Plan B (Well, no one else seems to want to do it!)

Brainstorming for elements to include in Plan B (non-military efforts for the "ideological confrontation" of the century) is a worthwhile pastime; it might even be a necessary diversion--if that isn't an oxymoron.

Here's a start. Gentle Reader, feel free to add.

1) Let's develop template posters which will be placed in neighborhoods which celebrate the "martyrdom" of suicidal jihadists. Our competing posters would proclaim that there is no "Paradise" in store for anyone who murders a child in the name of Islam, nor is such a person worthy of the title of martyr.

2) On the neighborhoods of madrasas, let's drop leaflets which assert that God is not a pimp, that it is blasphemous to teach, as well as to believe, that God would provide a cohort of women to see to the after-death carnal pleasures of child-murderers.

3) Let us proclaim that dressing to express one's religious beliefs is a personal badge of honor, it loses its religiosity when it is enforced at the point of a sword, knife, or a gun barrel. Further, it is an insult to God to teach that the female is less worthy than a male. God has no gender.

4) While we are doing the above, let us not exclude any Judeo-Christian teachings or practices which are suspect--which more than likely are inspired by the inclinations of humans rather than of a deity. In other words, erase from religious teachings anything that smacks of human emotion rather than the objective balances of the universe.

5) Let us acknowledge that we do not and cannot know the nature of the Deity. All writings are, essentially, metaphorical, and that is especially true of religious writings. We speak of the unspeakable in terms which we can understand; we cannot understand something beyond our experiences; we must not continue in the error that the God of which we speak is a supra-human by necessity of the limits of our languages.

Aristotle's Prime Mover is beyond our ken. We do the best we can, but our best cannot be definitive.

Sphere: Related Content

Snowjob?

Dear Gentle Reader (both of you, sometime), you must go to this link for Salon.com's War Room and read the entry entitled "The good news about George W. Bush." Then you must read the comments.

The entry details a comment made by presidential spokesmouth, Tony Snow, when asked "...whether the Bush administration "feels any responsibility" for the split among Palestinians..."

I won't give away the joke. Nor will I give away the wonderful comments. You won't be disappointed.

Sphere: Related Content

A Light at the end of the Ex-Gay Tunnel?

"A hit! A hit! A palpable hit!" (If you don't have to ask, thank an English teacher!)

It didn't make the national feeds yet, but the Los Angeles Times reports on an up-coming "Freedom Conference" to be held by Exodus International. (Those are the "ex-gay" people.)

Here's the on-line title as well as the subtitle: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays. Christian ministries who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder are starting to think that choice may not be a factor.

A leading proponent of tossing "ex-gay" into the trash bin of history turns out to be none other than Alan Chambers the director of Exodus. The money quote from Mr. Chambers: "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete."

It seems Mr. Chambers, now a husband and father, "...has mostly conquered his own attraction to men..."

The operative word is "mostly," one presumes, which demands of Mr. Chambers more honesty than heretofore he has shown. Good personal progress. His orientation never was, never will be, a choice. It cannot be escaped; it cannot be eradicated. It can be handled, should one choose; that's the only choice.

Discarding the oxymoronic ex-gay is a good step towards eliminating cultural biases against differing sexual orientations.

Let's have more attention paid to precise language.

Good start, Mr. Chambers. Now, get the rest of your organization in line.

Sphere: Related Content

An Anti-Semitic Semite?

Thomas Friedman's column in today's The New York Times deals with a proposed "boycott" of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem by Britain’s University and College Union. (It's Times Select, sorry.)

Friedman tells us of several Palestinians who received their Ph.D.s at a recent graduation ceremony, and his point is that, rather than calling for a boycott, the Brits should acknowledge the benefits to the Palestinian people which will accrue from these new doctorates. Further, the Brits should take the lead in sponsoring other Palestinian doctoral candidates world-wide.

Friedman ends his writing, however, with a version of an old song: "But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do."

My question is, when did anti-Semitic come to mean, in reality, anti-Hebrew or anti-Jew?

A quick reference to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines semite as an umbrella term including ancient tribes including "Hebrews and Arabs," as well as descendants of those peoples, and the definition is dated 1848.

A subsequent entry for Semitism specifically refers to "policy favorable to Jews" "and predisposition in favor of Jews" (1851).

So in three short years an extension of the word lost its all-encompassing meaning.

And today, in the muddle of language, we have a word which, under scrutiny, causes some confusion. Today, we have the potential semantic disaster of having an Arab opponent of Israeli government policies being labeled an anti-Semitic semite.

Unless, of course, you have something else to do on a cool Sunday morning.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop! Take a Breath! Now...

The re-incarceration of Ms Paris Hilton has been given entirely too much attention. (Er...too much attention, in the first place, is given to insignificant people.)

Remember, Ms Hilton was first cited last September for DUI. Her license was suspended. In February of this year she was stopped at 11 p.m. for speeding and driving without headlights.

Subsequently, the court became aware of the suspended license (Hilton's publicist Elliot Mintz insists the star was not aware her driving permit had been suspended. Please!).

Remember: the original violation was for DUI, the second for speeding and driving at night without lights. Ms Hilton put the lives of others at risk with her behavior. She chose to do this; the responsibility is hers.

While the death of others "diminishes" me, so, too, does the humilitation of others. I am diminished by Ms Hilton's humiliation, but I am also empowered by the insistance of the court that an adult take responsibility for behavior. If you do the crime, you do the time.

Remember, before too many people tsk that the punishment of this young woman is too harsh, that her behavior was irresponsible. The social contract demands she be held accountable for that irresponsible behavior.

Hilton's celebrity should play no part in the adjudication of justice.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Memorial Day?

An admired acquaintance, Cindy Uken, produces an eponymous website dedicated, primarily, to local politics.

Today Uken uses the space for a poem by CDR Kelly Strong, USCG (Ret), which is a nice use of her space on this special day.

I am struck, though, by Uken's use of the generic "Happy Memorial Day!"

Happy? Somehow that seems counterintuitive to the underlying somberness of the day. What, though, would be more appropriate? Certainly Sad wouldn't work. Sober? Is there a single word which encompasses the costs of Patriotism--as well as our acceptance of those costs?

The word-problem is certainly larger than the generic "Happy," which we use for virtually all holidays. It extends to such facile phrases as "War on Terror." One cannot, logically, war against terror. Terror is a tactic. One cannot bomb a tactic--an idea.

We need to practice more accuracy in our diction. Where, though, to start?

"It's Memorial Day."

"Ah. Memorial Day."

"Reflective Memorial Day."

?

Thank you for the poem, Cindy. Have an Appropriate Memorial Day!

Sphere: Related Content

Et tu, Brute?

Mr. Bush used Gen. Petraeus' name so often during this morning's press conference that it might do the general some good to watch his back.

Come September, given the President's penchant for not accepting responsibility for the wrongness of this battlefront in the "ideological struggle," if the "surge" isn't dramatically successful, somehow the responsibility for the failure will come to roost upon the general's shoulder boards..."It was his idea; he made me do it. I just listened to the general."

God bless the troops.

Sphere: Related Content

Fulness of Oneself

Words and memories and metaphors, Dear Reader, make up the universe of pleasure.

Not quite a week after the death of Jerry Falwell we have another interesting bit of a rememberance. Check out Larry Flynt's piece in the Los Angeles Times today.

My favorite quote, "He was definitely selling brimstone religion and would do anything to add another member to his mailing list. But in the end, I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling..."

"Selling" is the operative word in Mr. Falwell's life. He was very good at it. What he sold most was himself. He was handsomely rewarded for his efforts. Look at pictures of his early days in broadcasting. Look at pictures of his final days in life. He became a corporate fat cat--the "Rev. Ike" of the white Baptist-types.

Rev. Ike and Pastor Jer. Two American success stories.

What pleasure to be reminded of Rev. Ike at this moment in history.

Sphere: Related Content

Civilization? Well, I guess.

Here in central Palm Springs, we have reminders of the wonderful range of nature.

Yesterday I watched a mockingbird chase a crow across the sky. The mockingbird dive bombed the crow; the crow was reduced to looking over its shoulder (do crows have shoulders?), trying to get a bead on the location of the angry attacker in order to avoid a sharp peck.

We have hummingbirds and blackbirds in the condo area. A pair of mockingbirds have taken up residence in a bougainvilla 10 feet from my kitchen door. Ground squirrels bounce in an open space across the street. Rabbits hide out in a brushy area about a half block from here. Ducks have been chased out of the pool behind my apartment; geese regularly visit a water hazard in the golf course which abuts the association's property.

And 5 minutes ago, a relatively healthy looking coyote ambled past my office window.

How nice of all these animals to let us live in peace.

Sphere: Related Content

She Didn't Say That...Did She?

Over at the local newspaper, The Desert Sun, a new editorial page "Community Conversation Editor," Angela Cortez, is learning the ropes.

An editorial page commentary on Jerry Falwell today, Falwell's views opened door for many, has an interesting clue as to the direction Ms Cortez is likely to take.

After a rather benign recitation of objective facts, the editorial writer concludes with this: For better or for worse, Falwell was a religious and political force in this country, and his views - while at times despicable and inexcusable - opened the door for a lot of like-minded people to have their voice heard.

Read into that whatever you like. I, for one, like to read that those "like-minded people" are "despicable and inexcusable."

I repeat my contention: Falwell died too soon; he didn't have a "deathbed" conversion/apology as was granted to Lee Atwater, another political operative whose main function in life was to "spin" the truth to achieve questionable ends.

I wonder what Ms Cortez, and/or the editorial writer, meant.

Sphere: Related Content

"lol"?

Over at Ol' Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, a mini-insurrection is brewing.

It has to do with Andrew's penchant for loquacity, and then some.

In an effort to cut down on the verbosity in some of his postings, Andy (I don't know him well enough to call him that, but he'll never read this, so...WTF) has decided to post a couple of paragraphs, then send his readers on to the complete posting through 'a "Continue reading ..." link to the full version.'

The response has been less than overwhelmingly positive. It seems as though most of us are too lazy to "hit the link(s)!" The complaints resulted in this from Andrew, "Screw you, guys. Seriously, I'm going to keep it but use it sparingly - when a post is more than two paragraphs long." (No doubt in my mind, the screwing is meant as a jocular metaphor.)

I sent TDD the following email under the subject of "...continue reading..." : Maybe you could be less verbose.
gene
(screw you back)
To which I appended a cutesy smiley face.

Imagine my surprise when I received this from "Andrew": "lol"

The question, dear virtually non-existant reader, is What does lol mean? Lots of luck? Lots of laughs? Look out, Loser?

And surely Andrew is too busy (at least I hope so) writing to respond to all the cutesies he receives during the day. So, did a factotum respond? Is it really Lots of luck, meaning, "Andrew, shorten? Edit? Cull? lol!"

Or not?

Keep writing, Andrew. You're a credit to us all.

Sphere: Related Content

A Madding Mantra...(almost)

Mantra is probably too strong. The repetition of something like "how we got here is not important anymore" by the supporters of Mr. Bush's initial invasion of Iraq and the subsequent questionable management of the occupation is certainly approaching the repetitive, soporific qualities of a mantra; but it might not yet have arrived.

A question arises, though. Why not?

Why isn't it important to keep near in our consciousness the questionable rhetoric used by the administration to lead the American public first to accept the invasion, and then to put up with the questionable policies developed to police occupied Iraq?

Trust in the administration's capabilities led us to where we are. Doesn't the administration have the responsibility to defend, aloud and publicly, its strategies at this point? Does "give it a chance" suffice?

The Islamist fundamentalists are a real threat. What, exactly, is the administration's strategy in this "ideological struggle?"

Republican defense of this president's war policies needs more than "forget" about how we got here.

We would be foolish to forget. We must remember who. We must remember why.

Fool me once...

Sphere: Related Content

Sufficient Troops and Politicians

Waaay back, in 2002, the Chief of Staff for the Pentagon recommended 400,000 to 500,000 thousand U.S. troops be utilized to defeat Hussein and to sustain peace and order in an occupied Iraq.

That recommendation was shot down by a politician, the Secretary of Defense, and that negative was sustained by another politician, the Commander in Chief.

During the early occupation months, calls went out for more troops, but the Commander in Chief constantly told the American people that the generals on the ground did not ask for more troops, so none would be provided--politicians would not second guess the generals on the ground.

After the elections of 2006, after an electoral repudiation of the Commander in Chief's handling of the Iraqi occupation.

When politicians, responding to the electoral desires of the American public began to demand a re-deployment, a lessening of American troop levels in Iraq, all of a sudden the Commander in Chief, responding to a sudden "need" for more troops from the generals, discovered the solution to the problems in Iraqi occupation would be solved, in part, by more troops. This in the face of "politicians" trying to "micromanage" the occupation effort.

So, as long as the Commander in Chief had a compliant Congress, no increase in troops was needed; after a repudiation of the CiC's policies at the polls, there is a desperate need for troops.

Hubris.

America weeps.

All for a tax cut in 2000.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Entitled? Really? Says Who? And to What?

What with all the fiscal brouhaha surrounding the various "entitlements" today, I'm often struck by my own lack of a sense of entitlement, or at least lowered expectations of entitlement. My mother and a now unnamed Catholic priest disabused me of "entitlement" some sixty years ago.

Mother first: I desperately wanted a toy of some sort, and I carefully planned my statement of need to my mother. I can't remember the specifics of the actual approach, but I've never forgotten the immediate result, "No. I need new shoes, and I can't afford a toy right now."

What!?!

There was no appeal.

Around that time, a couple of seconds, perhaps, in terms of the longevity of the earth, I was sitting in church with my Mother (Where was my father during all of this?), listening to a sermon about family. I remember being very pleased with myself--this was a sermon about me, since I was part of a family. All of a sudden, the priest said something to the effect of (I'll use quotes, but, really, who can remember the exact quote of a sermon decades past?), "Remember, the relationship between the husband and wife is the most important part of a family. Not the children."

What!?!

No. No. No. I am the most important part of this family!

I remember looking at my mother, shocked, and she looked back at me with the (memory may fail the exactitude, but not the message) equivalent shrug of, "What? You're surprised? Get real."

Eventually, I did.

All of this is remembered today because of the lead opinion column in today's Los Angeles Times. Dan Neil, a writer for the Times has penned a personal essay about abortion. It is engrossing.*

The Neils, for medical reasons, and, after much consultation and deliberation, underwent a medical procedure which ended the pregnancies of two male fetuses, leaving two female fetuses intact.

The reason Neil gives for the decision was simple; without the abortion, "[Her] health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor. The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly. I wasn't going to allow that, though the fires of hell might beckon."

The Neils wanted children very badly; they had been in consultation with fertility specialists. The pregnancy, however, had not been easy. He was, rightly, concerned most about the health of his wife. The fetuses were secondary.

Neil goes on to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision to allow the federal statute banning certain late term abortions to stand. He particularly mentions the comments of Justice Kennedy which, patronizingly, states this law is good for women because it protects them from "the mental and moral trauma of the procedure."

We should thank the Neils for their courage. Making their story public can't have been an easy decision. Surely it wasn't as difficult, though, as the decision to undergo the procedure.

Neil also raises other issues, such as time limitations and the macabre law in South Carolina where a woman must look at a sonogram of her fetus.

There are alarm bells ringing out there. Is anyone listening? This is an "entitlement" women really don't want to lose.

No one is pro-abortion; everyone should be pro-choice.

*The print copy is titled "And then there were two," while the on-line copy if called "The abortion debate brought home." Why does the Times do that?

Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Just because the phone rings...(a modern dilemma)

A neighbor regularly walks two dogs, one a small poodle, the other a large long haired red retriever. This morning, as the retriever had just finished relieving himself (herself?) and the neighbor was 1) tugging the poodle back towards himself (and out of my way), and 2) trying to manipulate his fecal-retrieving tools and the retriever's leash, his cell phone rang.

Neighbor stood frozen for a moment--flummoxed! What to do? Call the poodle? Call the by now roaming retriever? Pick up the droppings? Answer the phone?

It sort of gives new meaning to Longfellow's line, "The world is too much with us..."

Maybe we don't need to carry phones with us 24/7.

Then again, maybe we do.

(I smiled, walked on and heard him say, loudly, "I'm with the dogs!")

Cell Phones
Culture

Sphere: Related Content

Coin in Iraq

NPR reports this morning that the Army has established a Counter Insurgency "COIN" class in Iraq. It studies the insurgency and formulates strategies to counter whatever the insurgents come up with.

Excellent. At last we begin to see a movement away from "bring 'em on" to a more subtle and, doubtless, more effective way to fight an "ideological struggle" than brute force.

We need more of that sort of thinking on many more "fronts" in this war.

We can start by encouraging our Islamic fellow U.S. citizens to begin to defuse those suras which contain verses no longer viable in the 21st centurty.

The "war" has begun to move into a more subtle and difficult phase.

The war hawks must cede their prominence in our thinking to a coalition of ideological, economic, and moral strengths all working with brute force to forge a strategy in which all humanity can thrive.

Counter Insurgency
Iraqi War
Ideological Struggle

Sphere: Related Content

Is "by any other name" OK?

If a group wishes to name itself, are others with whom the group might disagree obliged to call them by their chosen name? Probably so.

How about if the group chooses a phrase with which to describe itself? Are others to be content to adopt that phrase, although the phrase could easily be construed to seize a moral high ground to which the group is not clearly, totally entitled?

I think not. A "Megan," (Megan McArdle) who is one of a group substituting for Andrew Sullivan on his blog, The Daily Dish (see "States rights" April 20, 7:28am), disagrees. Here are email exchanges between Megan and myself.

Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice. Everyone is against some choices, like 45 year olds wearing miniskirts, or killing little old ladies to steal their grocery money. The delusion that the label applied to the other side is a grotesque semantic travesty is prevalent on both sides of the debate; I apply the labels the movements have chosen for themselves.
-----Original Message-----From: grtou@msn.comTo: andrew@theatlantic.comSent: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 9:27 AMSubject: For Megan
Please! Stop already with using "pro-life" as though it is the sole property of anti-abortion choice proponents. Everyone is "pro-life." There are no songs celebrating abortion. "Abortions that bloom in the spring, tra-la!" is not in anyone's songbook. Nor is the sentiment in anyone's writing.
Gene Touchet

OK. So. I question the validity of her opening sentence: Everyone is also "pro-choice"; they are just against this particular choice.

Is everyone pro-choice? Do the anti-abortion rights activists argue for a particular abortion procedure which is acceptable?

Do the anti-abortion rights activists consider "pro-choice" to be "a grotesque semantic travesty"? Certainly some of us on the pro-choice side consider "pro-life" as an apt description of the anti-choice side to be a semantic travesty, if not grotesque.

If the recognizing a semantic travesty when I see one is a "delusion," Ms McArdle and I do not agree on the definition of delusion.

Methinks Ms McArdle is too thin skinned.

What think you, Dear Reader?

Abortion Rights
Megan McArdle
Semantics

Sphere: Related Content

Nappy Headed Hos

"Nappy headed hos" is a reprehensible phrase.

That being said, the brouhaha with Don Imus has a silver lining. Finally, the language of the rapster has come into the mainstream media, and is the subject of a long-overdue discussion by our melting pot of a nation.

I don't care what is "done" with Mr. Imus. I do care, though, that I do not hear enough discussion about the relationship between rapsters' use of derogatory language to describe the women in their lives.

I catch a glimpse of Jesse Jackson carrying a rainbow placard in protest against Mr. Imus; I do not hear him coming up with a Cosby-like condemnation of the language which makes such dissing of women the currency of the rap culture.

I get a sound bite of Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley fame, don't for one moment forget) saying that Mr. Imus' suspension of two weeks is insufficient, but I see or hear no sound bites of Mr. Sharpton condemning the virtual wholesale slurring of women in general and black women in particular in rap music.

Once again it falls to the women to take up the burden; the Rutgers women come to their own defense, and in language which shames the bloviators, say simply, "that's not me; that's not who I am."

That's not who most of the women in rapsters' lives are. These women shame them; these women shame the men who ostensibly are defending them when these men merely go after a symptom rather than the disease.

If the nation begins a conversation about propriety and respect, something good will have come of this reprehensible speech on Mr. Imus' part.

Imus should not be fired; he should be given "community service" and required to spend some time on his popular radio show discussing the ramifications of desultory language.

Don Imus
Rutgers Basketball
Pundits

Sphere: Related Content

Yoo Hoo, Non-Gay Cross-Dressers!

Here's a question for you: Are you happy to be included in the category of "Queer?"

According to Corey Scholibo, a respondent for The Advocate's letters, you are (well, not happy, but included). Here's the situation:

The Advocate recently ran an on-line headline which lumped Sam, the cross-dressing son on "The Riches," in with "queer" kids on television--the nephew on "Ugly Betty" had already made the pages of the print magazine (--any why is it virtually no one has commented on the great job the writers and Rami Malek are doing on The War at Home with the character of Kenny?).

I protested with an email to The Advocate: "So far nothing the character of Sam on "The Riches" has done indicates a same-sex sexual orientation. Your headline is misleading--"Queer kid on the block."

It wasn't too long before Scholibo answered, quite nicely, I thought, with:

Gene, Thank you for your response. I agree with you completely that there is nothing in the show that implies that the character is gay, as the story clearly states. Queer is a very encompassing term that often includes cross dressing, as it was forged to imply everything out of the realm of “normal,” and has been taken back by our community as a positive word. Nonetheless it was meant to be an adjective and not a noun, nor imply any sort of social group per say.

Thank you, Corey ScholiboArts & Entertainment Editor

Here's my problem (if there is a problem): when I was growing up, "queer" was not in fashion. When it was used as an adjective for someone with a "sexual perversion" (one of the terms du jour), it only meant gay men. (Remember, I'm talking years away from Christine Jorgensen.) Even lesbians weren't usually included.

When did "our community" (not to get into whoever it is who speaks for the community) expand queer to include transgenders and cross-dressers?

And how do non-gay men and women who are cross-dressers feel about that?

Or have they even noticed?

Just asking.
Cross Dressing
The Advocate
The Riches
Ugly Betty
The War at Home

Sphere: Related Content

A bit of selective memory, Dave Boy?

My favorite right-wing pundit is at it again. David Brooks writes of the Republican Party's downward slide in public trust with "No U-Turns." (Times Select)

As usual, Brooks gets most of it correct: the Republican Party is still working, largely, as if Reagan-Goldwater ideas were still "operative." Too much has changed since 1989, the last year of Reagan's presidency. The world and the United States have changed, but not enough of right-wing thinking have undergone the same.

The problem with Brooks' presentation today lies in this: (Postwar planning in Iraq was so poor because many in the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.)

One begs to differ. In 1991, Bush I refused to continue the war effort in order to depose Hussein because of the strong possibility of sectarian violence and an inability to control an Iraqi leadership crisis--exactly the conditions which have come to pass and are obvious to all, including Mr. Brooks and other early neo-con supporters of the 2003. What would come to pass after April, 2003, was clearly anticipated by a Republican administration in the spring of 1991.

To torture the axiom, Bush II should've repeated the success of Bush I--and not moved to unseat Hussein.

Otherwise, Brooks has some interesting points.

David Brooks
Mr. Bush
Republican Party

Sphere: Related Content

A Mating Ritual Example?

On a walk a few minutes ago, I witnessed a mating ritual which I thought to be interesting.

On a concrete bike path along the edge of the neighboring golf course, I came upon a pair of roadrunners mating. He was holding a lizard in his beak and straddling her, but neither was moving.

After a few seconds, with much flurry of feathers, the mating process ensued. It only lasted for 10 or 15 seconds, then another flurry of feathers for smoothing purposes.

Before he stepped away, she became possessed of the lizard.

He merely stood for another 5 seconds or so then walked away into some nearby bushes.

She stayed in her position for about the same time, then rose, looked at me for a brief moment, and then sauntered away into a different bushy area, with that insouciance only available to roadrunners holding nice, juicy lizard in their beaks.

Who knew? All it takes is a lizard?

Wonder what DeBeers thinks of that.

Mating
Roadrunners
Lizards

Sphere: Related Content

NPR Watch 3/22/07

During today's letters segment, a listener asked why "Morning Edition" spent air time on the recent opening of a "Hooters" restaurant in Israel. Part of the letter asked if an opening of a Hooters would be covered in, say, Costa Rica.

Well, listener, no. The idea of Hooters restaurants stems from the testosterone infused fixation on the mammaries. If one sees a travel picture of Costa Rica, there's a good chance there will be a well endowed woman in a bikini; on the other hand, a similar picture of Israel is less likely to feature a "babe."

Wailing walls, mosques, suicide murders in Israel are far more likely to leap to mind than "hooters." So, an opening of a Hooters, unfortunately, is news--or at least an item of cultural interest.

Now, if you want to ask about the cultural impact of "hooters," much less "Hooters," you might get an interesting conversation going.

NPR
Culture

Sphere: Related Content

Talk About Hurt!

Pity the poor U.S. attorneys who were recently fired by the Justice Department.

The first "reason" for the firings was some variation on the theme of "poor job performance."

Imagine the sting! To have your job rated "poor" by this Administration. To be labeled a "loser" by Losers Incarnate, Inc.!

Oh the ignominy!

Where is the humanity?

Justice Department Firings
Bush Administration

Sphere: Related Content

A Media "Tsk"

The Desert Sun, published in Palm Springs, has an ad space in the middle of its comics page where Fox Trot used to be.

The Los Angeles Times, in today's edition (3/15/07--et tu, Tempora?), has squeezed its single panel cartoons and inserted a banner ad across the bottom of the page.

The Press-Enterprise out of Riverside, California, prints a smaller than usual "Doonesbury."

What have these guys got against the comics?

Is nothing sacred?

The Desert Sun
Los Angeles Times
Press-Enterprise

Sphere: Related Content

Let's Cut to Chase

This link will take you to a Salon.com website written by a former "adult" movie "star," Matt Sanchez. He made movies for one of the leading gay pornographers of the '90s.

Sanchez made the front page of Salon because he was recently honored by the Conservative Political Action Conference last week in D.C., and photographed with Ann Coulter.

Until he was "outed" by leftie blogs, Sanchez was feted by the right wing because he had written a piece for the Columbia University "campus newspaper that blasted the anti-military bias among my fellow students at Columbia University."

A couple of points: 1) the anti-military bias certainly shows itself on college campuses around the nation, and it is ill informed. If the people who are anti-military thought for just a few seconds, they would realize the absolute necessity of a well-armed defense force. That is not to say that on occasion the deployment of the armed forces should not be questioned. The military is led by human beings who are capable of misjudgment. As a concept, though, the military is amoral. It is a necessary entity for the survival of the ability of college students to protest its existence. (The irony is too delicious!)

2) Sanchez has every right to have performed in gay erotica and to have moved on to a more mature posture in his life.

The only question is his decision to dance with someone other than the "one whut brung ya." He doesn't give a citation for his Columbia essay, so one doesn't know what he said. It is curious, though, that he appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" and not, say, "Countdown." Keith Olberman might have been interested in a Columbia student's presentation of an argument against such student attitude. Of course, the right wing willy-nilly jumped on a piece criticizing anything having to do with protests against the Iraqi war; much the same as they did with Ben Shapiro from UCLA.

This story doesn't have "legs." As a matter of fact, the two friends who occasionally read this might not have heard of it at all.

It does show, though, that love and war do make strange bedfellows. I resist making obvious analogies between the Republican wet dream Coulter, and whatever Matt Sanchez has become for them.

Anyway. The Salon piece is an interesting read. Sanchez is unapologetic for his motion picture career, and he needn't be. Good for him on that.

Sanchez might be a bit more cautious of his current comrades (no pun intended). They might not be so forgiving after the story has lost its legs.


Matt Sanchez
Neo Cons
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Stalemate? Probably. Let's Move On.

Over at GayConservativeLiberal's blog, I've been engaging in a teensy teapot tempest, which I thought I'd share.

Here's the first entry (actually, in the middle of a rather interesting exchange, but I'm cherry picking) from a young man named James Henry Bailey: "Liberals can NEVER support their idiotic assertions with facts. I don't think they even try anymore. The more facts get in the way, the louder they yell "Bush lied, people died!!"

Here is my riposte to his entry: "Is it not a fact that the Bush administration did not plan adequately for post-invasion Iraq?

Is it not a fact that none of the 9/11 murderers were Iraqi?

Is it not a fact that all of the proffered meetings between Al Qaeda and Hussein were based on doubious intelligence to begin with but were touted as proof of collusion?

Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them? So, what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?

Out of interest, however, might one ask for a "fact" which will prove that liberals give "a pass to real theocracies and the fanatic Islamo-fascists who fight to instill it."

Painting people's attitudes with a broad brush is never wise. That is true. One is best advised to avoid it.

To which he riposted (?): "Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them?"

I for one have never suggested that Iraq was the right war to fight after 9/11. However, like it or not, it has become a very important battle that should not be under-estimated.

However, I can't believe the hypocrisy with which the left attacks this president and I am determined to expose it as much as possible. Don't forget that most of the anti-war rhetoric coming from the democrats is coming from people who VOTED FOR THIS WAR. They saw, or should have seen, the same intelligence that the president saw. (in fact, almost none of them bothered to read it).

I think you will find there are PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war.

what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?Indeed! why even bother with it, eh??

Guess what's next. Yes! My "final" riposte:

Not supporting the war does not speak to the "facts" of the Bush Administration's mis-steps.

If anyone is underestimating the importance of this current battlefield, they should stand corrected. Who, specifically, is doing this underestimating; and if we're going to assign culpability for underestimation, shouldn't we, again, go back to the post-invasion planning of the administration?

There are, indeed, PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war. Isn't it fair to say that most of that particular plenty have become anti-war after the administration's mis-steps? Is it possible to identify a major conservative voice opposed to the invasion pre-March 2003?

I cannot believe the senators and representatives who voted for the authority to use force against Iraq after certain conditions had been met saw the "same" intelligence as did the President. You may be correct, but such sharing flies in the face of the Executive authority of which this administration has been so jealous.

The facts have been offered. They have not been refuted. Why continue?

The meme (not simply here, but elsewhere also) has become a stalemate. Nothing new is being offered. The surge will play out; it will be successful or not.

I certainly hope it is successful.

Agape.

And then, in a spirit of hospitality, I added

(If any of you guys are coming to Palm Springs for the White Party, give me a call.)

Now, I'm wondering if I didn't accidentally hit on a bit of clarity. This Iraq battlefield meme has reached a stalemate. I haven't seen any movement on either side of the argument. Maybe we should just let the surge work itself out.

In the meantime we should also be planning for our next "theatre of operations" in this battle against religious extremism.

(If you go to GCL's blog, you can find links to Mr. Bailey's blog.)

Moderates of the religious world, Unite!
Gay Conservative Liberal
James Henry Bailey
War on Terror

Sphere: Related Content

No Place for Hate

Disappointment. Frustration. Astonishment. Or any other number of descriptions about one's reaction to a particular person's behavior...but not Hate.

Hate denies a person calm, deliberative, rational thought.

The enormity of the Administration's culpability is almost beyond calculation, but hatred will prevent that calculation from occurring. If the calculation cannot occur, it cannot be part of a solution.

Don't hate.

Think.

Mr. Bush
Politics

Sphere: Related Content

Is there a reason why...

...the United States is still following its policies of eradication realtive to hard drugs emanating from places like Colombia and Afghanistan?

Over the weekend, for instance, a news item mentioned that the record tonnage of poppies in Afghanistan are worth 3 billion dollars in illegal funds.

Wouldn't it be cost effective if we were to spend 3 billions to pay Afghani farmers not to grow poppies? Don't we spend that much paying farmers in our own farming areas, particularly the South, not to grow certain crops?

War on Drugs
Farm Subsidies
Afghanistan

Sphere: Related Content

Tempest in a Teapot? Or Sac?

If you want to have insight into one of America's social problems, just jump over to "With One Word, Children's Book Sets Off Uproar" over at the New York Times.

Elementary school librarians all over the country are clucking about scrotum. Yep. Scrotum. Not images of chainsaw carrying murderers in newspaper ads, not screaming nymphs and decapitated Lotharios in television ads, Scrotum!--that most dangerous word to the peace and security of the nation.

It happens there's a new children's book, The Higher Power of Lucky, which has an early sentence which tells of an unlucky dog who'd been bitten on the scrotum by a rattlesnake.

According to the Times' Julie Bosman, this word has caused a virtual censorship of the book, even though it has won the Newberry Medal, a prestigious honor for children's literature.

It seems librarians and elementary school teachers don't want to have to explain the word to the children in their charge.

One librarian from Colorado gave Ms Bosman this quote, "“I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature. At least not for children.”

And why not? Mightn't some of our psycho-sexual social problems be mitigated with an early education about words which more formally identify various parts of the "genitalia?" Wouldn't it be better for children if they knew scrotum rather than nuts or balls? Vagina rather than pussy or (pardon me) the c-word?

In this time of "culture war" (a term used by the disingenuous right), isn't it better to have everyone know, and be able to use, acceptable language for all parts of the human body?

Over 40 years ago, a toddler nephew decided to "streak" the family at a Sunday dinner. His older brother, then about 5, shreiked with laughter, "I saw his penis!" I was momentarily stunned--"penis?!?" Then I thought my nephews were certainly on an easier path than the one set by my parents when I was told to be sure to "Wash your monk."

Elementary school librarians, in these times of heightened awareness are not to be faulted in this brouhaha. It's the responsibility of parents to help their children navigate the many paths to adulthood. A more judicious use of the language in speaking to children about the body would be a good place to focus attention. It would also help librarians to do their jobs.

Censorship
Sex Ed
Culture Wars

Sphere: Related Content

"I'm entitled!" "Oh, yeah?"

One of the more interesting effects of the recent growth in monetary entitlements and of ego-boosting self-esteem is the sense of being entitled to be taken seriously.

Over in one of my favorite blogs, Gay Conservative Liberal, a couple of people who engage with GCL, and who are not very liberal, constantly ask questions about proving this or that assertion made by another commentor (actually, commentor doesn't appear in my dictionary, but commentator seems a bit too formal for somebody offering a comment in the "comment" section of a blog; any suggestions?).

It seems a clash of the entitlements is inevitable.

You want me to respond to your question? I choose not to respond.

You insist? Feel free.

Prove your entitlement--your own self-esteem and personal rage don't count. My own entitlement trumps your entitlement.

That's my answer.

GayConservativeLiberal
Blogging
Entitlements

Sphere: Related Content

Incessant Tap Dancing Around Religion

This week in Newsweek Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece in which he delineated the role is Islam in the Sunni-Shi'a struggle in Iraq. Essentially he pointed out that until Islam goes through the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation vis a vis Christianity there will be no lasting peace in the "western world."

Religions, like all institutions, are not cast in concrete from the instigation. As people change in their understanding of behavior and nature, religions change. Some changes are subtle, some are revolutionary. Change, though, is inevitable.

Islam is going to change and eventually the verses which allow for murderous interpretations will be relegated to virtual unimportance, just as violent verses of Judaism and Christianity have become interesting artifacts of a long passed society.

Unfortunately, some pundits of the right took a single phrase from Zakaria's work and work themselves into a slather of dispute.

Christopher Hitchens in Slate.com partakes in the discussion. It seems the war supporting pundits are fixated on the facts of the blundering treatment of the Middle East by the Europeans and Americans of the 20th century, not to mention the centuries long rivalry between various Islamic sects. A sense of history is fine, but that was not Zakaria's point.

Zakaria is telling us to do whatever we can to encourage the quick reformation of Islam.

It would be nice if the right and the left would take Zakaria's suggestion to heart and devise a strategy which would assist moderate Muslims in this very important development of their religion.

Christopher Hitchens
Fareed Zakaria
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

When Losing Is Almost Better

In today's New York Times, one can read about a particular marvel of advertising which can give you a glow.

The story, by Lee Jenkins (thank you, Lee), details what happens to the Super Bowl winners' paraphenalia which was manufactured before the Super Bowl is played. It's shipped to a remote village in an undeveloped area. 288 caps and T-shirts emblazoned with the losing team's name and identity as the winning team, are off on a journey to someplace. “Where these items go, the people don’t have electricity or running water.”

Check out the heartwarming story. By the time you get to the last sentence, There, and only there, the losers get to be winners, you'll have gained a new respect for the N.F.L.
Super Bowl
Lee Jenkins

Sphere: Related Content

Authorization passed by Congress in 2002

In case you haven't read the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)", it's located here.

Here is the text. See what they voted "for." And what they did not vote for. (There's a lot more to it than authorization for "war.")

--H.J.Res.114--
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

Iraqi War
War Authorization

Sphere: Related Content

Religious Texts and "Terror"

At some point the Muslim clerics must tackle the problem of the surahs which are clearly political in nature or totally metaphorical, and they must somehow vitiate those writings.

Let us hope that "point" is soon.


Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Not only "sad," but alarming

With apologies to John Greenleaf Whittier and "Maud Muller:"

...the saddest words of tongue or pen are these [few] words...
"I'm the decider."
"I'm the decision maker."

Alas.

Can one imagine any other president saying these words?

Faux testosterone just doesn't cut it.

Mr. Bush

Sphere: Related Content

Testosterone--the great equalizer?

The New York Times today (1/26/07) has an editorial ("More Willful Indifference") in which it wags a finger at the FBI's handling of early indications of Mark Foley's predilections for late teenagers.

A very interesting sentence reads, Now it turns out that the F.B.I. was just as phlegmatic about the scandal as Mr. Foley’s Republican colleagues.

Phlegmatic. That can be interpreted as "So?" Don't most men have an appreciative eye for young adults? My barber in Los Angeles once remarked, "School's starting up again soon, isn't it? I like the beginning of school. Lots of young stuff walking by."

Lesson: non-gays and gays share the same sex urgings. Urgings which are not acted upon are relatively normal among the male of the species.

An objective response between males to the appreciation of young adults is "So?"

One wonders, then, why the outrage at the Times.

Denial?

To appropriate the slogan: We've come a long way, baby.

New York Times
Mark Foley
Sexuality

Sphere: Related Content

The Andy and Sam Show

Two cultural commentators are having a bit of a to do over the web. Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris are having a back and forth about religion. Andrew believes but has doubts, Sam does not believe, and seems to have absolutely no doubts about Andrew's doubts. You can catch Andrew's January 25 sally here.

So far there seemingly has not been a thorough discussion of the anthropomorphization of the deity, and that is a subject which is actually central to all religious debates.

The scriptural texts, when they refer to the deity, are written in metaphorical language. These metaphors assign human qualities, good and bad, to the deity.

It is beyond logic for us to continue to assign to the deity such personality quirks as pimping--72 virgins in Paradise; or ethnic cleansing--most of the Old Testament. How very near to blasphemy is the concept that the deity is jealous? (No other gods before me.) Or petty? The farmer's sacrifice is not as worthy as the herdsman's? It's a metaphor. If you eat pork, and don't cook it enough, you'll die. And all this before the knowledge of how much heat it takes to kill the trichinae.

C'mon, Sam and Andy. Get serious. Rinse out the metaphors and see what remains; then get on with your discussion.
Andrew Sullivan
Sam Harris
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Habeas for Habeas?

Is it Orwell or Carroll? On January 18, 2007, the Attorney General of the United States, testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Now, Section 9 of Article 1 contains the following: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Somehow Gonzales interprets this section to mean that something you don't necessarily have cannot be taken away from you.

Senator Spector suggested that Mr. Gonazles was on the verge of violating "common sense." One would be hard pressed, unless one is a member of the administration, to disagree with Mr. Spector.

The virtual trips to Oceania and Wonderland continue.

Alberto Gonzales
Habeas Corpus
Bush Administration

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-Cons and Defeat

What is it with the neo-con/Bush sycophants and their love for defeat? Redeployment isn't defeat.

If we engaged in the ideological struggle of the century, then we also need to struggle with philosophy and logic as well as with armed forces.

So far, there has been precious little attention paid to the underlying support for the murders and terrorist tactics: religious texts which can be interpreted to reward bloodletting in the name of a deity.

We have to re-think the whole approach to this struggle, include religious texts in our planning, and, while we're rethinking, it would be wise to redeploy our troops to a less vulnerable position, and thus save them for a later possible armed conflict.

One is not defeated if one wages war wisely. One observes, plans, and buys time for the most propitious moment.

Stop with defeat already. It isn't over until it's over; just ask the "defeated" Taliban in Afghanistan.
Neo-Cons
Iraq
Defeatism
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Left/Right/Fiddle/Burn

Too much is being made of our military action in Iraq, and not enough of the action in Afghanistan or on the mis-named "war." That is a grave deflection of attention from the future we face.

We are not at war with terrorists; we are at war with Islamic extremists.

If President Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan, the premise of this war would be more accurate . By diluting the attention of the nation from the Islamic jihadists onto a secular despot, Mr. Bush has embroiled the U.S. in a Sunni-Shi'ite centuries-old struggle. While this sectarian strife might be in our interests down the line, it is taking up too much of our energy; and it is not the true enemy. It is a symptom, but not the disease.

The Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt and others of its nature are small, but deadly. They pledge to "struggle" until Islam is the only religion in the world.

Thus, the United States must expand the "theaters" of the war to include ideology and education. The ideas in "holy" writings which allow for mayhem and murder in the name of a Supreme Being must be purged.

Focusing only on military encounters is delaying our inevitable success over the jihadists.

Until the leadership and those who influence opinion in the United States face this Islamic jihadist threat, we will gain no ground. While these influential persons fiddle away their influence hurling deprecations at each other, the "Rome" of our 21st Century war of ideology burns.

The U.S. battle may be against "terrorism" in Iraq, but the war is against the ideology of religious extremism.

Success in Iraq will only open the way to the next battle, for which we are not, nor does it seem that we will soon be, prepared.

Pundits
War on Terror
Religious Extremism

Sphere: Related Content

The Execution and Erudition

Andrew Sullivan links to Stephen Bainbridge's blog in which Bainbridge shares some thoughts on execution which have been developed by leading Roman Catholic thinkers.

It's erudition; it's fascinating reading. (There's a difference between revenge and retribution which I find a bit precious, but probably defensible.)

In the final analysis, though, the point discussed in the last Logorrhea posting, is not discussed by Bainbridge.

Somehow, somewhere, unless he was a sociopath from birth, Hussein learned a lesson which allowed him to make decisions which ultimately led to the gallows. Societies need to learn how to spot the dangerous lesson, and we need to learn how to undo the damage they cause.

Until that time, executions will continue, and they are, nevertheless, evidence of social failure. We are diminished by the death penalty.

Death Penalty
Saddam Hussein

Sphere: Related Content

Justice? Revenge? Diminishment?

John Donne wrote: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Saddam Hussein's execution has diminished us all. There is no disagreement with the various arguments for his death--justice, revenge, deserved. The point is that ultimately his death is evidence of the sad state of human social development.

Any time any person dies at the hands of another, acting alone or in concert with social mores, we have an example of social failure.

At some point, decisions are made which lead to the murder, the execution. What we need to do is to construct more just societies so that these decisions are never made.

It won't be easy.

It will take a determined effort, but the bells continue to toll. We may be justified in our eyes, but we are still diminished.
Death Penalty
Saddam Hussein

Sphere: Related Content

#6, as Well as Heather, Has Two Mommies

The AP has a story related to the Cheney's 6th grandchild. It's pretty much the standard happy grandmother info.

There's only one thing missing. While the article, "Cheney Happy About Daughter's Pregnancy," mentions Heather Poe, Mary's partner, Granny Lynne doesn't mention her daughter's partner of 15 years in the quoted text.

Heather goes from having Two Mommies, to being one of two mommies; literary Lynne seems to have missed a golden opportunity.

"Mary and Heather will be great moms," should've been the operative quote.

Maybe next year.
Lynne Cheney
Mary Cheney
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Wars and Battles Fought Therein

The right wing nut punditry is having a field day trying to talk the American public into acknowledging a "loss" of the Iraqi conflict.

Take, for instance, Emmett Terrell's piece in townhall.com, "Bust the joint up." It's little bit of puffery for the ovines who read Townhall for solace.

While casting usual aspersions upon Senator Ted Kennedy (what would they do without him?), Terrell writes, "The Democrats' abandonment of this war..."

Um, Em, baby, non, non, mon petit choufleur. No Democratic Party member has ever said this "war" is lost.

The common cant of the right is that the "war" is in Iraq. The Iraqi element of this "war" on terrorists is but a "theater of operations."

Like so many of the United States' wars in the past, this one, too, has had missteps in its beginnings. This particular battle has been a tragic miscalculation from its inception--ersatz cowboys playing cinematic heroes.

The war itself, however, is far from lost, and, in total agreement with President Bush, it is a war which we must win.

We just need someone with the smarts and the leadership to accomplish that victory.

It's time for the right wingers to acknowledge their misplaced trust (after all, it was for a tax cut in the first place--no one ever expected him to wage a war!), and work with knowledgeable people--people who have a wide perspective of the entire situation, societal make-up included--and help America gird the loins for the long struggle.
Emmett Terrell
Townhall.com
Iraqi War

Sphere: Related Content

Apt or Inapt--What's a Metaphor to Do?

I often chide my English teacher acquaintances (and myself, after some 35 years of doing just that) about the thought processes of the general public. At times I worry about that.

For instance, how many people really understand the concept of metaphor? How many people stop to think about a metaphor which has become a cliche?

As a quickie posting, let me discuss two: 1) the good shepherd, and 2) waving a red flag at a bull.

The religious shepherd has long since been a favorite of mine as a truly inapt metaphor for a community of believers. The shepherd protects the herd from the ravages of the world, right? Right. If one were to ponder the idea just a bit beyond the cuddly lamb in the shepherd's arms, though, mustn't one ask what the shepherd gets and what the sheep really get?

The sheep get shorn, to start. Finally, one asks how many sheep, exactly, die of old age? Whence lamb chops? Mutton? Hmmm.

Actually, the shepherd is "protecting" the sheep from the wolf for his own benefit; anything accruing to the sheep is, in the long run, minimal.

Someone recently said that certain statements made by Islamic extremists were similar to these people waving a red flag at Mr. Bush, and that he might be justified in taking military action against them. Before we jump into the fray, however, let's also look at that metaphor a bit more closely.

What is the purpose of the red flag? We get the metaphor from the bull fights of our Hispanic neighbors, and the flag, cape, in their instance, is used to distract the bull by focusing his attention on the cape's movement. The bull theoretically doesn't notice the sword cleverly hidden behind the flag/cape, much to his eventual sorrow.

The one who waves that red cloth usually ends up finishing off the bull. Very seldom is the bull successful. Metaphorically, then, it is a mistake to encourage Mr. Bush to "charge" at a red flag of vituperation. It could well not turn out well for the U.S. for whom Mr. Bush, metaphorically, substitutes.

Wolf 0, Sheep 0, Shepherd 100
Bull 0 (most of the time), Flag/cape waver 100 (most of the time)

Shepherds seem to get the better deal.

Rather than being a bull or even a bull fighter, we should aspire to be metaphorical shepherds, keeping the wolf away and keeping the spoils for ourselves.

By the way, the next time a preacher speaks of loving shepherds, look to your wallets, my ovine compatriots. It's shearing time.

Metaphors
Mr. Bush
English Teachers
Education

Sphere: Related Content

Remember the "Oral Sex" lamentations of the late 90's?

During the Clinton impeachment brouhaha, Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, lamented, "What will I tell my children?" And that's when we were all sniggering about oral sex being in the news.

Now Slate.com led me to this link where a Washington Post writer, Alan Cooperman, pens this line: "But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex."

Catch that? Anal sex is now a fit topic for discussion in the nation's newspapers.

It's contained in a story about how "A panel of rabbis gave permission Wednesday for same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays within Conservative Judaism..." Conservative Jews, it seems, have decided to enter the 21st century.

Bono must really be in a pickle. Except her son is now at U.S.C., and her daughter is in high school. Maybe she won't have to have to worry about that discussion, after all.

I heard the phrase on NPR this morning; I wonder if mothers leapt to turn off radios playing in the kitchen.

Relax, parents. Your kids will find out somewhere else. Or maybe they'll grow up anyway and go to U.S.C.

Conservative Jews
Sex Talk
Sex Education

Sphere: Related Content

Religion and Metaphors and the 21st Century

World-wide, language teachers have failed to be thorough in the uses, benefits, and, most importantly, the dangers of metaphor—that comparison between two unlike items--”His fist is a hammer.” A fist is not a hammer, but the metaphor implies a fist with strengths similar to those of a hammer.

In country after country, too many people not adequately trained to recognize metaphor are easily misled into “truths” which they otherwise would not logically assume; and most dangerous of these are those which deal with the metaphors of religion.

All “Holy” writings come from lore, evolved from the effort to make secure a specific tribe at a specific time in history. Are tribal members falling ill and dying from eating pork or shellfish? Then invent fearsome, all-knowing, yet unknowable, powers to regulate diet. Create anthropomorphized, all-powerful entities with all the positive and negative emotions of a human; and the tribal leader, thus a mere tool immunized from scrutiny, has a good, strong, never-to-be-questioned educational and regulatory tool.

Does the eventual presence of multiple, competing powers/gods threaten the stability of the tribe? Designate a single, jealous “god.”

It was reasonable for leaders thousands of years ago to use metaphor to teach people how to live safely and thrive in an unforgiving environment.

Today, parents use metaphor to concoct a “bogeyman” to teach a child caution or to give a vague, but all-powerful, reason not to do something. There does come a point when the child's bogeyman is set aside--until that child becomes an adult and, in turn, resurrects the fearsome bogeyman in order to help teach the next generation.

It is neither nor legitimate to continue structuring religious ethics and morals around an anthropomorphic metaphor. We understand natural laws; we know to kill the toxic parasites in pork through thorough cooking; we know to avoid shellfish during certain tidal episodes.

Religious terrorism, physical and psychological, stems from those negative human characteristics that have been attributed to deities. Logic and policy cannot any longer accept those negatives.

It is arrogance to claim that a deity can be jealous. Pettiness in such power? Anger? In a perfect entity? Such posturing is not only illogical, it shows a lack of trust in the congregants. Worse, it condemns thousands to ignorance and imperils everyone.

Thomas Aquinas, when pressed, used Aristotle’s definition of “God”-- “the Prime Mover”--whatever force gave impetus to the universe. By implication, this Christian theologian tells us all else is metaphor.“God” is not dead, having never “lived” in the human sense of the word. “God” is vaster than the deities of earth. “God” is beyond our ken, but not beyond our daily experiences.

The time has come to honor the religious metaphors of the past as once useful tools, but in these dangerous times we must find a new metaphor that is able to deal with the realities of the moment. These realities necessarily mean developing a metaphor for a sense of oneness with the universe, which is strongly akin to the metaphor of the past but which also demands recognition of, and responsibility for, the place of each individual in the panoply of the universe; and, especially, a oneness with others.

Coupled with the need for this new metaphor is the more general urgency to integrate into education an understanding of the importance of anthropology, sociology, and history; giving us more complete comprehension of this complicated world and enabling all to lead more secure lives.

The basic wisdom of the centuries is immutable; the metaphors used to teach that wisdom are not immutable. Teachers of reading and ministers of the soul must learn to trust a well-educated population.

There will be people who will read this as an attack on their religious beliefs. It is not; the metaphor is not the belief; the truth within the metaphor is the belief. The metaphor is the “handle” we use to express our innate spirituality.We need teachers to be more thorough and spiritual leaders to be more honest. The metaphor is not the message.

With the world teetering on an internal religious war between two factions of the Islamic religion, not to mention a possible bloody struggle between Islamists and religionists of the two other religions of "the Book," it's time for all leaders, secular and sectarian, to come clean about their particular religious metaphors.
Metaphor and Myth
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Conservation or Prestige--Guess Which Wins

Jeff Melnychuk of Wheelbase Communications has an article in the December 2, 2006, edition of the Riverside, CA, Press-Enterprise, titled "Power Assist." (Sorry, the link is unavailable.)

Melnychuk is writing about the new gas-electric auto models which are not "about green frugality." Here's a wonderful couple of quotes:

"The idea of buying a hybrid for fuel savings...has become obsolete....a new incentive: straight-line performance. And don't forget that performance sells. It always has and most likely always will, not just on the basis of sheer acceleration, but as it's linked to prestige."

Um...prestige. Unh-huh.

Melnychuk then goes on to describe a luxury sedan which, according to a picture caption, has a V-8 hybrid engine with the performance of a V-12. It does have lower emissions, but it doesn't save gas.

What does it take for the auto industry, and the American buying public, for that matter, to remember we are in a struggle against a deadly foe who receives a share of the gasoline costs? Doesn't each gallon of gas somehow go to fund an i.e.d. or a bullet?

Or have I been misinterpreting the President's dire warnings?

Is there not a war on terror? Are we on a war footing here in the U.S.?
Auto CAFE Standards
Fuel Efficiency
War Footing

Sphere: Related Content

What's in a name? #2

The newspapers are playing coy with whether or not to call the blood-letting in Baghdad a "civil war." (See Slate Magazine 11/25/06 "Today's Papers: Very Black Friday.")

That's almost foolishness. The American "war on terror" ended a couple of years ago, as far as the Iraqi theater is concerned (we'll fondly remember the ITO, I dare say when the rest of the stuff hits the fan). What our "boots" are experiencing now is a ring-side, court-side, 50-yard line seat to a religious war; and it's a war in which we have a stake.

Just as did the other two religions of "the Book," Islam is going through a metaphorical growing spell on its way to institutional maturity. And we are appalled at the contemporary consequences.

It's acknowledged by most that we went into Iraq with insufficient knowledge of the total picture of Iraqi society. What we must do now is not allow ourselves to be mired in our pre-2003 thinking. Without understanding that the theocracy underlying the politics of the area, we will never be able to prevail in the fight against Islamic extremist fundamentalists.

The newspapers should stop being shy about naming what's happening in Iraq. A religious war, by any other name, is still a religious war.

The course of safety for our democracy depends on how we handle ourselves in this sectarian struggle, and let's not confuse the issue with continued references to terrorism as the nature of the carnage has changed.
Islam
Media
Religious War

Sphere: Related Content

Alas, Andrew, it's just words.

Andrew Sullivan is expending a great deal of effort and utilizing his considerable skill as a writer and debater defending his "doubt" regarding his Catholic religion.

Words. Words. Words. In defense of what? Sullivan knows, yea, he argues about the inability to "know" God, "A skeptic may affirm, as I do, the notion of an objective truth - but insist on the weakness of the human mind to know it [God] fully," that we are living with an anthropomorphized "deity." This deity has all the conunrums of human psychology. If anything, the religions of the book are virtual blasphemics, since they reduce the very concept of the Prime Mover to a querulous superhuman, with all the pettiness of an insecure despot.

Be honest, Andrew.

Cherish the community, disdain the irrelevant trappings. Much social good comes from the community and the sharing; those are the worthy elements. Debating doubt is intellectual masturbation.

Agape.
Andrew Sullivan
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

When does a conundrum become a dilemma?

Poor Charlie Rangel. He calls for discussion about re-instating the draft, and the negative responses are thunderous.

Here's the conundrum/dilemma: Are we or are we not in the struggle of the 21st century? Will that struggle demand military action at times? Are the armed forces of the United States able, at its present level of "boots," to meet, successfully, the challenges they might face?

On the one hand the generals last week supported the volunteer armed forces which we now have; on the other hand, they say the armed forces we now have are insufficient to increase the commitment of troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. Bush, to his credit, talks a good "fight." He, however, has not supported his speeches about how long and hard this struggle will be with demonstrable actions.

If this war is as important as Mr. Bush says it is, and I do think it is at least as important as he says, then it is his responsiblity to educate the public in the matter of war footing and sacrifice. So far, too often, the Opus cartoon of 10-1-06 is a metaphorically accurate depiction of this "war" as seen by the American public.

After a couple of panels with Opus looking around, he says, "We're at war?" "Of course we're at war." "War on drugs?" "No." "On traditional marriage?" "Iraq. You idiot." "Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh. Right."

A draft would make the country pay attention to the "war" which obviously is real, and which, just as obviously, cannot be won on the "cheap," whether in blood or treasure.

Whatever Mr. Rangel's motives, he's certainly correct to bring up the subject of a draft, and his thinking deserves more than a knee-jerk "the public won't stand for it." How does one know what the public will stand for without a serious discussion?

Are we at war or not?

Are we prepared to win or not?

Will Western democracies survive or not?

The Draft
Mr. Rangel
Mr. Bush

Sphere: Related Content

What, Exactly, Is Good for General Motors?

Charles Wilson's statement has become garbled a little bit (thanks to Al Capp?). Here's what he said: "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country." Here's where I found the quote.

Today on NPR's Weekend Edition, a news item tells us, "G.M. lost 10 billion dollars last year."

It begs the question, then, doesn't it? How is this Republican Administration's economical program, as Mr. Bush continuously calls it, good for the U.S.A.?

Historical data disprove the claim that Republican administrations' economic policies are good for the country, and, by the way, G.M. View the eRiposte.com data here.

What do you suppose Charlie Wilson would say about them apples?
General Motors
Republican Administrations
U.S. Economy

Sphere: Related Content

What's More Dangerous--a Little Bit or a Lot Of Learning?

"A little bit of learning is a dangerous thing" generally is taken to mean that an insufficient amount of information can and sometimes does lead to a disasterous decision.

What happens if we substitute a lot for a little bit? We get something like Victor Davis Hanson's piece in Real Clear Politics.

Mr. Hanson is very well educated, and he is a master spokesperson for conservative issues, primarily the recent discussion on immigration. He wrote about "Mexifornia," for instance.

In today's piece he has this phraseology: "Can it be that [Democrats] are seeing that the only choices we have had after Sept. 11 have been mostly either bad or worse..?"

Now here's where the lot of learning comes in. Selectively choosing a date, the date which has numbed us to anything rational, Mr. Hanson cleverly misleads the reader this way: Since Sept. 11, the choice to invade Iraq was not an only choice. It was a choice made deliberately in the face of odds against a successful conclusion. It was a choice, we now know, that was made in spite of adequate preparation.

Had Mr. Hanson used, say March 19, 2003, as his date after which we had only "bad or worse" choices, his point would have been more valid.

A lot of education can be a bad thing for people who have to put their trust in those educated people, if the educated people use their education for dubious purposes.

You can do better, Mr. Hanson. Scholarly integrity. Please.

Victor Davis Hanson
Republican Pundits
Integrity

Sphere: Related Content

Food for Thought? A Lesson from South Africa?

On the same day the U.S. Conference of Bishops issued its patronizing guideline for counseling (disordered) gays and how we should live our lives (celebate and silent), South Africa's parliament passed a "same-sex" marriage law which equates committed relationships of same sex couples with committed relationships of opposite sex couples.

Hmmmm.

Well, Africa was the cradle of humankind.
U.S. Bishops
South Africa
Same-Sex Marriage

Sphere: Related Content

Yes, Borat Stereotypes, but...

There's an article in one of today's papers in which someone complains about Borat stereotyping Eastern Europeans.

Um...Not.

The stereotype is of Americans and how, as a country, we stereotype Eastern Europeans. If one reads the Borat story in Salon.com, one learns that each of the persons in the movie fell for the joke--each one of them believed the person to be what he and his "producers" claimed him to be, and they believed the story about the "documentary."

Cohen held a mirror up to ourselves, and we didn't recongize us.

The joke, perhaps, wasn't on us so much as it might be us.

Borat
Stereotypes

Sphere: Related Content

What a Rush!!!!

At some point, people should begin discussing the role of pundits and bloviators (not, of course, ersatz pundits and bloviators such as I) in the national discourse.

What, exactly, is or should be the role of such opinionators?

Take Rush Limbaugh's recent statements about his disappointment with Republican conservatives, and about his own determination not to "carry water" for them any longer unless they change their wayward ways.

One has to ask, if Mr. L sometimes felt that he was carrying water for people in whom he had little or no faith, then why did he do it?

Whither self-respect? Whither integrity? Whither intellectual honesty?

What, exactly, is the definition of a panderer? Or a pimp? Or a dealer?

Rush Limbaugh
Pundits
Conservatives
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Republican Mindsets...Whither the Constitution?

Mary Bono is quoted in The Desert Sun, November 5, 2006, A17, thusly about ex-Republican Congressman, Mark Foley: "First and foremost, Mark Foley ought to be prosecuted." This quote is from a transcript of an October 12, 2006, interview with the paper's editorial board as the board queried both Ms Bono and her challenger, David Roth (not available online at this time).

One must ask the question, "Ms Bono, just what crime is alleged in this 'Foleygate' affair?" Is flirting a prosecutable action? What would be the parameters of the crime? There have been no allegations of sexual misconduct. The age of consent in D.C. is 17. The most serious word used so far has been "inappropriate."

Oughtn't there be some mention of a prosecutable crime before a member of congress calls for a prosecution? Doesn't the Constitution demand some sort of proof before prosecution?

What was she thinking at the time of the interview?

Surely it couldn't be the age factor as prosecutable. There's a 26 year or so difference in the ages of Ms Bono and her first husband.

"First and foremost, Mark Foley ought to be prosecuted."

Why, Ms Bono?
Mary Bono
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content