A Welcoming Community
According to the AP, Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon professor diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer, died today.
With all the politics and partisanship, perhaps it is time to pause to think what is really important. Life, family, etc.
Pausch was famous for his “last lecture” that he gave in 2007, celebrating his life. It was meant for his children, but many found inspiration in his courage.
Below is the link to the link to the video of his last lecture.
For the work week ending June 2
http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/archives/2006_05_28_bullmooseblogger_archive.html
I like to read the Bull Moose (Marshall Whitman) blog. I don’t know why. The man, for a democrat, seems rather self loathing. Let’s go thru his blatherings for this week.
Monday (Memorial Day)
You can’t disagree with honoring those that have fallen for our country. I have some friends now residing in our national cemeteries.
Tuesday, May 30
Big day – Two entries, Containment and GOP Good News
(Marshall rips into the dems, again and again)
(More after the flip.)
In Containment, he refers to the Iran as “governed by a madman who might not necessarily be governed by the normal rules of statecraft.”
Rather than digress to the obvious analogy, let’s just focus on his argument. Here we have the first President who is trying to get around the rules of the Ayatollahs in real charge of the USA. He still is a very constrained leader. The population is very young and very idealistic. Also pro western, as so few were alive at the time of the 1979 revolution (on a side note, very nationalistic if we push it), which he must cater to. This is the first President to write directly to the POTUS. I don’t understand his argument that the Iraqi President is a madman. Just more Bull Moose “Truthiness” Here is the example he “selectively” cites, from an interview the Iranian president gave to Der Spiegel:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,418660,00.html
SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years’ historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans — unfortunately — bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.
Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn’t take place, why then did this regime of occupation …
SPIEGEL: … You mean the state of Israel…
Ahmadinejad: … come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.
SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.
Ahmadinejad: We don’t want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians.
I would be remiss, if I didn’t mention the next few paragraphs didn’t delve into the President’s belief, or non belief, but it has to be taken into the context of public schools in Iran and other muslim countries. If you have been tought all your life that there is a zionist conspiracy and that the holocaust never happened, does that make you a madman? A bigot, yes, but no more than other US allies in the region. Uneducated, definitely. But not necessarily a madman. And the context of his response was that if (since) the Germans caused the holocaust, then they should be the ones to pay for it, not Palestinians. Again, a view shared by US allies in the region.
In GOP Good News, yet again, Whitman rails against democrats.
Here is a snippet:
But there is a silver lining. Some Democrats are rushing into the grasp of the loony tune lefties. (snark: Perhaps Whitman thinks everyone to the left of him is loonie, and everyone to the right is corrupt. It’s the “I’m sane, it’s the rest of the world that’s crazy” defense.)
Move On has moved on to Connecticut to attempt to purge one of the most esteemed centrists in the party – Joe Lieberman. They are joined by the flotsam and jetsam of the internet and Howard Dean’s organization in an attempt to demonstrate to the country that hawkish moderate liberals are not welcome in the Democratic Party.
At a time when the Democrats should be presenting a reassuring centrist face to the country – they are in a rush to lurch to the left. This upcoming weekend the leadership of the party will be headed to Vegas to pay homage to a far left wing internet impresario. And this is how they are sending the message that they will not follow the Republicans’ example and pander to the base?
What Whitman doesn’t get is that the dems are not rushing to the far left. They are trying to get back to the center. Lieberman, much like Zell Miller, is about as much of a democrat as Whitman is. It’s not about Lieberman’s support for the war (although some liberals are opposed to his stance), it’s about his contempt for rape victims. It’s about his support for a whole host of republican issues. By focusing on one stance, Whitman uses distraction instead of the true issue. If Lieberman ran as a republican, at least that would be a truly honest stance for Lieberman.
As the Repubs started catering to the far right wing base, the DLC started going after the center right repubs, forgetting, not just the base, but the center left moderates. Whitman mocks Kos (the impresario), and in an early May post referred to dems as “Liliputions” (shows his elitist attitude towards the vast number of people that work, live and vote in this country). But he doesn’t attack the argument. Instead he uses the standard republican trick. If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.
For Wednesday, May 31, Whitman uses the parable of the Post Reaganites to warn the democrats:
This is a deeply ironic moment. This White House once thrived on the politics of pandering to the base. Now, they are being devastated by it.
This is a lesson for the Democrats, as well.
(sigh) As I repeat myself, Whitman (a former Republican) must think that everyone to the left of him is the looney base. We want democratic elected officials to vote for democratic principles, not republican principles. A bankruptcy bill designed (by corporations) to enhance corporate profits at the expense of individuals is not democratic. A Medicaire bill designed (by pharmaceutical companies) to increase profits of pharmaceutical companies at a greater expense to our elderly is not democratic.
What Whitman misunderstands is this whole internet thing. It has provided a counterweight to big business dominating campaign funding. What we have, for the first time, is the opportunity for massive dollars to come to individual candidates, in one, five and ten dollar donations, not $5,000/plate dinners and PACs and other areas dominated by big businesses. Let me make this perfectly clear to Mr. Whitman.
This is democracy! What is the problem you seem to have with it?
June 1 – Haditha
Here’s Whitman’s quote, and he argues for restraint and reasonable reporting by the press. No problem so far, but then he gets into this:
These are bleak days in this war. And when we learn the facts about Haditha, we should keep this in mind – if we fail in Iraq those who will benefit are Baathist and Zarqawi’s moral monsters who have committed thousands of bloody massacres as their standard operating procedure.
And if we become the monsters, then what? The use of evil to fight evil is still evil. I’m not talking about war and basic war tactics. I’m talking about what we stand for as a country. I’m talking about torture, rendition, the basic destruction of our constitution. Do we need to become monsters because of 19 guys with boxcutters? We fought nazis. We fought communism.
And what’s more, as we have become more like that which we have fought, we are failing. Just like every other country that thought it was ordained by some divine providence to force their will on others.
We now torture
We kill civilians, old men in wheel chairs and infants.
We detain US Citizens without charges.
We spy on US Citizens without warrants
We threaten the press with jail for leaking embarrassing secrets, while outing CIA agents charged with protecting us from nuclear harm.
We have a President that says he does not have to comply with the bills he signs into law, or any existing law.
Haditha (and apparently others) is a symptom of a much larger problem. And it all boils down to a combination of incompetence and arrogance. And it will probably cost us this war.
The massive incompetence and arrogance of this administration is driving not just the left, but the right also, to question why we went to war in the first place.
Even those that originally supported the war.
Even those that originally opposed the war, but thought, ok, we went to war, let’s do it right, win it and go home.
They look into the metaphorical national mirror and don’t like what they see.
Friday, June 2
Oh happy joy. Today, Whitman goes back to what he does best. Bad mouth the democratic party.
he Moose left the Republicans a few years ago because it had become a corrupted and plutocratic party. The events that have transpired since he left the GOP has only reinforced the Moose’s decision…
…However, the Democrats have hardly offered an attractive alternative for the Moose. They are increasingly defined only by their loathing for all things Bush. Many would rather see Bush fail rather than America succeed in Iraq. The party’s left is dedicated to purging centrists and liberal hawks who deviate from the party line. (emphasis mine)
Nice little straw man argument. He claims “many would rather see Bush fail” but, in typical republican talking point mode, offers no examples. Howard Dean was more a centrist than Joe Lieberman. The bottom line: If someone votes consistently republican, then they are a republican, not a democrat, let them run for election as a republican
Reading Whitman and thinking of his role in the DLC reminds me of an incident that happened about 20 years ago. An F-14 crashed just east of Miramar Naval Air Station (now a marine corps air station) in San Diego, in a huge nature preserve. The press quoted a young woman from Poway, near the crash site, she stated, I just moved here three weeks ago and didn’t know how dangerous that airport is. They should move it.”
Whitman is now a democrat. Therefore, he expects the party to conform to his beliefs.
And this just in: “Many Joe Liebermans”
from the DLC, posted on his blog:
The Moose urges all Mooseketeers to read this from the DLC.
“We deplore this purge effort because Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator. He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide — as he did when he went to Mississippi to fight for civil rights in 1964. He is a man who always puts his country above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today’s far too polarized politics. We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman’s character in the Democratic Party.”
Note One: Quit talking in the third person. It’s creepy.
Note two: Quite talking about Mooseketeers and liliputions. You sound like disgraced former Vice President Spiro Agnew.
Note to the DLC. Lieberman is an elected official. He is not appointed by you, or by me. He is elected based on the will of his constituents in a lawfully conducted election. As such, each of his words and deeds is up for scrutiny by his constituents, as are his challenger’s words and deeds. That’s called democracy.
There’s not much for me to say. I was stumbling across some websites and found a site touting the top 100 speeches in America. There was, of course, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan. But hidden in there was this gem by Elie Wiesel
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html
I highly recommend you read the whole thing, but I have provided some excerpts below the fold.
Think of this speech and this life the next time you feel overwhelmed and want to give up, let the bad guy win. The speech starts with the day he was liberated from a Nazi death camp.
“…We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations (Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin), bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence; so much indifference.
What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means “no difference.” A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one’s sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?
Of course, indifference can be tempting — more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person’s pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the Other to an abstraction.
…In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.
Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own. “
The US Military Academy’s Center for combatting terrorism http://ctc.usma.edu/ issued a report that examines what the administration’s policy should be in fighting the Iraqi jihadist movement.
Bottom line. It ain’t rocket science. But too complicated for an administration that hasn’t the desire to read it.
The United States government reached a significant stage in the fight against jihadi‐inspired terrorism this past year when it decided to place a greater emphasis on fighting its ideological roots. Yet despite this appropriate course adjustment,the U.S. Government and its Western allies generally do not know the main producers of this ideology and the significant issues that unite and divide the movement — information that is key to defeating it.
(more below the flip)
Now, knowing this administration, that is not surprising. And as it is par for the course, the information is already out there, if the people in charge were competent. As the report so tactfully states:
Jihadi leaders are surprisingly frank when discussing the vulnerabilities of their movement and their strategies for toppling local regimes and undermining the United States. Their candor is, in large part, a consequence of struggles for leadership within the movement; thus, a leader of one group will publish his strategic vision in order to gain more recruits and achieve a reputation as a serious scholar worthy of respect. It is also a consequence of the United States’ success in destroying jihadi training camps and denying safe havens–jihadi leaders have had to put their writings online so as to provide continuing guidance to a very decentralized following.
In a sense, members of the johadi movement have put their team’s playbook online. By mining these texts for their tactical and strategic insights, the United States will be able to craft effective techniques and procedures to defeat followers of the movement.
The odd thing is, according to the report, is that as we are (or should be) doing this to the jihadis, they are doing the same thing to us.
Although we would like to claim credit for the approach described in the introductory paragraphs, it is modeled after a similar approach used by Aby Bakr Naji, a rising star in the jihadi movement…Naji urges fellow jihadis to study Western works on management, military principles, political theory, and sociology in order to borrow strategies that have worked for Western Governments and to discern their weaknesses.
Based on his reading, and the soviet experience in Afghanistan, Naji argues the best thing that could happen would be for the USA to invade the middle east. The reason being is several fold;
The plan describes three stages. First, jihadis bomb sensitive economic targets, diverting security to those areas. Second, exploit that diversion to create chaos in the softer targets, allowing pro-inurgent administrators to come in. Third, these administrators will then start to coordinate with each other towards a caliphate.
This point three is where the underpants gnome theory kicks in. By focusing on soft targets (targeting iraqis) they undermine their support amongst the civilian population. Also, in their recruiting, there is the concern of recruits not following orders, branching off and doing their own thing, spies, and powerful clerics who disagree with them and siphon off support and recruits.
This was explained in the letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, cautioning him against targeting civilians.
This is not out of ideological or theological reasons, but from a purely pragmatic, strategic calculus: The masses must view jihadis as liberators, not oppressors. They must be seen as fighting a just war and walking the moral high ground.
Wow, change jihadis to American troops and the psychological battle is clear. Except we (the USA) have the disadvantage of being occupiers of the country, thereby losing the high ground at the beginning.
There is much here I didn’t cover. Luckily the report (pdf) is only 25 pages, but for those that won’t click through to the link, below are the conclusions:
1 – Direct engagement with the United States has been good for the jihadi movement…
2 – The Jihadi movement has become decentralized and training camps like those in afghanistan four years ago are no longer necessary for the military or doctrinal preparation of new recruits…
3 – Although jihadi ideologues recognize the utility of the long term, eternal struggle, they are absolutely serious about establishing Islamic states in the near term… They are less interested in overthrowing a ruler…. than they are in establishing small enclaves around the globe in regions that are not well-policed…
4 – Positive public opinion is necessary for attracting people to join or support the movement; thus, effective propaganda is crucial for the success of the jihadi movement [Rubble’s note: cartoons anyone]. Conversely, the movement declines in popularity when it is perceived to be attacking fellow muslims, causing public disorder, damaging critical national industries, or engaging in sectarianism…
5 – Religious leaders play a critical role in attracting youth to the movement, providing religious justification for violence, and determining its overall strategic direction. But this cuts both ways, as non-jihadi religious leaders are able to siphon off support from the movement and challenge its legitimacy…
6 – Jihadi ideologues closely follow Western thought and U.S. strategic planning for insights that can be used against the United States and its allies…
The full report (pdf – 25 pages) can be found at:
http://ctc.usma.edu/Stealing%20Al-Qai%27da%27s%20Playbook%20–%20CTC.pdf
I originally wrote something similar to this for the 96 elections (my office ran out of coffee one morning), and figured I would re-create it for the current conditions. Enjoy!
President Bush announced today the invasion of Colombia. B Rubble, Ass. Press
Speaking in front of the Tom Delay School of Sewing for Underaged Girls in Mar De Plata, Argentina, the president spoke of the need to remove a tremendous supply of cocaine in the war on drugs.
“Narco-terrorism remain a problem for this great nation” Stated the President, “That is why our initiative is to replace evil drugs with beneficial coffee.”
More after the flip
Army spokesperson General Jessica Saldana stated that US troops would plow under all discovered cocaine fields, replacing them with coffee plants, allowing for a stable source of income for farmers. Coffee prices has nearly tripled in the past decade as demand has grown, as crops have been replaced by cocaine.
“We are going to burn down the [expletive deleted] cocaine fields and [expletive deleted] replace it with [expletive deleted] coffee. Anyone got a [expletive deleted] problem with that?”
General Peter Shoomaker, Army Chief of Staff apologized for the remarks of General Saldana, noting that “All we have left is decaf, and we’re getting too close to ‘pushing the button.'”
“Military coffee reserves are already running low, and disruptions in the consumer coffee market could create domestic disturbance” stated an anonymous army source.
President Bush vehemently denied the charge. “While coffee is an indispensable military resource, let me be clear. This is not about coffee. This is about narco-terrorists. Drugs are evil and the lesson learned since 9-11 is to attack evil before evil attacks us. And you are with us, or with the evil-narco-terrorists.”
Critics immediately attacked the President for trying to deflect his sagging poll numbers with yet another war. “There was no reason to attack a sovereign nation over this. There were non-military alternatives” said Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “This is not about narco-terrorism. This is about coffee and the proximity to Venezuelan oil fields.”
However, several democrats expressed support for the president. Senators Joe Biden (Deleware) and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), praised the President. “we’re trying to cut costs everywhere, but we can’t afford to provide Kona Coffee or Jamaica Blue in the quantities demanded by our brave troops” stated Lieberman.
Biden noted that previous attempts to reduce military rations of coffee had disastrous results.
He may have been referring to the “Gulf War Syndrome” believed by some theorists to have been caused by an untested caffeine substitute, but denied by government officials for the past 14 years.
Senator Biden refused to elaborate on his remarks.
Vice President Cheney, speaking from an undisclosed location, expressed his support that soldiers would mop up the Colombian guerrillas in five years or so and nearly eliminate cocaine production. When asked about comments by critics, the Vice President stated he “would not dignify the comments of earl gray drinking, sinsamilla-smoking liberal elitists with a response.”
Unconfirmed reports are that Juan Valdez, former coffee industry spokesman, will be installed as the interim Colombian President. “He definitely has the industry connections to transform the Colombian economy from drugs to delicious coffee” stated a senior White House official, on the condition of anonymity.
Valdez, a Colombian peasant, gained fame as the face in coffee commercials in the 1970s and 80s, but has not been seen in public since that time, as the guerrilla insurgency within Colombia gained strength.
White House Spokesman Scott McClellan denied, as rumors, unconfirmed reports of a mysterious figure, wearing a serape and sombrero arriving at the White House for several late night meetings over the past few months.
One of the reasons I like the Booman Tribune is that I know I can type this diary without getting completely flamed, like I would at the other board. Just in case, I am putting on my fire retardant suit.
We blew it! Not Cindy Sheehan. Us. WE blew it.
On the Daily Kos, there were issues of framing “Mother Sheehan” and comparisons to Rosa Parks. The right wing noted Cindy on Michael Moore’s website, and guess what. Cindy got framed in the same light as Michael Moore. Now don’t get me wrong, I like Michael Moore, and believe in what he is espousing, but the right wing thinks of him in the same way we think of Rush Limbaugh.
And we diminished Cindy in the process.
(more below the flip)
Think of this. What was Cindy’s original protest?
“What noble cause did my son die for?”
Instead of appealing to people as a mother, she has started to appeal as a lefty idealogue parroting lefty talking points. American could have fallen in love with her if she had maintained that voice, talked about her son, pleaded with Bush to answer her rhetorical questions. She should have kept it personal, about her son, made it about the senselessness of her loss, not partisan politics. She could have been a riveting symbol that crossed party lines. But now?
…her open public associations with controversial partisan people and groups have hurt her credibility with many of the people who otherwise might have listened to her. She gave her critics the exact ammo they were looking for to make her seem like a tool. I just wish she could have remained independent and above the partisan fray.
Cindy Sheehan is no political analyst, she wasn’t a creation of the Left. Anti-war groups naturally supported her. Unfortunately she doesn’t seem to know how the PR game is played, however, all the organizations who are supporting her could have handled the situation a whole lot better– they do know better.
The Gold Star Mothers for Peace ad (which I thought was very powerful) also diluted the message. It focused on Bush and his lies, (preaching to the choir), rather than focusing on the people concerned about the war, but aren’t really thinking about it. Instead of “What is this Noble Cause my son died for?” it became “Bush Lied, and My Son Died.” The “noble cause” question, while mentioned, was lost in the accusatory tone.
And somewhere in the process, on the daily kos diaries, and in the MSM, it became about Cindy. Not about the reasons we are in Iraq.
When the freepers came out to counter protest, they were organized, even kicking out the guy with the “bitch in the ditch” poster. They (with the MSM’s help) turned it into a “he said, she said” argument that the media loves so well (which ignored the main point). There were some efforts to cross that, with the prayer vigil attended by both sides, but that left little airplay with the hurricane approaching.
The Washington Post did a survey, that shows no real change in positions. In essence, we had a feel good moment this summer. Our own little Woodstock. But what about afterwards?
Slightly more than half of the country says President Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed last year in Iraq, who is leading a protest against the war outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll…
The survey also suggests, however, that Sheehan’s anti-war vigil has failed to mobilize large numbers of Americans against the war. If anything, her opposition has done as much to drive up support for the war as ignite opponents, the survey found.
Eight in 10 Americans–including overwhelming majorities of Democrats, Republicans and political independents–say Sheehan’s protest has had no impact on their attitudes toward Iraq. While one in 10 say she has made them less likely to support the war, the same proportion say she has made them more likely to back the conflict.
What does this mean? From the Demagogue blog
Early Suspicions Confirmed
As I stated before, Sheehan symbolizes an incredible waste of an opportunity, and she has become a caricature of the anti-war movement itself. It looks like she is not going to be the galvanizing force we’re all looking for, she does not represent the tipping point. However, fortunately, it looks like we don’t really need one, as support for Bush and his war is as low as it has ever been– with or without Cindy Sheehan.
Now New Orleans is a disaster area, and Cindy is off the front page. Bush will have his press conferences and look all commander in chiefy and his approval ratings will rise about five points, possibly 10, before resuming their inevitable decline, albeit from a higher level.
And Cindy will get on with her life. With all her energy no longer focused on the protests, she can hopefully get on with her grieving process. And that is truly when she will need our support the most, when it is truly about her, and not just us.
[Edited, thanks to the kind comments from Nanette]
It’s time for liberals to define the lexicon.
For years, liberals have been defamed, derided and debauched. Now we are going to the term “progressive” to describe liberal ideals. Correct me if I am wrong, but we went to the term liberal because the republicans were so good at framing “progressive” with communism. I say it’s time we fight back.
We have already started with the term “neo-conservative” for the far right wing of the republican party, framing neo-conservatives as a bad thing. But we need to go further. I have some basic ideas below the fold, and I make some assumptions about the democratic party. Hopefully they are correct. If not, let me know, I’ll edit it. If I’ve made a mockery of the Christian faith, let me know and I’ll delete the diary.
We are under attack by people of questionable faith. Whose only god is power and, like wolves separate the sheep from their shepherd. The “neo-christians” mock the faith and everything the concept of “Jesus Christ our Savior” in the Christian churches. They are no more Christian than John Paul II was protestant. And we should call them on it. Any time we attack the right wing christians, we group honest people of faith with these neo christians. We need to separate neo christians from christians the same way we separated neo conservatives from conservatives. And we need to do it in a way that will appeal to people of faith
These neo christians promote murder. Contrary to biblical tradition, they do not think dying for one’s god is the greatest gift to god, mocking the thousands of martyrs in the first century AD. Instead, they think killing for Christ is the best service to the lord. Do they really believe that, or is that what they want the sheep to believe. Whether the person is follower of Islam, or Matthew Shepherd, the call is the same. “Kill everyone different from ‘us'”
These neo christians are cowards. While they believe that killing in pursuit of their goals is valid, they recognize the risks involved, and wish others to fight, kill and die in support of neo christian values.
These neo christians do not believe in Christ’s teaching of “turn the other cheek.” Instead, they applaud torture, rape and other crimes against humanity and God.
These neo christians have a love of money. While the Jesus Christ of the bible said feed the poor, help the sick, the neo-christians want every last piece of silver. Arms makers are flush with cash as we beat plowshares into swords. Money lenders get special incentives to provide predatory lending. And veterans Administration hospitals have budgets cut while the number of wounded veterans rises daily.
The neo christians bear false witness against their neighbors. The lied to start a war against Iraq. They are lying to start a war with Iran. If this is truly a global village, how can the other members of the world community trust a bully, liar and cheat?
The neo christians do not honor the father and mother. Our senior citizens, after working their entire lives, are now being told the neo christians want to change the rules. They want to make it more expensive for medication, to provide even more pieces of silver to the pharmaceuticals. They want to revamp social security, to provide even more pieces of silver to the Wall Street financiers.
The neo christians refuse to bless the children. Instead, they take money from the unborn generations to finance their wars today. They refuse to finance education, preferring a two tiered system; one for the wealthy, and a mockery of one for everyone else.
I say the following: The democratic party more closely follows the teachings of Jesus than our neo christian counterparts in the republican party. Using the examples of the Beatitudes, look at what the Democratic Party believes in and compare that to the neo christian republican platform.
Blessed are the children. The democratic party is fighting for them to have the opportunity to live without hunger, get the best education, the best medical care, and have the best hope of doing better than the generation that came before them.
Blessed are the veterans and their families. The democratic party believes we should honor their sacrifice, help to bind their wounds and ease their suffering, for they have sacrificed in our name.
Blessed are the old and infirm. The democratic party believes government and businesses should honor their promises to their citizens and employees, not to discard our promises to care for them once they are unable to continue to be productive.
Blessed are the poor. The democratic party believes a rising tide lifts all boats.
Blessed are those that hunger and thirst after righteousness. The democratic party believes that no politician should be above the law, whether Republican, democrat, or any other party.
Blessed are those that are reviled and persecuted. The democratic party believes the minority should be free from the tyranny of the majority.
If anyone else can say how we are blessed because there is a democratic party, please say so.
Ya know, 1,500 US military deaths, tens of thousands (minimum) of Iraqi dead, and yet we all go about our business. It’s someone else’s child. We mumble a brief prayer for the family and move on with our lives.
This is Casey Sheehan’s story. Actually, it is the story of a family coming to grips with the loss of their son and brother. A story that is repeated in various forms over 1,500 times.
Read the article. It’s much better written than I can paraphrase.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/20/INGIGBNC46129.DTL
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother’s weeping will never be done.
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he’s one,
but have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man’s lies.
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs.
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave,
but I believe he died because they had oil to save.
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won’t be so deep,
but if we the people let them continue, another mother will weep.
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep? – Carly Sheehan