baliberal

What is up with Mitch McConnel voting against the flag amendment and are the wingnuts ready to burn him in effigy for it?

Red state dems voting for it I can understand but why would Reid and Feinstein and what are some of the other exceptions they would like to make to the 1st amendment?

With Afghanistan starting to look more and more like a mess how much is that going to effect our decision making on pulling troops out of Iraq?

The current Israeli "incursion" into the Palestinian territories should be good for a few more thousand terrorist recruits.

Other than on Altercation I don't see much written about the Palestinian / Jewish conflict on the blogosphere...........may just be the blogs I'm reading regularly. Anyway, in light of the connection of this conflict to the rise of Islamoextremism it is certainly a topic worthy of greater coverage. There is perhaps no greater example of religious intolerance than the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. On both sides. Americans generally have a natural affinity for the state of Israel. This is not simply because of the large Jewish population of the US and any undue influence that a powerful Jewish lobby purportedly has over the policies of the US government. Of course our common religious traditions play a big role as well in our affection for and support of the Israelis.

I think this support also comes down to an American willingness to pull for the little guy. The small state of Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arabs and has fought at least 4 major wars against them, often against overwhelming odds. Americans love an underdog, and early on in the existence of the Jewish state this was certainly the case. Not only this, but one could also say that the history of the Jewish people post-WWII is also perhaps the greatest comeback story of all time. After being almost eliminated by a genocidal maniac in Hitler the Jewish people were able to come together and arise from the ashes of ruin like a phoenix. Anyone who has read Exodus can not but help to admire the Jewish people and their difficult struggle for survival.

Yet the American love affair with Israel is also one that is fraught with difficulty. The neoconservatives who pushed for the war in Iraq did so at least in part because they believed that it would benefit our Israeli ally. However, the Iraq War could actually prove to make things worse for the state of Israel. While Saddam Hussein may have paid for terrorists to blow themselves up on Jewish buses, his state was not really a threat to the existence of Israel. The continuing US presence in Iraq and the impact that this is having on recruiting for the Islamofascists could prove to be a longer term threat.

Also, in gereral the US support for Israel continues to be a problem in our dealings with the Arab/Muslim world. While I am not advocating that the US should abandon its support for Israel it is essential that we do more to support a peaceful negotiation of the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians. Given the nature of American politics anyone questioning support for Isreal will quickly be ostracized. Somehow we have to get beyond this. The US government must be more forceful in convincing the Israelis to work out a negotiated settlement before it is too late..........if its not already. Things seem to be going in the opposite direction, especially the last few years under the Bush administration. All parties share some blame in this but it is time to move beyond the "blame game." My big concern is that a Democratic administration might not do much more to push the Israelis toward a peaceful settlement. Here is where the politics of the Jewish vote in the US unfortunately does make a difference. I don't know the answer to this delimma but I do know that as long as the state of Israel basically treats the Palestinian territories like Bantustans and the US doesn't at least seem to do something about it, our relations with the Muslim world will not improve and Islamic extremism is likely to continue to grow.

So how is the "decider" going to deal with the Iraqis telling him they want the US to get the hell out. Kinda puts a kink in the whole "permanent bases from which we can control the oil strategy."

And how will they reconcile the issue of "terrorists / insurgents." Yes, most of the resistance in Iraq today could be called a legitimate national liberation struggle against an occupying power. Certainly that's how the majority of the Sunni insurgents see it. But these groups must have cooperated with the Al Queda terrorists. Giving them an unqualified amnesty seems problematic at best. How will the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq feel about this?

Merla Haggard........a rebel with a cause.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13520363/site/newsweek/

I have to admit that I can't do it very often, but every once in a while I listen to Rush's program when I have to be on the road for a few hours. Well, today was one of those days and although I didn't listen to the entire program it didn't take long to see that they had latched onto the WMD hype of Ricky Sanotorium. Rush had a guest host today who just couldn't understand why the administration wasn't totally behind this story. Of course the object of the whole "revelation" was a sad attempt by Ricky to appeal to the wingnut base to get behind his re-election and to maybe even confuse some of the voters who don't keep up on these things. Well getting the support of the dittoheads was easy enough, and he even got the support of JD "send em' all back to Mexico" Hayworth who was also on the program who repeated the lame excuse that the administration had moved on to more important matters, and that maybe some of those working at the Pentagon who refuted the significance of the revelation just weren't being as supportive of the president as they should be. I swear they get so caught up in their convoluted logic that they don't know the difference between what's up and what's down. I may have missed it, but I also have not seen a lot of condemnation by the media of Ricky.

And Christi, I couldn't agree with you more about Tony Snow. I also watched a short excerpt of his press conference on c-span and could he be a bigger jerkoff. I know he's supposed to be a really nice guy and he's certainly an upgrade from Scottie boy, but he's also an ass. And I thought this before reading that he was rude to Helen Thomas today, part of the presser that I missed. Speaking of Helen, she was also apparently the but the joke of another neanderthalicon, congressman King of Iowa, who said that if Zarqawi were lucky enough to get 72 virgins, they'd look like Helen. No class.

And of course the big news of the day about the Miami terrorists.........I agree totally with Bill Press who said on CNN today that the arrests were timed to take away from publicity of the story about the government snooping into Americans private financial records. Whether its a terror alert or a made up non-story they always come up with some way to dilute the bad news of the day.

Okay, so I just finished watching the Frontline documentary on PBS. How can Colin Powell and George Tenet stay silent about what they know? After what was done to them it is difficult to imagine that at some point they will not write the tell-all book......but maybe they'll hold off until after Bush is out of office.

Speaking of Bush, does this documentary also not confirm that it was Darth Cheney and Rumsfeld, and their henchmen who concocted this tragedy, and that jr. is just along for the ride. Tell me these s.o.b.'s are not evil.

I don't personally believe in hell, but I have never wished more that I be totally wrong about something, for if there is one I have confidence that these assholes are going to burn for all eternity.

George "flag boy" Allen today on Hardball bragging about bringing religious freedom to the Iraqis.....is he really that clueless or just a lying ass. Probably both.


Question: Is America vulnerable to a religiously inspired extremist demagogue?

Just ponder for a moment the success of Karl Rove in creating a cult of personality around dubya. Now think of what he could do with someone who could actually string two coherent sentences together, add in a history that hints at moderation and Hollywood style good looks, and I believe you have Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The only thing that prevents him being annointed the next great leader by the rethuglican neocons is his Mormon background. They are still not quite certain that the Bible belters will accept his "crazy religion" but I'm convinced they don't want McCain bad enough that they'll turn to the best alternative, and that has to be Romney.

Why do I think he is particularly dangerous. It is not just because of his religious beliefs. I don't know how devout a Mormon he is but if you've ever read any of the Book of Mormon you really have to wonder what he would be willing to do......... It has more to do with my general mistrust of the republican movement toward a theocracy, something that I have a sneaking suspicion that Romney would be willing to support even if he doesn't believe in it, which he might. I really have nothing to base this attitude about Romney on. He may be a wonderful guy who really has the best interest of America in mind. Nah!

The ability of the rethuglicans to enforce party discipline and unify behind their "conservative" message will be a threat in 2008 no matter who the candidate is, but the one that scares me the most is Romney. I honestly don't think our democratic system can survive another 4-8 years of republican rule without permanent damage to the separation of powers, not to mention how entrenched the conservatives will be in the judiciary. Somehow Romney makes me think of a TV character on a USA program called The Dead Zone. The lead character who can see the future, is trying to prevent a charismatic congressman from becoming president because he has a vision that the election of this congressman will bring on Armegeddon. I'm not saying that's what the election of Romney would do but with the way things are going for the US and the world in general, well it just makes me wonder.........

"....all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelations 21:8

If you would ask the average Christian if its important to always tell the truth, of course they would say yes. If you asked whether it is ever okay to tell a lie they might struggle to answer, but ultimately they would say that it is sometimes a necessity to at least stretch the truth a little. It is this kind of rationalization that must go through the mind of the rethuglicans on a daily basis since they are constantly telling blatant lies about soo many things. They must justify this reliance on avoiding the truth as a deliberate part of their electoral strategy by resorting once again to the same ol' "ends justifies the means" argument. Since they know whats best for American and since liberals are a threat to the continuing existence of the American way of life, then anything and everything must be done to prevent liberals from ever again becoming a political force in America.

We all know the big lies........the ones that got us into an unecessary war. And now these lies have led to more lies, just as lying always does. The Bush administration and the Rubber Stamp congress remind me of a cousin of mine, who as a teenager had become such a big liar that no one ever really paid any attention to what he would say. Why should any logical and thinking being believe anything they say, well according to the mainstream media interpretation its because they really are good leaders who are really trying to do the best that they can. And besides, they're all good Christians so how could they be lying about so many things. To call them on all of these lies the media would first have to admit their complicity in spreading and legitimizing this bullshit.

Further proof of their devotion to the prinicples of Christianity can be seen by going to Crooks and Liars and watching the video of Colbert interviewing a congressman and asking him to recite the 10 Commandments........even I could do better than 3.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/29.html#a6909

Okay, I'll admit I may not be the most articulate person in the world but every time Bush speaks at a press conference where he doesn't have a complete script in front of him, his inability to put two coherent thoughts together is painful to watch. I'm embarrassed for America as a nation. How can he possibly not go down as the greatest presidential failure ever. If the Iraq mess does not get better soon I'm almost certain that his legacy will be one of failure. Even if the Iraq situation miraculously improves he has done so many things so wrong, and has lied about what he has done so often, that historians will most certainly be more critical than the mainstream media is willing to be now.

It never ceases to amaze me how accepting the media is of his repetitive bullshit and how so many of them actually seem to admire the guy. They are followers and probably always have been. I realize they have to temper their criticism to some extent or what they write would never get by their corporate controlled editorial process, but can't they be creative enough to somehow express their disdain for his frat boy antics and attitude. His lack of maturity and insensitivity is referred to as playful banter rather than disrespectful intimidation that he obviously intends it to be. I can't even begin to remember how often I've heard him described as basically a nice guy and of course he's the kind of guy that most Americans would want to "have a beer with". Guess I'm just never going to understand the "cool kids crowd" because I find the guy disgusting, and an embarrassment to history majors everywhere.

But of course he's a good Christian. Speaking of religious developments Condi Rice appeared in front of the SBC today a bragged that when she completed her term as Secretary of State, it will have been 12 years since a white male has held that position. I'm sure the progressives at the SBC found that bit of news heartening. The media speculation about her as a presidential contender is also rather amusing. Although this may sound rather harsh, but to believe that the
conservative white population of this country would support a never married, black woman for president is rediculous at best.



Speaking of the SBC, they have decided to not totally abandon the public school system but instead they will try to take on a more active role by getting elected to local school boards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400823.html

Oh joy joy! I can see it now their first item on the agenda will be weekly book burnings at the public square. Of course this is just a continuation of their overall strategy of bringing religion back into the schools so they can prevent public school teachers from teaching the evil secular theology of evolution and prohibit the teaching of tolerance for the "homosexual lifestyle". Once they've accomplished these all important goals they'll get around to whether theirs any actual "readin', writin' and rithmetic goin on".

So the Southern Baptist Convention elected a new leader today, and not someone who was the favorite of the powers-that-be. Could this indicate a potential developing conflict within the membership. Seems their may be a division between younger members who want to put more money into evangelical programs and the traditional power structure who are more concerned with other things........

The new leader claims that he believes in a literal interpretation of the bible and is a strong social conservative, but he's just not "mad about it".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300613.html

This new leader apparently promised to devote more $ to recruiting overseas and attempt to reverse the decline in baptisms in the US. Does this mean the evangelicals have peaked? I don't think so, since they have so much money behind them and their willing to use just about any method to recruit new members. However, the off-the-wall, even crazy comments of evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson my finally be having an impact. I think that the social conservative movement is ultimately doomed to failure. The literal interpretation of the bible that they promote just won't stand the test of time, and science. But they're not going to go down without a fight. And if progressives don't stand together against their methods of fear and intimidation, they could prevail.

One other note on the religious front today. A new group religious leaders, one that even includes an important evangelical leader, have called on the Bush administration to reject torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201484.html

Of course the spokesbushie immediately stated the pat answer "we don't do torture". When are these guys going to get it? The rest of the world and a significant percentage of the American public is just not buying it anymore.

The American corporate elite have willingly entered into an "unholy" alliance with the religio-fascist evangelical fundamentalists. This modern corporate elite have gotten everything they want from the Bush administration, from mega tax cuts to a more lax regulatory environment. This corporate elite has almost nothing in common with the religious conservatives who provided such a large percentage of the Bush electorate. In fact, many of those corporate elitists probably have a contemptuous attitude toward the religious extremists within the "republican coalition" but they know that they can not win without them.

I believe a big part of the bargain between the various powerbrokers, the political and corporate kingmakers, includes an agreement to fund the conservative social causes out of sheer greed. Greed for power and for more money. One has to wonder however when enough money is enough? Any objective view of the expansion of capitalism, from the "Robber Barons" of the late 19th century up through the Junk Bond kings of the 1980s, and continuing through the crony capitalists of Haliburton and Enron, must conclude that unrestrained and unregulated corporations present a threat to the overall economic well-being of the majority of the citizens of the US, and even of the world. The majority of social and religious conservatives can not see, or refuse to see, how this alliance with the corporate elite is really going against their own economic interests. Their obsession with gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and yes even Janet Jackson's tit on tv, blind them from dealing with much more important issues.

The success of the economic conservatives at coopting the social conservative movement to support their elitist economic policies is derived at least somewhat from a basic premise that a majority of Americans accept without question, that of "individual responsibility." Conservatives of all stripes believe that individuals are poor as a result of their own actions and behaviors. It is because they are either uneducated or lazy, or both, and that if they'd just work harder, either at getting a better education or at using what skills they have to improve themselves, then of course everything would be fine. Underlying this assumption is the belief of social conservatives that many of the problems of the poor are a result of some spiritual short-coming. Because they have not made a total committment to Jesus, the poor have turned instead to drugs or alcohol......Conservatives refuse to accept any societal responsibility for the condition of those who are less fortunate.

Well it looks as if the Anglican Church is ready to split wide apart over the issue of the ordination of a gay bishop a few years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060612/ap_on_re_us/episcopal_convention

I guess the Christian message of inclusion and loving everyone has once again been rejected. The homophobia of conservative Christians is reaching a fever pitch, and unfortunately it doesn't seem as if it is going to end anytime soon. With Junior and his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the right wingnuts screeching about the threat to the American family, and the unwillingness of most democrats to take a principled stand against this bigotry, this issue is likely to gain in popularity and not just go away as many centrist dems would like it to.

The I support traditional marriage but don't want to change the constitution because its a states rights issue is just not going to hold up. Although I don't think the wingers will ever be able to gain enough support to actually get a constitutional amendment passed, they will cause more damage to the political culture in America over the next decade by continuing to raise this issue, adding further to the partisan rancor that has enveloped us. Eventually this is going to cost the Rethuglicans support as younger Americans who are a little more tolerant toward gay rights become a bigger share of the electorate, and as the "greatest generation"-which happens to be a little more homophobic, begins to pass on.

I have to admit this is an issue that I struggle with as well. Not my support for equal civil rights for gays, but the political ramifications of openly supporting either civil unions or gay marriage. I was really pleased when my son, who is 20 years old, recently expressed a more open attitude to homosexuals. In the past, like many teens growing up in small town America, he had expressed disdain or even disgust toward gays. I had hoped that he had been raised better, but it was one of those things that I wasn't sure about. It makes me hopeful that we are gradually moving toward a more tolerant society, but then I remember the what progressives are up against and I wonder just how far we have actually come.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but wasn't the Jesus supposedly placed on Earth so that all human sin could be forgiven, hence all sinners as well? Although I reject the idea that homosexuality is inherently sinful, shouldn't any good Christian be more accepting of the "weaknesses of the flesh", and be forgiving. If the same conservative fundamentalists who are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage and the threat of homosexuality put as much effort into actually helping those who are less fortunate, then maybe they could actually have an impact on American families. As anyone who has done any research into divorce would know, it is financial issues, and the problems associated with them that are the biggest challenge facing American families. There may be the occaisional family like that of the governor of New Jersey, broken apart because someone tried to deny their sexual inclinations, but the hyperventilating going on about this "threat" would be amusing if not for the negative impact that it can have on so many lives.

Markos was excellent on Press the Meet today. If you haven't seen it go to Crooks and Liars. One of my big frustrations over the past few years has been watching democratic spokespersons seem like incompetents on national news programs. I know they are often playing with a stacked deck against them, and unlike the republican shills they do at least try to tell the truth most of the time but please........why can't the dems have more eloquent and intelligible speakers?

I also have to post this quote from Digby. If you don't read his blog you're missing out on some really funny stuff. Anyway, the thought of President Newt must be too too much for the digster........

"This guy takes himself very seriously as a military historian and strategist. He also
likes dinosaurs. In other words, he's a twelve year old geek who wants to play with real
soldiers. Like many wingnut "intellectuals" he seems to have some serious
developmental problems."

What is it with has been politicians who think they can be president, must be the "tricky dicky" success story. If Nixon could make a comeback then maybe even Newt can. Of course the dem side has its share of "would like to be's," from Tom Daschle to Edwards and Clark. Don't get me wrong, I like these guys okay, but do they really have a chance?

Finally, another day goes by and the rethuglicans have refused to unconditionally condemn the "pscycho bitch from hell" Coulter. Not a surprise!

Okay for those of you who are expert bloggers.......and more computer literate than I am, please be kind since I'm sure you can tell that I'm just getting started. I've put in links to the blogs that I visit most often and I think I have put the links in correctly??? I will add links later to other liberal sites that I visit occaissionally, and maybe even a few links to the "dark side" since its always good to follow what they are up to.

I will try to get to the point where I can post at least once a day for anyone out there who might find what I have to say of any interest. Most of my posts will be fairly brief, but I do hope to write some more extensive postings on the rising threat that I see......an American Theocracy.

I recently had a colleague (I teach at a small community college) tell me that she really doesn't support the idea of a separation of church and state. She is married to a Methodist minister, but I have always thought of her as relatively progressive......I guess she probably doesn't think much of my support for same-sex marriage, which I'm sure I've mentioned to her.

I'm disgusted by all the attention Ann the "psycho bitch from hell" Coulter has been getting, but of course that's exactly what whe was going for. Somehow seeing her wearing a cross makes me wonder how someone like her could really believe that they are a Christian.....but since the neandertahl right has no clue what it means to be a Christian, I guess its not a surprise.

It would be funny if it weren't so scarry that people like Tom Delay and Coulter have come to represent the Republican party, and that they can get away with the bullshit that they do is a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

The fundamentalist Christo-Fascists argue that onc can not have morality without religion. However, one could also argue that that the least violent societies today are the most irreligious, or even agnostic democracies of Western Europe (you could throw in Japan too). In fact, the most violent societies today are those that are also the most fundamentalist in their religious beliefs and practices. The Bush legacy, and that of his moralistic fundamentalist evangelical, Christo-Fascist supporters, will be one of violence and death, and a loss of whatever moral authority America might have attained in the 200 plus years before his abysmal presidency.
Although the essential message of Christianity may be one of peace and love, Bush and his followers long ago lost sight of this goal.

Poverty breeds ignorance.
Ignorance breeds hate.
Hate breeds violence.

America has reached a new stage in the relationship between politcal and religious leaders. A very powerful religiously inspired element within our society is determined to create a Christian Theocracy. They are certain that America is in serious decline morally and ethically, and that their vision of Christianity is all that can save us as a nation and a people. Many would dismiss this radical religious element in America and would argue that there is no possibility that what they envision could ever come to pass. I wish this were true, but I'm afraid that it is not. At least it will be more possible if Americans who disagree with these radical Christo-Fascists do not stand up against it. That is exactly what I intend to do with this blog. If I am successful in only swaying the thoughts or actions of a few, I'll be happy. But to be honest I'm really writing this blog for myself......call it therapy.

Our founding fathers wisely warned against a possible "tyranny of the majority". To avoid this possibility they created a constitutional form of government that protected the rights of minorities, as well as the freedom to worship as we please for all Americans. Well, today we are endangered by a "tyranny of theocrats" led by Christo-Fascists who believe that all of the solutions they propose for our society are "inspired by God." Anyone who opposes them is not only un-American, but a radical liberal leftist who is also anti-Christian. Their vision of America is not the America that I believe in.