Jim Wallis Takes the Low Road

Jim Wallis has been taken to task for claiming that Democrats are anti-religion. Who, exactly, has made these anti-religion statements, he has been asked. Well, now he is refusing to say. Why? He's taking the high road. No, he's taking the low road, the one blazed by Sen. Joe McCarthy.

Unless the people he claims to be quoting had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, Wallis should name names. The reason he's not, of course, has nothing to do with taking "the high road." It's self-serving, in the following ways:

• It allows Wallis to quote people without anyone being able to determine whether the quotes are accurate.
• It allows Wallis to characterize these quotes as representative of Democratic thinking, without anyone being able to determine whether he's referring to Howard Dean or Lyndon LaRouche.
• It allows Wallis to advance his political position in the guise of responding to these unattributed quotes, which may or may not be mere straw men.
• It allows Wallis, as McCarthy did, to advance the generalization that his cause is under siege from evil enemies within.

It's self-serving cowardice and intellectual dishonesty...from a man of faith. No wonder so many Democrats are anti-religion!

Read more...

Atheists for McCain!

After six years of George W. Bush, everything beforehand feels like long ago, but politically speaking it wasn't so long ago when John McCain was considered a viable candidate not only by many Democrats, but by many on the left, as well. Why? Because back in 2000, his straight-talk express really did consist of a lot of straight talk. He had disdain for the same bullshit the liberal-media types who covered him had. He had no use for dumb faith-based politics.

How things have changed. Perhaps still smarting from losing the nomination to Bush, McCain doesn't seem to have missed anyone on the Christian right in his Panderpalooza. He's even speaking at the dark heart of anti-science, the Discovery Institute, this month.

All of which is why atheists should support him in his bid for the Republican nomination. Hell, maybe even for the general election. The reason is simple.

Either at the age of 72, he's changed his mind about how the universe works and suddenly believes in an anthropomorphic, intercessory god who wants Texas girls to get cervical cancer...or he's changed his mind about how to get elected.

Bush won by fooling the Christian right into accepting him as "authentic." Little did anyone on the right know that Bush answers to no religious orthodoxy except that of his own subconscious. Little did most on the left guess just how seriously Bush took the overall concept of a personal Jesus, whispering in his ear that he could do whatever he wanted.

So if a guy that we know has no use for the Christian right wants to trick them--yet again--into supporting a candidate who doesn't give a shit about their agenda, shouldn't atheists support that, instead of howling about McCain's hypocrisy?

After all, the more atheists and the left criticize McCain for cozying up to the religious right, the more the religious right is likely...to...embrace.......him.

Er...never mind. DAMN YOU, McCAIN!!!

Read more...

The Left: Tomorrow's Creationists

As the Book of Revelation warned us, the First Trumpet shall be sounded by Deepak Chopra.

Now, that day has come to pass. And the ultimate battle between science and religion has begun. But unlike the battle over creationism, this time, much of the left will line up to oppose science. Chopra has volunteered to lead them.

I discussed a while ago how the sequel to the creationism battle will be the battle over the (alleged) human soul. Our increasing understanding of the brain (and ergo the mind) is rendering the concept of a soul obsolete, absurd and quaint.

Unfortunately, a lot of people on the left don't take kindly to the scientific concepts underlying this assault on the soul, and all the warmfuzzy infantilized nonsense that accompanies souls. Enter Deepak Chopra. In a two-part posting at Huffington Post, Chopra takes on the single discipline currently posing the greatest threat to the soul: Evolutionary biology.

For someone with his reputation and presumably enormous brain, Chopra makes a lot of kindergarten-level mistakes not just about the specifics of evolutionary biology, but also in his reasoning.

What's most interesting is that he seems blind to just how well his reasoning parallels the reasoning of creationists. Consider this statement: "...let me take one issue, the claim of evolutionary biology to explain something as complex as generosity, altruism, or music. Such claims are thoroughly bogus. They do not invalidate the whole field of evolutionary biology. they simply step over the boundary of believable explanations."

Even today, creationists still argue that the claim of evolution to explain something as complex as the eye is thoroughly bogus; it simply steps over the boundary of believable explanations. As Marc Maron has summarized this reasoning: "I don't understand it; it must be magic."

And, of course, evolutionary biology makes no claim to causal exclusivity. In other words, it certainly does not reject, as Chopra implies, the impact of "culture, human values, religion, and philosophy."

After all, it's those cultural forces that help shape whether a trait--such as generosity--is beneficial or detrimental to survival. (And, as I'm sure he'd hate to hear, those cultures, values, religions and philosophies were all shaped in part by evolutionary biology...just ask the multitudinous anti-contraception Catholics, or try to find one of the remaining pro-celibacy Shakers and ask them.)

So what's Chopra's real beef? He wants to maintain an irreducible aspect to humanity's mental aspect. Another word for that is the soul.

And a lot of people on the left will sympathize with him. They'll buy into the childish notion that there's something romantic--as opposed to awful and creepy and prima facie paradoxical--about the soul. They'll claim that advocates of evolutionary biology are pushing eugenics or some other immoral viewpoint. They'll say that those who would explain bad behaviors (such as rape, violence, hatred) are in fact excusing them. They'll say lots of these things.

And in doing so, they'll be the next generation of creationists. And they'll help impede the advance of science. And they'll hurt our country as a result (see here and here).

Unless we make it clear it's time to declare a winner in the battle between religion and science.

Read more...

Screw the Outrage; Ask Romney WHY?

It's great that there's quick, viral outrage to Mitt Romney's not-particularly-noteworthy remark that "we need to have a person of faith lead the country." (You can see it here, h/t to C&L and Street Prophets...not to mention the MSM). The rationalist left has to learn how to start responding to stuff like this. There are lots of (practiced) ways not to do so. And one enlightening way to do so.

We don't need more howling, however justified, about the Constitution's prohibition against religious tests for office-holders. We don't need to holler about discrimination against atheists (most people like discrimination against atheists. We don't even need to dissect all the intra-religious dynamics of a Mormon seeking the Christian right's support. There's only one thing we need to do when Romney or anyone else proclaims that faith is a requirement, or even an asset, for public office-holders.

We need to ask why.

What is it that belief in magic, and magic beings, gives politicians that rationalists can not offer? Which wars will theists get us into that rationalists will fail to? Which economic policies will atheists fail to embrace, due to the ostensible myopia brought on by not believing in magical people?

The year-long town-hall-palooza of 2007, and the subsequent 2008 primaries, offer us rationalists a unique opportunity. The next time Romney or anyone else in the race extols faith as better than not-faith when it comes to serving the American public, forget the outrage, drop the analysis, and do what journalists should be doing: Ask why. Keep in mind, the answer to this will be additional pablum. Which is why you'll need to be ready with challenging follow-up questions, to get at the alleged reasoning behind the claim, to ensure that his/her fundamental explanation is sufficiently exposed. (See here and here). Is it that accepting Jesus makes you a better person? How? Show us the statistical evidence. Is it that belief in God improves your moral reasoning? How? Show us the statistical evidence.

After 9/11 and George Bush, this should have been the year of the non-religious candidate. Clearly, that ship has sailed. But we can still push back on this discriminatory pandering toward the religious right, by subjecting "faith" to the same level of rigorous scrutiny any other politically self-serving claim would/should get.

In fact, let's all ask him right now and keep asking until the absurdity of his position forces him to recant it.

Read more...

The Instant, Sure-Fire, Politically Viable, Guaranteed Way to Get Out of Iraq Now

The Democrats and Republicans who oppose Bush's war in Iraq face a political quandary--pulling the plug on the war seems (or can be portrayed as) pulling the plug on the American troops before they've finished their mission there. But the mission there has become so complex, and so interwoven with other issues, that it's become a Gordian Knot--so intricately interwoven it can not be untangled. Well, the myth tells us that the real Gordian Knot was undone with a simple slice of a sword. Similarly, opponents of the war can slice through it with an equally elegant solution, which can be summarized in two words:

Declare victory.

I know, I know...the war keeps getting deadlier all the time. Bear with me a minute, it gets even more counter-intuitive than that.

First, opponents of the war have to do something painful: Admit that Bush was right on May 1, 2003, when he said major combat operations were over in Iraq, and that the United States had prevailed. When you look at the original, congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, it becomes blindingly obvious: Bush was right. We had prevailed!

At the time, the anti-war left objected to Bush's formulation for an obvious reason--Iraq was a mess and the fighting was still going on. But those conditions didn't stop Bush from declaring victory in Afghanistan and pulling out of there after just a few months. So why didn't he do the same in Iraq?

Why, in fact, did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld eliminate victory references from Bush's speeches at the time? Keep in mind, before the anti-war left ridiculed "Mission Accomplished," Rumsfeld was against that phrasing, too. Why? He told Bob Woodward it was "too conclusive." I know the anti-war left will have trouble doing this, but it's vitally important that they believe him.

A victory declaration was not too conclusive because it neglected to account for remaining resistance. It was too conclusive, literally, because it meant the conclusion of the war. And that would mean bringing the troops home. And until the rest of the Middle East falls like dominoes into the pro-American free market, the neocons who crafted this war will never let the troops come home.

It's not just that Bush wants war with Iran. Early on in his speeches--when Iraq seemed to be going well--he spoke openly about wholesale, regional transformation. The stated goal, of course, was the lie that free democracies won't produce terrorists (like Tim McVeigh). But the real goal is economic, allowing major, western companies to get into the Middle East bigger than they are now (remember, Halliburton was doing business with Iran even after 9/11 and after the Iraq war), and with fewer nationalist/socialist impediments.

As long as Iraq is going poorly, the president can justify keeping troops there. Opposition sounds anti-soldier, like another Vietnam, like calling our troops losers. And too many politicians are afraid of the name-calling.

So do the opposite.

Call the troops winners--as Rumsfeld didn't want to do. Hail their completion of the missions laid out for them in the original authorization for the use of military force. Instead of non-binding resolutions opposing the surge, introduce binding resolutions declaring the victorious end to hostilities with Iraq, which has now been liberated and stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States as an ally against terror.

Point out, as Sen. Ted Kennedy has, time and again, that the troops have now accomplished, or rendered moot, every single goal we set for them. Rep. Murtha already says the mission has been accomplished. Iraq says their mission is done. Our own generals have said there's nothing more to be done militarily. So stop letting the White House call the troops losers, by continuing to move the bar. First it was get rid of WMD. Then it was liberate Iraq. Then it was establish democracy. Now it's to establish a democracy that meets Mr. Bush's standards. It's a shell game, and the Democrats have to stop playing it.

WMDs? Gone. Anti-American government? Gone. Pro-terrorist government? Gone. UN-defiant government? Gone. Terrorist-harboring government? Gone.

It's time for Democrats to introduce a resolution saying so, and congratulating the troops on what they accomplished. Nothing in it--yet, anyway--about bringing the troops home. Simply a declaration of victory--spelling out precisely all the goals that have been accomplished.

Let the White House and pro-war Republicans object to calling our troops winners. Let them deny our troops the victory they achieved.

In doing so, we can draw the bright, clear line that's so desperately needed in this debate between the Iraq War, authorized and won, and the Middle East War that Bush has begun, and is trying to escalate beyond Iraq's borders. Americans were willing, albeit wrongly, to take on Iraq. But the best way to assure that the nation holds a debate on the next war is to make clear to the world that the first war is over. So far, Democrats have done that by arguing that we're losing. It's time to wake up and smell the victory.

Read more...

2008: The Question for Candidates

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Dennis Kucinich, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and anyone else who's running for president will be making their way back and forth across Iowa and New Hampshire repeatedly over the next year. This year, more than ever, it's vitally important that each of them answer a single question.

To that end, I encourage everyone who lives in one of those states, or who expects to attend a town hall or other event anywhere in the country where you might have access to any of the candidates, to print out and take with you whichever version of "The Question" with which you're most comfortable (feel free to mix and match, if you wish!). Of course, anyone getting an answer is strongly urged to post it back here! (One suggestion--try to get a few friends or fellow travelers in on this, if the candidate hears people clapping when you ask your question, they'll be less likely to dismiss or dodge it.) Here they are:

The Nice Version

It seems these days that just about every campaign has advisors, paid or otherwise, to help ensure that candidates are sensitive to and reach out to just about every religious community: Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Most surveys in recent years have found that non-religious, atheist and agnostic Americans outnumber the American Jewish and Muslim populations. Can you tell us whether you have any advisors or have made any effort to be sensitive to or reach out to the non-religious, atheist and agnostic communities in this country?

The Provocative Version

Surveys consistently tell us there are more Americans who reject or question the existence of God than there are American Jews and Muslims combined. Our country is embroiled in religious violence overseas. We were attacked by religious extremists on September 11th and the president who misled us into an unjust war has said he is guided by his god, too. According to media accounts, most Democratic campaigns, and certainly some Republican ones, make specific, concerted, strategic efforts to include religious viewpoints and religious advisors. What will you do to ensure that non-religious viewpoints and advisors who espouse them will be a part of your campaign and, if you win, your administration?

The Righteous-Anger Version

I don't believe in any gods. I share Thomas Jefferson's view of Jesus: That he was not divine. And yet, polls show that me and people like me are considered less moral--because we don't believe in magic beings--than people who share the beliefs of George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Numerous state laws discriminate against me and people like me. The first President Bush did not consider us full citizens. No one representing our views has ever been elected to Congress, even though we outnumber Jews and Muslims combined. Even you, I'm sure, reach out to many communities based on nothing else than their belief in gods or prayer or other forms of magic. To my knowledge, you have never spoken out against this socially-accepted hate against me and my kind. Why is that, and are you willing to oppose this discrimination by including open atheists in prominent positions in your campaign or cabinet?

Read more...

Fox Admits Its Bias

Bill O'Reilly seems to think he's scored a journalistic coup on this upcoming Monday's program by somehow piecing together the clues of an NBC conspiracy to pursue an allegedly liberal agenda. But meanwhile, you don't need to do a minute of sleuthing to learn whether O'Reilly has a bias. His own boss just admitted it.

That's right, O'Reilly's oberstboss, Rupert Murdoch, was asked on Friday, Jan. 26, whether his company, News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer? (h/t Juan Cole and ePluribus Media): "No, I don't think so. We tried."

There you have it. In case anyone still had any doubts. News Corp.--with the knowledge and approval of its leader, Rupert Murdoch, and the assistance of people like O'Reilly who tell Americans they're independent thinkers just doing their best to convey the truth--undertook a concerted, organized, willful effort to lead Americans to think a certain way on Iraq. They report AND decide.

In case his answer wasn't clear enough, by the way, Murdoch went on to say, "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East." And this is in the Hollywood Reporter? As opposed to, say, the news sections of every newspaper in the country?

At the very least, News Corp.'s print rivals, such as the NY Daily News, ought to splash this on their front pages. And News Corp.'s TV rivals ought to be cranking out the promos Monday morning.

They might not make every Fox viewer understand how badly they were deceived. They might not succeed in outraging everyone who mourns the 3,000+ American war dead and WhoTheHellKnows+ Iraqi war dead. But at least they can say, "We tried."

Read more...

Foolprints in the Sand

AN HOMAGE TO
"FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND"

One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord.
Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.
In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand.
Sometimes there were two sets of footprints.
Other times there was one only.

This bothered me because I noticed
that during the low periods of my life,
when I was suffering from anguish, sorrow or defeat,
like when I contracted AIDS
and when my son's leg was mangled by a thresher,
I could see only one set of footprints.

So I said to the Lord,

"You promised me Lord,
that if I followed you,
you would walk with me always.
But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life
there has only been one set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me?"

The Lord replied,
"The times when you have seen only one set of footprints in the sand, my child,
is when I walked behind you, in your footprints,
so that I would have a better angle to inject you with AIDS
and steer that thresher over your son.
Okay, and one time I had to take off for, like, five minutes,
to create a tsunami.
Oh, and Darfur, obviously.
So two times."

(This poem is dedicated to those smart enough to understand that atheists don't hate god or blame him/them for bad things. They hate the irrationality that leads theists to credit god for the inner strength humans have to endure awful ordeals, but never to fault god for allowing those ordeals to occur.)

Read more...

The Author of Liberty: An Interview

Last night, in announcing that he had figured out a way to achieve the victory he wants in Iraq, President Bush revealed that he is placing is trust in "the Author of Liberty" to guide him. In His first sit-down interview, we spoke with the Author of Liberty about this influential work, and His other publications.
Q: Thanks for doing this interview.
A: No problem. Thanks for having me.
Q: You've written quite a few books over the years, under several different pen names. Why is that?
A: Well, I like to have each book taken on its own terms. And, frankly, it's kind of funny sometimes to see a particular book develop its own fan base. Then you end up with people arguing over which author really knows what's going on. It's pretty funny, if you think about it.
Q: So, did You hear the president's speech last night?
A: Actually, I helped write it.
Q: Really? That's pretty impressive. Is this your first collaboration together?
A: Oh, hell, no. We work together all the time. It's really not a big deal. He'll kind of call me up, very casual, and just ask me, you know, "what are some of the fundamental concepts of humanity?" So I tell him what I think. I mean, who's he going to ask for advice? His lower father?
Q: Are you worried that Liberty might not be selling well in Iraq?
A: I think we've all seen the sales figures and, yeah, they're not where We'd like them to be. Some of the guys in marketing suggested that we repackage Liberty, try to sell it as part of a box set with Education, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and Minority Rights, but I didn't write those, so the copyright issues are sort of tied up with the lawyers right now. We'll work it out. Eventually, I mean.
Q: What made You decide to write Liberty?
A: Oh, honestly, I was just noodling around with a couple different concepts and that one just really seemed to click.
Q: What other concepts were You thinking about?
A: Um, I guess just, uh, non-liberty.
Q: So You went with liberty.
A: Seemed the way to go.
Q: I can actually see in some of Your earlier works, You seem to be wrestling with those two ideas. Can You walk me through Your decision-making there, how You decided to go with Liberty?
A: Well, I may not have specifically articulated Liberty in the clearest way right off the bat, but that's pretty much where I've always been.
Q: In Your best-seller 2,000 years ago, "The Book," You actually seem pretty much at home with the idea of slavery and even counseled people to respect the reign of Caesar, paying him tribute and so on. How would that square with Liberty?
A: You know, those were really different times. I mean, ask Strom Thurmond. He'll tell you. Really, the kind of Liberty I was addressing in "The Book" was much more of an internal, individual kind of Liberty. A freedom of conscience, if you will. So, uh...well, that's pretty much it.
Q: And yet, throughout "The Book," You Yourself are kind of telling people what to do. You know, when to plant, where to plant, what to eat, who to sleep with, who to worship, when to worship, how to worship, to worship. When exactly did Liberty of conscience, let alone nation-states, assume such importance for You?
A: I suppose I'd have to say it was the 18th century. I really wanted to inspire the American colonies to break away for themselves. I guess I sort of shed my authorial objectivity and took a real personal interest. I don't want to take too much credit. Those guys really took the ball and ran with it.
Q: Wasn't the concept of Liberty really advanced back then by people like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and, especially, Thomas Paine, who didn't attribute the concept to You so much as to a rational, moral view of the universe?
A: Uh...maybe. I guess.
Q: You guess?
A: I mean, you know, sure, if you say so.
Q: Are You sure You actually wrote Liberty?
A: Of course I wrote Liberty! Hello!
Q: All right, then, what's the ISBN number?
A: What?
Q: The ISBN number of Liberty. What is it?
A: The IS...? Okay, okay! Look, all right? I didn't actually write Liberty, okay? Satisfied? Jesus.
Q: Really? Wow? This is kind of big news. What about all those other books?
A: Look, have you ever heard of ghostwriters? I'm not the only one who does it, you know.
Q: Wait, so You're saying, You pay these people to write these books so You can put Your name on them?
A: Dude, they don't even ask me! They just write whatever they want and slap my name on the cover! No release forms, nothing. I don't even get a taste.
Q: Well, have You ever thought of writing something Yourself?
A: Do you know how disciplined you have to be to be a writer, especially when you don't even exist?
Q: So, what, You can't stop these people from putting out books with Your name on them?
A: Look, most of them are actually very flattering, so I really don't see the harm.
Q: Does that mean we'll see more down the road?
A: Oh, yeah, at this point it's like the Hardy Boys.
Q: You mean because it's for kids, and their favorite one is always the first one they read?
A: No, I meant, because they're always coming out with new ones, and updating the old ones to keep up with the times.
Q: So, what's next for you?
A: Same old, same old.
Q: Which is?
A: Not existing, remember?
Q: Well, good luck with that.
A: Yeah, no kidding. Peace.

Read more...

The Iraq Debate Debate

So, you know how the president is going to reveal his thinking about Iraq on Wednesday night, and then the nation will have a chance to engage in serious debate about Iraq and the way forward (or backward or sideways)?

Yeah, well, I've got bad news for you...

At Monday's media conference, Tony Snow said Mr. Bush is "very close" to wrapping up all the details of his plan for Iraq.

However, while James Baker, the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people have been vigorously debating what to do in Iraq for months (and, obviously, for years), the president has refused to enter into that debate. In fact, Snow reiterated that refusal Monday:

...when the President's plan becomes known in detail, then people will be able to talk sensibly about the details and about how the pieces fit together. At this point, I think -- and Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will have their opportunities to express what they think is necessary for success in Iraq and how they define success. They'll have their opportunity to talk about how they support troops and what they think the troops need. So all of that will be part of the debate.

In other words, we shouldn't be getting into debate based on speculation about what the president's plan might be until we know what the president's plan actually is. He even says: "...wait until you see the whole package and then the debate will begin."

What makes Snow and the White House fundamentally un-American is a little fact that the media didn't seem to pick up on Monday -- namely, that after the president unveils his plan on Wednesday, it'll be too late for debate! Snow himself seems to have performed an act of internal mental dissociation from this fact, referring to the plan as "what the President is proposing." Proposing? A proposal is something the proposee has the option of rejecting. Anyone think that's what we're gonna get Wednesday?

Anyone--especially Tony Snow--who thinks the president will unveil his plan, and then say, "well, what do you think? Mull it over, get back to me and we can bat it around a little before going ahead with anything," is just as deluded as the people who get their guidance from a higher father.

Debate would have been good. Debate would have been American. We're still so used to the concept of debate that it didn't even occur to us, or the media, that the president's speech won't be the start of debate. It'll be the end.

It's just too bad that no one in the media called Snow on having it both ways--opting out of the debate before announcing the plan, because it wasn't ready yet...and opting out of meaningful debate afterward, because by then the debate will be moot.

Read more...

Signing Statements May Define Battle Over Congressional Oversight

At a time when the arrival of a Democratic Congress, and President Bush's appointment of a Nixon/Reagan veteran as White House counsel, have raised intense speculation about an imminent constitutional showdown regarding oversight and access to information, a survey of White House signing statements reveals that the president has attempted to wall off Congress from information regarding a wide array of subjects, straying far from issues of national security.

Mr. Bush has famously used his signing statements to claim executive leeway on legislation concerning issues of national security, such as the McCain Detainee Amendment and, as revealed by the New York Daily News, even the ability to open mail without a warrant.

The Daily News story emerged only this year, despite the fact that the signing statement was posted online in December, with apparently no public reaction.

Now, a review of other statements posted online throughout the Bush presidency, shows that Mr. Bush has for years been staking a claim to unprecedented levels of secrecy on issues that have nothing to do with national security, ranging from Medicare to motor-vehicle taxation.

"National security" has long been a favorite refuge of presidents seeking to withhold information from Congress and the public. But a search of dozens of signing statements posted online at WhiteHouse.gov reveals that Mr. Bush repeatedly claims the right to withhold information not just for reasons of national security, but for virtually any reason at all, including:

- Impairing foreign relations (here, here and here),

- Impairing the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties (here, here, here, here, here, here and here),

- Impairing the deliberative processes of the Executive (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

It should be noted that virtually any information that reflects poorly on the White House could be interpreted as potentially impairing foreign relations. Similarly, any information that reflects poorly on the White House could be construed to impair the president's political heft and thus his ability to do his job. Likewise, damaging information about White House decision-making could impair the deliberative process.

Critics of the White House argue that some information should be revealed precisely so that the White House will pay a price for it, even--or especially--if it impinges upon presidential power. In constitutional terms, impairing the Executive branch is supposed to be one of the central functions of the Legislative branch.

One signing statement even rejects a requirement for information on the basis that disclosing such information might "impair the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties, including the conduct of investigations and prosecutions to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." In other words, the president declined to faithfully execute the law on the grounds it might prevent him from faithfully executing the law.

In fact, even as he has signed bill after bill into law, Mr. Bush has frequently attempted to rewrite portions of those laws that require officials in the executive branch to convey information to Congress or to congressional appointees. Some of the issues on which Mr. Bush has rewritten U.S. laws to block congressional attempts at oversight include:

- U.S. trade, including a provision of the signing statement that converts recognition of human-rights standards from a legislated mandate to a presidential prerogative.

- Prosecutorial decision-making at the Dept. of Justice.

- Justice Department activities related to the constitutionality of laws.

- Crime statistics.

- Investigations of alleged crimes or fraud related to specific National Transportation Safety Board projects.

- Medicare.

- Transportation issues, including motor-vehicle taxation and infrastructure financing.

- Proposed mission changes for agencies within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

- Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization, the congressional reporting on which Mr. Bush unilaterally reduces from a requirement to "a matter of comity."

- NASA plans, recommendations and budget requests.

Virtually every signing statement was issued regarding laws passed by a Republican Congress. For that reason, Mr. Bush's claim to have the power to rewrite the law has rarely been challenged.

Now that Democrats are in power and vowing to subject administration activities of the past few years to rigorous scrutiny, it remains to be seen which and how many of these signing statements will be challenged, either in court or with new legislation. Furthermore, the Democrats can be expected to send Mr. Bush plenty of new legislation of their own.

It's not yet clear whether Democrats will attempt either to inoculate their bills against signing statements with specific provisions addressing and precluding them, or to rescue their bills by challenging any signing statements in court after the fact.

In either case, both past and future signing statements on the presidential prerogative to withhold information specifically called for by law can be expected to figure prominently at the center of the coming battle over congressional oversight of the executive branch.

Read more...

Keith Ellison: Tip of the Iceberg

While everyone goes ooh and ah over new Rep. Keith Ellison's choice of magic book to place his hand upon when he says the magic words that will make the man in the sky ensure that he keeps his promise, folks seem to have missed something. Ellison's status as the first Muslim in the House was just the tip of the iceberg with this new Congress. There's an even bigger milestone that I haven't seen much mention of (with one exception).

In Susan Jacoby's essential "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism," she quotes a North Carolina minister's objection to the proposed U.S. Constitution's ban on religious tests for officeholders. He called it, "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us."

Meet Hank Johnson and Mazie K. Hirono. They're two other members of the 110th Congress who are doing something no one in Congress has done before. Not even Ellison.

They don't believe in God. Not the Judeo-Christian God. Not the Muslim God. They're Buddhists. The first ever in Congress.

For the first time, as far as I can tell, bouncing around adherents.com, the U.S. Congress as of Thursday will now include as members representatives who openly do not subscribe to any version of monotheism.

Johnson is from Georgia (4th district), for Christ's sake. And check out Hirono. She's from Hawaii. What does Hawaii's House Caucus look like in the 110th Congress?

Mazie K. Hirono -- Buddhist.
Neil Abercrombie -- "Non-Affiliated."

Hawaii only has two districts in the House. Neither member of the Hawaii Caucus will be an avowed member of Judeo-Christianity.

In fact, five other members of the House are also listed as "Non-Affiliated" by Americans for Religious Liberty. There's Mark Udall (CO-2), whose dad was raised Mormon and eventually decided he had no use for organized religion. His official bio makes no mention of a god or even church.

Then there's John Olver (MA-1), who's not only non-affiliated, he's a chemistry professor from MIT. Any guesses whether he believes in the god of Judeo-Islamo-Christianity? He's a Massachusetts Democrat, in office since 1991. His seat his safe--it's about time someone asked him point blank.

John Tierney (MA-6) is also listed by ARL as non-affiliated, and doesn't seem to have any overt religious references on his site, either. The others are Earl Blumenauer (OR-3), and Tammy Baldwin (WI-2), who, God bless her, listed her religious affiliation as GLBT. Unless that's a new version of the tetragrammaton, I'm guessing she doesn't have much use for magic super-powers-in-the-sky.

Oh, and according to veteran Washington reporter Jack Germond, speaking just last year, the secret atheists in Congress hide their lack of belief in magic by calling themselves Unitarians. As per adherents.com, Germond is outing Sen. Kent Conrad, and/or Reps. Pete Stark and Nancy Johnson.

Toss in Mr. Ellison, of Minnesota's fifth district, and you're now talking about two non-theists in the House, one non-Judeo-Christian monotheist, six more possible non-theists and two allegedly possibly secret atheists. Add in Conrad in the Senate, and you have possibly as many as 12 members of the 110th Congress who do not subscribe to a Judeo-Christian worldview. By my calculation, that's more than two percent of the new Congress. One in 50. That's still woefully disproportionate to the vast (and growing) percentage of the U.S. population that's tossed off the chains of monotheism. But it's also a staggering leap at a time when the mainstream media is helplessly enamored of the faith-in-politics storyline.

Now, let's see which journalist has the brains and/or nads to start outing the Rational 12.

Read more...

Jon Meachams and the Parallel Universes

Newsweek God Boy Jon Meacham tells Drudge that his magazine tomorrow is slapping Gerry Ford, rather than Saddam Hussein, on the cover, because Hussein's "death in 2006 matters less than his removal in 2003 does." As if Ford's death in 2006 matters MORE than his removal in 1977 did?

It's this kind of thinking (i.e., non-) that has so thoroughly defined the Ford coverage. Over on Salon.com, Walter Shapiro tells us that "only the most stubborn and unyielding Nixon haters still question whether the cleanse-the-air pardon was justified." The problem is, the pardon didn't "cleanse" the air. The pardon was Lysol.

Every don't-hate-me-cuz-I'm-liberal pundit is out there now saying, "yes, of course, I see now that the pardon was the wise thing to do, so that we as a nation could heal." Only Nixon-haters, we are told, think otherwise.

The problem with this is that the only way you can know that a pardon "healed" this country better than a trial would have, is if you saw the trial, and the after-effects of it. The only people who have done that are those such as the Flash and the Fantastic Four who are capable of casual travel to parallel universes.

And everyone's prognostications about a trial seem to stop with the trial itself. The trial would be ugly. The two parties would fight over it. People would say mean things. Yeah? So? Then what?

Let's check out Earth-Nixon for ourselves. Maybe there's an ugly trial. Partisan divides run deeper than they did during Earth-Pardon's Reagan-Carter campaign. If anything, conservatives would be even more ticked off than they were. So let's assume Reagan still carries the day.

Is it maybe, just slightly possible that one of the tertiary or, um, four-iary, or five-iary effects of a Nixon trial -- along with humiliating testimony, certainty of guilt and actual punishment -- might have been a chastening of those who sought to expand executive power? Specifically, is it possible that the Nixon/Ford veterans who argued even back in the '70s that the White House can do whatever it wants, might have been humbled or scared enough to rein in those impulses? Or even genuinely question them?

If so, is it possible--just maybe--that by the year 2000, neither Ford/Nixon veteran Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney would be quite so eager to push their inexperienced new president to unprecedented heights of executive hubris and constitutional violation? I don't know. We'll never know. All the editorial we's out there do seem to know is that...the pardon was right.

Read more...

If Americans Don't Wake Up There Will Be Many More Christians Elected to Office

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Constitution in mind and no religious text in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. Or the Torah. Or the Bible (unless someone fixes it). Virgil Goode, The Christian Representative from Virginia, was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Thomas Jefferson position on separation there will likely be many more Christians elected to office and demanding the use of the Bible. We need to stop eroding separation totally and respect no establishment of religion and end the diversity faith policy pushed hard by President Bush and allowing many persons from the Middle Ages to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Christians in the United States if we do not adopt the strict separation policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are off the wall. A Christian student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Bible. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of America as the United States President, The Bible is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Sincerely yours,
Thomas Jefferson
931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Charlottesville, VA 22902

Read more...

The Person of the Year Is Dead

Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2006 is (yawn) YOU! Cuz you, y'know, did stuff. You posted videos on YouTube and, um, voted and stuff.

If it feels like another Time Magazine wimp-out, well, that astuteness is just one reason why YOU are Person of the Year.
Five out of the last six Persons of the Year have been bogus, safe, avoid-a-choices. The worst, of course, was Rudolph Giuliani in 2001. Yeah, sorry, no. That would be Osama bin Laden. If anyone's unclear on this, just build yourself a time machine and check out the history books of the future.

We all know that Time's ostensible criteria is not wonderfulness but impact, right? Not a moral choice, but, theoretically, a journalistic choice.

After Giuliani, we've had WHISTLEBLOWERS, SOLDIERS and THREE RICH PHILANTHROPISTS. The whistleblowers might've qualified if we'd had a Congress interested in whistles at the time. The soldiers might have qualified if they had done something other than what they were instructed to do by the commander-in-chief at the time (whose invasion of Iraq in 2003 is really the one thing that historically will justify Bush ever having been Person of the Year). Bono and Bill Gates? And, um, Mrs. Bill Gates?

Yeah, I think the world is still reverberating with the impact of their, um, stuff. What Time Magazine should have done was chosen one or a few of the architects of the Democratic seizure of both houses of Congress. You know -- the way they did when Newt Gingrich spearheaded a LESS successful coup. Howard Dean would have been the obvious choice, though Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer would have been interesting, provocative additions, too.

See, Time seems to have made the mistake of forgetting they're looking for whomever has had the greatest PLURALITY of impact. In other words, assuming no one was responsible for more than 50 percent of the world's direction in a given year (the way, say, bin Laden was), then you go for whomever had not the majority of the impact, but more impact than anyone else.

Time Magazine has now succumbed to what would have been a brilliant Onion reductio ad absurdum of its wussyish inability to actually make a choice the past few years. They can't choose anyone, so they choose everyone. There's only one place to go from here.

In the year 2007, Time will actually have to return to doing journalism and choose whomever actually has the greatest impact on the year, or just give in and name Everything Ever as 2007's Person of the Year.

Oh, and I don't want to appear ungrateful to Time, of course, so, um, thanks for the recognition. It's going on the resume.

Read more...

Baracklash

This actually isn't about Barack Obama. It's about...BARACK OBAMA. It's about the fact that, if Barack Obama is a presidential frontrunner, the Democratic Party is in trouble. I don't mean they're in electoral trouble because Obama is unelectable. He seems quite electable to me.

I mean that his status as a frontrunner indicates that the party has failed to use the example of the past six years to redefine the paradigm of presidential candidates and electability. George W. Bush won, in large part, because he had (to some people) more charisma than Gore or Kerry. He also won because he knew how to treat the media: Like dirt. Gore and Kerry treated the media as if they deserved respect, which, of course, the media knew not to be true and therefore reciprocated with contempt. Paging Groucho Marx.

Obama hasn't even announced (I'm not convinced he will, either) and already some of the savvier observers out there are giving the media shit for their boosterism. Nicole at Crooks and Liars thinks the media attention is disproportionate to the electoral support. And on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart's "correspondent" Samantha Bee gushed about Obama's Jesusian qualities.

In other words, he's winning on all the things the media wants in a candidate. By now, the Democrats should have changed the way the media and the public think about their candidates. That a senator with two years of experience in national politics is considered a frontrunner tells me that we're still -- despite Tora Bora, Iraq and Katrina -- treating this job as though it were class president.

It's time we started choosing presidents the way we would brain surgeons--based on track record, experience and competence, not on whether we'd want to have a beer with them. If Democrats don't start insisting on those boring criteria, it's only a matter of time until the Republicans whip up a machine that's better at generating flashy, pizzazzy candidates primed to lure away all the voters responding to whatever's sparkly and shiny.

Read more...

Let God Sort 'Em Out

I don't know if what I'm about to say is right or not. I'm not advocating it as a thought-out plan that I can defend rationally. This is an emotional response to Iraq, though I'd be interested in hearing what a political/historical/rational rebuttal would be.

David Brooks' Sunday column in the New York Times (free here) looks back from some unspecified day in the future to assess the damage done by a U.S. pullout from Iraq circa next year. As you might expect, the Middle East has fallen apart...from its, um, y'know, terrific current state.

I've opposed the Iraq War from the start. Call me nuts, but as a New Yorker, I was kind of interested in finishing the fucking job in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That said, once we went in to Iraq and fucked the place up, in a weird kind of way, the U.S. failure there made me, in essence, pro-war. Meaning, in Powell's phrase, I bought the idea that "we broke it, we bought it." I thought we had a moral obligation to protect the Iraqis from the chaotic forces we had unleashed. Now, it seems pretty clear, the Iraqis want us out.

And I'm a lot less sure these days that they, or the rest of the Middle East, deserve having American blood spilled to preserve their stability. And the reason for that is the rise of the militias. I'm sure there are lots, maybe millions, of Iraqis who embody the ideal Iraqi we were told about: The secular, free-market, tolerant, modernist Iraqi. There just aren't enough of them willing to fight for that kind of society.

So, to David Brooks, I'm inclined to say, basically, bring it on. Let the Middle East go. If they want to kill each other over which descendant of Mohammed is Allah's real best buddy, well, then--what's the phrase?--fuck 'em. Are we really worried about what these messed up morons would do if they got a nation-state of their own?

Please.

At least we'd know where to find them. And I wouldn't mind giving Osama bin Laden the added burden of having to keep the potholes filled in whatever backwater state would have him as boss. What Bush has wrong about Iraq is that democracy is not a cure-all. The founding fathers knew you need more than just democracy. You need things like freedom of the press and religion. You need education.

Without those things, democracy can yield leaders like Hezbollah and Muqtada al-Sadr. The founding fathers also said you get the leaders you deserve. Maybe it's time to give radical, fundamentalist Islam a shot at the big time. If that's the way Iraq wants to go, or any other country, maybe we should allow the world to see how it fares. Not like Iran -- where the zealots inherited a western-style infrastructure in toto -- but starting fresh.

I think radical, fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a successful nation-state. I don't think Iran's going to make it for the long haul in its current state.

And if such a state were successful, then what? Fight us? Fight Europe? Good. Any bets on how long that conflict would last?

I don't know, maybe all this makes me a conservative, or even a neo-con, but I do think to some extent the people of a society are responsible for the leadership they tolerate. If the Iraqis don't want us there, and don't have the collective will to support secular institutions, well, shit, what are we doing there?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have some kind of mechanism for helping or extricating modernist Iraqis if their fellow countrymen want to turn their country into a war of rival religious factions, but to keep propping up a TYPE of society that so few of them seem committed to (and voter turnout is not, as President Bush would suggest, endorsement of a TYPE of democracy, just of their willingness to choose) for such ill-defined goals seems criminal at this point.

Islamic fundamentalism wants a chance to run countries. Lots of Arab Muslims want to live in such a country.

Osama bin Laden was a bigger threat to us than Afghanistan was. As we saw, it's a lot easier to fight the Taliban. Maybe if we had more Talibans, we'd have fewer bin Ladens.

At least we'd know where to drop the bombs. If anyone wants to talk me off the ledge, I'm open to it.

Read more...

Kristof's Laziness and Lies

Nicholas Kristof's meek, predictable, unintelligent column in today's New York Times is headlined, unironically, "A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion." I say unironically, because whoever wrote the headline seems to be oblivious to the fact that "A Modest Proposal" was, in fact, an awful, hideous, stupid idea. As is Kristof's.

For one thing, the very concept of calling for a "truce" is disingenuous. A "truce" is generally something that benefits and harms both sides equally. Stop fighting, a truce says. But what Kristof is actually calling for is an end to the debate between those who argue that a truce is possible, and those who say it isn't. Which, of course, puts Kristof on the side of those who say a truce is possible.

Which side is that? The religious side, of course. There are three possible positions to take on atheism/reason/science vs. religion/faith/theism. You can argue that atheism/reason/science is right -- which some people do today. You can argue that both have their place -- which many/most people do today. Or you can argue that religion/faith/theism is right -- which virtually no one does today.

BECAUSE THAT VIEW LOST.

The idea that religion/faith/theism is right, without a place for atheism/reason/science, had a pretty good run. We now know it as the Dark Ages. Against religion's best efforts, the idea that humanity could/should rely on something other than faith to advance itself took hold in the Enlightenment.

That left religion two options: Give up, or start pushing the idea that, hey, it's a big world, there's plenty of room for our two contradictory epistemological systems to BOTH be right! With help from folks like Steven Jay Gould, eager to secure some safe territory for science, this view has come to predominate.

It has lots of appeal, because it LOOKS like moderation or compromise. Which may be fine things when you're not talking about determining objective truth. But it was a bogus compromise back when science needed it to survive, and it's a bogus one now that religion needs it, too.

Kristof exposes his bias, and agenda, in several lines. He cites both Richard Dawkins and a web site arguing that God hates amputees, to make the case that there is an "an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive...a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for."

Assertive? Sure, but...so? Obnoxious? Compared to what? Godhatesfags.com? Pat Robertson? I'm not sure how Kristof defines obnoxiousness when he applies it to the side that uses sarcasm rather than to the side that says atheists are going to Hell.

Then he takes on the "acerbic" Sam Harris. What awful thing does Harris say?

Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: “20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.”

There's no mockery there. There's no nyah, nyah. There's no name-calling. There's an argument. Kristof has bought into the lie that applying reason or logic to religious claims is out of line somehow. But if we're supposed to accept Kristof's claim that the two can coincide, shouldn't we ALWAYS apply reason to religion, in order to determine which parts of the world fall into which jurisdiction?

After referring to fundamentalist religions, Kristof makes this comparison: "Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean. It’s contemptuous and even ... a bit fundamentalist."

Intolerant -- and mean. Contemputous...fundamentalist. Is Kristof saying that the (non-existent) Atheist Brigade's methods are all these things? Their legislative agenda? No. Their tone. Boo-fucking-hoo. Jesus, grow up.

Kristof overlooks the obvious question: Are they RIGHT? If they're wrong, hit them on that. But if they're right, then, duh, is there any reason their "tone" shouldn't be intolerant or contemptuous? Of course, dealing with whether they're RIGHT would be a lot tougher for Kristof. He'd have to deal with tough things like science and facts. Not to mention public outcry.

So he takes the classic easy-media-way-out: Call for a truce between two sides whose positions can and should, instead, be rationally debated and assessed. But Kristof is too focused on debating at the level of the average high-school sophomore:

Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.

Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people.

Okay, maybe we can address these tired and moronic points once and for all. Zedong, Stalin and Pol Pot might or might not have been atheists. What's meaningful is not whether they as individuals were, but whether they as leaders were. They were not. To whatever extent they eradicated religion in their regimes (and Stalin let it back in when it served his ends -- proving that atheism was not his end), it was to the same extent that they eradicated, co-opted or seized control of every other social institution. Does anyone really think that if the United Atheist Alliance had been a powerful political force in Cambodia -- lobbying for legislation, pushing policies, endorsing candidates, whatever -- that Pol Pot would have said, "Keep up the good work, guys! I'll be over here oppressing everyone else if you need me!"

Atheism isn't right or necessary or valuable because it will eradicate all evil in the world. It's just as stupid to advance an anti-atheist argument on that basis as it is to argue against a cure for cancer because there will still be AIDS. And the fact that religious people in religious institutions do good certainly doesn't undermine the argument that the world would be better off without religion.

Who knows, maybe if more people understood that goodness doesn't come from god, we might make it easier for other people to join and form organizations devoted to doing good. We might even use the collective power of our governments to do so. And even if there were some good in the world that religion -- and only religion -- could bring us, that still doesn't justify propagating or even tolerating it. Without heroin we wouldn't have the works of William S. Burroughs. Kristof should not be in the business of weighing the relative benefits of believing in something, he should have the balls to assess whether that thing is true or not.

He doesn't, which is why he closes with this laughable observation:

Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.

For one thing, who knew that the Christian Right had largely retreated from the culture wars? You'd think that kind of thing would have merited coverage on the front page of Kristof's paper. No such luck.

But more importantly, Kristof closes with the lie that atheists are just as intolerant as the religiously intolerant. What Dawkins and Harris and others won't tolerate is the notion that we're supposed to treat religious beliefs as though they have passed the laugh test. Other than that, Kristof's implication that the intolerance of both sides is somehow equal is the kind of false, poisonous slur that's only tolerated by people unwilling to do the hard work of following the facts.

Read more...

Webb v. Bush: Who Swung First?

The big debate, spurred by George Will's obtuse column, over whether incoming Sen. Jim Webb was rude to Pres. Bush in their exchange about Iraq, ignores the fact that Bush was rude first.

As Will put it, Bush merely "asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another." If that were the case, Will would be right: Webb would have been rude.

But Will is wrong. Bush is not "one parent" asking a "civil and caring question." Bush is the man who put Webb's son in harm's way. If one parent who had put another parent's son in a dangerous situation then approached that parent to inquire about how the son was doing in that dangerous situation, the natural response of ANY parent would be what Webb's instincts told him to do: Belt him in the face.

The reason Bush asked this question is not that he is civil and/or caring (does anyone really still think either?) but that he is a bully. It was a bully's question because Bush instinctively understood that he could ask it safely behind the protection of the same office he abused to put Webb's son in jeopardy.

Anyone who gets Bush should understand the following: Bush was testing Webb. Bush was pushing Webb to see how much deference the presidency would buy him.

He got his answer.

Read more...

Noonan

Despite the proliferation of flat-out wrong sweeping generalities about, um, all 300 million Americans, Peggy Noonan's latest represents not just yet another crack in the theocon foundation, but a whistleblower's report that some of the very pieces of the foundation want it to crumble, too.

Read more...