Despite my reservations...

Maybe I'm just naïve about how Washington "works," but I don't understand why politicians support things they don't support. In confirmation hearings for Condi Rice on Tuesday, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he would be voting to affirm her, albeit with "some frustration and reservation."

What does that mean? If you have a problem with her, don't support her. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. But this is an example of the (perceived or real) spinelessness of the Democratic Party, and only serves to compound its predicament. What does he have to lose by making his "frustration and reservation(s)" official?

John Kerry paid dearly for similar actions. He voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, then spent most of his campaign trying to explain why. (Remember this: "I actually voted for the war, before I voted against it."?) This is why many progressive Deaniacs couldn't find it in their hearts to fully back Kerry, even though he's infinitely better than Bush II. And the ruthlessly efficient GOP knows how to double the damage. Not only do you tacitly support the Right's principles and increase their power, you give them mud to sling next time you're up for office. Kerry's voting got him labeled a flip-flopper. Now they can call Biden the same thing if he ever sets his sights on the Oval Office.

Perhaps Kerry learned this lesson though. He and Barbara Boxer were the only members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against confirming Rice. Boxer, by the way, gave Rice the toughest line of questioning (Stephen Colbert called it a "catfight") , and did not back down when Rice demanded that she not "impugn my integrity." Uh, integrity? What integrity? You blindly support a president who deceives us all in the name of freedom. You do this because, in your own words, "we are one administration, with the President in the lead." And then the next moment you tell the Senate that you promise to tell them what you think. In the words of Homer J. Simpson, that's bull-plop. To keep in line with both of those statements, you have to believe what the president believes. Which makes you evil. And if you don't really believe what the president believes, and support him anyway, that also makes you evil. So I guess you're evil, Dr. Rice, either way. Sorry, I'm voting to reject you.

We are excited to announce...

... that the search for WMDs has come to an end!!! And what did they find? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! I think now would be a good time to reflect on all of the (completely unsubstantiated) allegations made by the administration regarding WMDs (courtesy AP via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer):

BEFORE THE WAR

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002

"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."
- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them."
- Bush, Nov. 3, 2002

"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."
- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003

----------------

AFTER THE WAR

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder."
- Bush, July 12, 2004

"We got it wrong. We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles."
- Powell, Oct. 1, 2004

"We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat." - Rice, Oct. 3, 2004

"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004

"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."
- Bush, Oct. 7, 2004

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people."
- White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Wednesday

Well, that was refreshing. May I again pose the question that's been bothering me for five years: How the hell could you vote for this guy? Why would any human being have a desire for this man, this administration to run the country and the world? It's incomprehensible to me, really. Everything that comes out of their mouths is a mockery of democracy. (Ooh, that sounds like a good blog name. "Mockery of Democracy.") But seriously, it's baffling. What is the mentality that causes people to believe that someone so vile and deceptive is a good choice for leader because he claims to be a proponent of "moral values." What's moral about lying in order to launch a greedy, unjustifiable war that kills tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of people and enrages most of the Arab world? Is America free to kill anyone it wants as long as it's in the name of Jesus? Fifty-one percent of caring Americans say yes. Scary, huh?

Thank God your parents died!

Do you think that just once, a religious group could do humanitarian work without turning it into a missionary crusade? The biggest problem I have with most evangelical Christians is that they feel it is their duty as "Christian Soldiers" to share the Word of God with everyone they come in contact with. So when the tsunami orphaned 300 muslim children in Banda Aceh, a Christian group called WorldHelp decided to raise money to save them. Which would have been fine except that they planned to place the orphans in nice Christian homes in Jakarta, to, in the words of WorldHelp president, Rev. Vernon Brewer, "plant Christian principles [in them] as early as possible."

Gee, that's nice. Their muslim parents get swept out sea, entire communities are wiped off the face of the earth, and Brewer's first thought is to use the tragedy as a chance to spread Christianity. Not a shred of consideration was given to the customs or cultural heritage of Banda Aceh, or to the fact that these kids' now-deceased parents would be horrified to see them shipped off to Christian households. And since young children are not autonomous, their worldviews will be shaped by the authority figures present in their lives. They don't really get to make the choice themselves, one way or the other.

WorldHelp scrapped its plans when it ran into intense public outcry and Indonesian law requiring orphaned children to be raised by people of their own religion. Oh, and when it did, it also stopped raising funds to help the orphans, removing appeals for donations from its Web site.

Um, hello? The orphans still need WorldHelp's help. They still face a dire future after this catastrophe that has destroyed their way of life. It doesn't seem very Christian to stop assisting those in need because you're not allowed to send Bibles in the care packages. What kind of message does that send to the world? Someone ask the FTC to investigate them for false advertising. "WorldHelp" indeed. More like "WorldSaveAndDamnThoseWhoDon't."

Snippets

There are several blogworthy things I have on my mind today, but my time and energy are limited, so each subject may only get a couple paragraphs.

Issue #1: The Abu Ghraib Scapegoat Trials

Even though the people who really ought to be on trial (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Bush) are still on the loose, the actions of the soldiers who carried out the abuses were inexcusable. Of course, that didn't stop the lawyers defending SPC Charles Graney from trying. Graney is shown in some of the infamous pictures piling up naked Iraqi prisoners in a kind of pyramid. In his opening arguments, attorney Guy Womack actually said, "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year? Is that torture?"

Now, I have never been a cheerleader or a soldier or a prisoner. I don't understand the military chain of command or the challenges a lawyer faces when defending the indefensible. Nevertheless, I feel confident in my response. Simply put, that is the most unbelievably stupid comparison ever to come out of the mouth of a human being. Period.

Issue #2: Our Wonderful Fourth Estate

It seems that the Bush administration thought the No Child Left Behind Act needed some P.R. So who did they turn to? The media, of course. That's right, the Education Department paid syndicated commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote legislation that has statistically impossible goals.

Amid furious criticism and demands that the money be returned (ironic echoes of the old Jesse Helms "not my tax dollars" cries of the culture wars), the department stood its ground, saying it was only trying to promote the act's benefits. This only showed that those in charge of educating the youth need some serious remedial education in the government/media relationship. The press in America was given the gift of the First Amendment because it is supposed to be a watchdog on government, not the government's P.R. department.

Of course, what should we expect when the media doesn't seem to be interested in safeguarding its cherished role? I'd walk all over the media too if it let me. For his part, Williams simultaneously justified and condemned his actions:

It's a fine line. Even though I'm not a journalist – I'm a commentator – I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it.

Oh, I see. You're a commentator. You think the average American knows the difference? And of course you "learned from it." You got caught. Call me skeptical, but I usually doubt the sincerity of people who only apologize after their indiscretions have been exposed. Where were your ethics when you were depositing those fat checks? By the way, were those checks signed by the guy who called the teachers' union a terrorist organization? Just asking.

Issue #3: Rehnquist Must Read my Blog

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently issued his year-end report on the judiciary, which was obviously inspired in part by my Nov. 13 blog entry. (OK, that may be a stretch, but he and I are on the same page.) Rehnquist warned that attempts to remove "activist judges" simply because the Right dislikes their decisions threatens to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary.

Conservatives across the country have begun to use the term "activist judge" to refer to any judge that refuses to enshrine Christian doctrine into law. Judges who support gay rights, minority rights, even human rights, are branded with this label by wingnuts who want them removed for upholding the Constitution.

Rehnquist is right to be worried about that. At this moment in history, we absolutely need the judiciary to protect us from a White House that believes that it would be a lot easier to fight terror if that damn Constitution would stop getting in the way.

Issue #4: The Governator Faces Reality

Arnold Schwarzenegger got into office by telling people what they wanted to hear. He promised to refund $4 billion in VLF taxes and he promised not to raise income taxes. Now he's had to tell them what those promises mean. With an $8 billion deficit and a promise not to raise taxes, he told Cullee-fohr-neeyah that the only way to balance the budget was massive program cuts. Cost-of-living adjustments for welfare recipients? Gone. Healthcare for poor children? Sorry, can't afford it. And the list goes on. Something tells me that approval rating might drop a bit.

The Governator says the cuts are necessary because we have to start living within our means. I'm not arguing with him on that one. But WHY THE HELL DID YOU GIVE BACK $4 BILLION THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE? Oh yeah, I forgot. That's how Republicans get elected. Most Americans will vote for anyone who promises to cut taxes, no matter how harmful those tax cuts are to our quality of life (see: George W. Bush).

Question of the Day

Why does Time Life Music advertise a Christian music compilation during the Travel Channel's "Las Vegas: Adults Only" segment?

Are a thousand words worth a picture?

I don't know if the saying really works as well in reverse, but I recently tried it. Well, it's actually barely more than 500 words, but it served its purpose, I think. Read on...

12/18/2004 Somewhere Over America

Today I write for a different reason, for a reason I used to only take photographs. I write to remember a moment.

I am on my way to Pennsylvania, 37,000 feet above ground. I notice a warm glow peeking out from the base of my lowered window shade. I lift the shade to reveal a poetically beautiful scene, bursting with color. A thick layer of gray-blue clouds, an unknown distance below me, at first mistaken for water: soft, rolling, and endless. The horizon is marked by a sudden change from cool gray to a fiery red, which quickly fades to orange, yellow, and then sky-blue.

I have to strain my neck to look behind at the ocean of color, as the 757’s wing, directly beneath, cuts across my view But even it adds to the scene, its steel(?) angled surface glistening with the orange of the late afternoon sun, hidden somewhere aft. Where’s my camera when I need it? Damn, it’s stuck in the overhead bin, as the laptop case takes the only available under-seat storage. This is why I decide to write instead. Besides, cameras do not as fully capture my mood, and that photo may only be an image in twenty years. And there is more to add to this memory.

Despite the cramped quarters in coach class (the guy next to me truly believes the armrest between us is his, not ours), today’s flight has been unusually peaceful for me. I didn’t even pull out the laptop until I was consumed by the desire to record this moment. I have been reading The Sun magazine’s November 2004 issue. The few times I have read The Sun, I have been amazed at the stark honesty and painful but purposeful personal reflection in the writers. I am especially drawn to their “Readers Write” feature, which asks readers to contribute their intimate feelings regarding given topics. This month’s topic is “Coming Clean.” I find that the experiences people share in “Readers Write” help me realize that the emotions and desires that make me question myself are common, if usually unseen. As a result, I feel less alienated and out-of-place than I often feel when confronted by a world that does not, at least on its conscious surface, see things the way I do. I would like to write in and hopefully be published someday. Upcoming possibilities are “Possessions” and “Saturday Night.” I can think of things I’d say about both.

Now the colors outside my little portal begin to fade to black, or perhaps more accurately, a deep dark midnight blue, the change accelerated by the fact that we are running away from the sun at 500 mph. The red strip on the horizon lingers, the last of the colors to fade away, and the white light on the tip of the wing momentarily looks like a crescent moon. The clouds have also given way, revealing the anonymous lights of an unidentified metropolis miles below. Would I have seen this scene with these eyes if I had not been reading The Sun at that moment? With the notable exception of the absence of my soulmate, this could possibly be the most gratifying flight I’ve ever taken. Now let’s turn out the light, put back the seat, and groove to Dave...