is the stuff of transition.
I've been curious again about Fowler's ideas because they help me to understand the machinations and postures of one George W. Bush. Briefly, I think W is "stuck in stage 4" and he exhibits all the symptoms of bitterness and fear that literally block one's transition, ones faith development. Some would argue that he is not yet "into stage 4" such that transitioning out can be a thing to consider. Remember, we need to maintain a healthy respect for the vague boundaries. Some of us, still carrying the faith of childhood with us, are in 3 stages at the same time.
So think with me and let's talk a little about W's faith and it's development. Here's a summary of stages 3, 4, and 5. Let me know what you think.

In Stage 3 Synthetic-Conventional faith, a person's experience of the world now extends beyond the family. A number of spheres demand attention: family, school or work, peers, street society and media, and perhaps religion. Faith must provide a coherent orientation in the midst of that more complex and diverse range of involvements. Faith must synthesize values and information; it must provide a basis for identity and outlook. 
Stage 3 typically has its rise and ascendancy in adolescence, but for many adults it becomes a permanent place of equilibrium. It structures the ultimate environment in interpersonal terms. Its images of unifying value and power derive from the extension of qualities experienced in personal relationships. It is a "conformist" stage in the sense that it is acutely tuned to the expectations and judgments of significant others and as yet does not have a sure enough grasp on its own identity and autonomous judgment to construct and maintain an independent perspective. While beliefs and values are deeply felt, they typically are tacitly held-the person "dwells" in the