Hwæt!

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

The Christian Right Wants You to Get Herpes

That's an exaggeration; however, it reinforces the idea that the Christian right in this country wants to control the sexuality of their children (an the sexuality of your children) through fear. Merck is just about ready to release the drug Gardasil, which would block four strains of HPV and also help in preventing cervical cancer (this from reuters.com).

The drug giant wants the vaccine to be mandatory for students (remember when you had to take that tetanus boster shot just before college?). Obviously this would be great for the company, since it would be an automatic market for their product. To be fair, the Christian right is not saying that the vaccine should be banned, but parents should be allowed to opt out (like certain vaccines are "strongly recommended" but not mandatory, like Hepatitis A) if they so choose. The argument for this is that a vaccine against a disease (Herpes) which is exclusively sexually transmitted will give their children a false sense of security and cause promiscuity. I hate to say it, but this is another instance of parents making the establishment do the parenting for them. If you want to keep your kid vulnerable to sexually transmitted disease in order to scare him or her out of having sex, then I would suggest you also go about banning condoms from drugstores since they also "promote promiscuity" by protecting people from sexually transmitted diseases and, gasp, unwanted pregnancies.

If the vaccine is safe I really see no moral conflict in protecting oneself from herpes. If, god forbid, one were raped (and I can guarantee that the perpetrator is probably not really thinking about safety) the victim would be protected from at least one sexually transmitted disease. This is an instance where the sexual act was not done out of the vaccine's recipient's promiscuity.

Although I see nothing really controversial about being able to opt out of a vaccine, the argument for it is narrow-minded. If I were a parent I would be all for sending my child off to college with something more to protect her (and she would also have the added benefit of lowering her risk of cervical cancer to boot). When children are out of their nest, parents need to trust that they learned the lessons and values of their families, and scaring them into not making a big personal decision I feel is irresponsible and, perhaps most significantly, unfair.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Freedom of the Press Under Fire

"The First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to cnn.com. So we have to take it in good faith that what is being kept under wraps as classified and secret information is actually what they tell us it's about. I am expected to take the word of an administration I don't trust that their "database of every call made in the U. S." is not being used for some nefarious purpose other than the narrowest "we look at a terrorist's cell phone calls and extrapolate his cronies."

I would like to remind everyone that this database could easily be used to track electoral trends. It can be used to monitor the effectiveness of propaganda. We are supposed to take in good faith that they are not listening to our conversations. Now the press is going to be prosecuted for telling Americans about the inner workings of their government. All this in the interest of National Security. Who knows what's hiding behind the stamps of "classified." If this administration were transparent, and wasn't so quick to say "sorry, can't tell you about how we spent $250 billion. National security," then there would be no need for all this brouhaha.

During the Watergate scandal, which ended with his resignation, Richard Nixon cited executive privledge in supressing Oval Office tapes that would bring him down in the end. What guarantee do the people have that those red stamps are not protecting information that would prove foul play? I don't trust this administration as far as Dick Cheney can shoot an old man in the face, and that's close range.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Gang Violence in São Paulo

Brazil doesn't usually make the news. It generally takes something very good (Brazil's very effective use of ethanol fuel) or something very bad for the South American heavy-weight to make it into U. S. news. The most recent of these appearences is because of the rampant gang violence that has been plaguing the streets of São Paulo for the past week or so that has left almost 200 people dead. I was born and raised in Brazil and spent most of my developing years in São Paulo, the thriving industrial power house inhabited by 18 million people. Violence has always been a reality in the São Paulo-Rio corridor, and until recently, São Paulo could boast that its crime rate was at least lower than its sandy-beached counterpart. Not anymore.

Close friends and relatives of mine have been kidnapped and robbed. Fortunately, I don't know anyone who has been killed as a result of street violence. When I was a senior in high school, a junior at our school was kidnapped and gone for two weeks before her parents were able to negociate the ransom. My cousin was abducted in a "flash kidnapping." She and her boyfriend had guns pressed to their heads while they emptied their accounts at ATM machines before being released. This same cousin also had to barter with a criminal, telling him to take her car instead of kidnapping her. My brother spent a holiday at the beach with his friends last year. The house in which they were staying was broken into. They came with guns. His money and most of his belongings were stolen, along with that of his counterparts. Although I have never been a direct victim of violence, it has hit pretty close to home.

The recent events in São Paulo reflect a worsening reality. Violent crime is a very serious problem, and it encroaches on one's freedom to move about the city. Police brutality is another major problem in São Paulo. The force is genereally underpaid and riddled with corruption. It is a known fact that one of the weapons sources for criminals is the police. This latest boom of violence brings to the fore the many problems facing Brazilian law enforcement, and it's not just keeping gangs under control. Human rights groups brought attention to the fact that police officers in clashes with supposed gang members shoot to kill with little discernment between who is shooting back and who is caught in the crossfire. Many of those killed in the clashes have not been identified, and some identities have not been released. Those with family members who have been gone for days have no way of knowing their fate. This is organized crime against a disorganized, corrupt, and power-hungry police force. Sometimes is hard to tell the good guys and bad guys apart.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

I Love Ian McKellen

Have I ever mentioned that I love Ian McKellen and think he is a genius? Well, now you know. Having read The Da Vinci Code, I am one of those who ask, "what's all the fuss about?" I think Sir Ian said it perfectly:
"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married," he said. "I know the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay."
This is the perfect rebuttal to all those nay sayers out there who are creating a tempest in a teacup. It's just a movie. Get over yourselves.

Another Election Year Stunt (and they tried it last time, too)

I was reading reuters.com today and stumbled upon another folly of our dear Republican controlled senate. They are trying to pass a constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage in the United States. Again. Now, what I learned from this experience last time was that this kind of stunt is pulled during an election year. Bush decided it would be a good plan to push through this half baked idea in 2004 in order to mobilize his right wing, Christian conservative base so that they would vote for him come the presidential election on the basis of his moral crusades as opposed to his perceived ability to govern fairly and competently (neither of which he can do).

I think the clearest sign that this is a political stunt is the huge number of other, more important things the Senate should be worried about. It seems that in an election year the Senate is not particularly worried about passing pressing socially and economically relevant legislation, but rather dawdling on issues, although important, that are not of immediate concern. The legislature is not going to be bombed because of this, neither is it going to cause the country to fall in disarray because of stock market is tanking. The job of the Senate right now is not to pass an ammendment saying you're not allowed to marry the person you love. Their job right now is making sure the government does not continue acting illegaly against the best interest of its citizens.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, said the gay marriage ban was a waste of time for a committee that needs to tackle a wide range of other pressing issues, from judicial nominations to oversight of the National Security Administration's domestic-spying program.
I'm thinking this will go the way of Prohibition.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Scandalous!

According to abcnews.com, Katherine Harris is no longer a Bush Brothers favorite in the run for a Florida seat in the U. S. Senate. This would not have called my attention quite so acutely if it weren't for the fact that Rep. Harris was an important figure behind the Florida recount in 2000. Because of her sneaking around behind the scenes during the process that brought about the recount, Harris may have been partially responsible for putting Bush in the White House. Now, to take full advantage of this situation, let me assume for a moment that Rep. Harris heart is hardened by the Bush Brothers' rejection of her bid for the Senate. In a throe of anger, she admits to fraud in the Florida elections of 2000, dredging up all sorts of evidence that Bush was wrongfully placed in the presidential seat. Hopefully that'll garner enough outrage from the American people, realizing, finally, that this whole administration has been a fraud.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Mr Bush, You Are Not a Dictator

I would like to point out that President Bush seems to think he has dictatorial powers. This is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
The term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly.
Although it used to be common practice in this country, the system of checks and balances has been severely undermined by this administration through the use of "signing statements," where Mr. Bush has shown that he is above the law. Seven hundred fifty of them, to be more exact. In this way, if there is a law penned by the House or Senate that W. isn't happy with, why, he just files a signing statement!
The association between the dictator and the military is a very common one; many dictators take great pains to emphasize their connections with the military.
How many times has this president said "as commander in chief I have the power to..." It seems that his military standing (at this time I would like to remind everyone that Bush was a draft-dodger) is what gives him his power, or rather where Bush gleans his alleged power. He also claims that a simple executive command should be the only thing necessary to move entire agencies (like the NSA) to do his bidding. We have a court system to interpret our laws for us, but the administration has chosen to forget that detail.

This from Project for the Old American Century:
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
There is a lot of this going on in this country, more than it ever has. I cannot say how many times I have heard "love it or leave it." This is certainly not what the founding fathers intended. To be told that we should have an unfaltering trust in our fearless leader is not what this country is about.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Maybe this one is a bit obvious. We have allowed the government to enter our private lives, perform unwarranted searches in violation of the fourth ammendment, and are holding countless prisoners without trial in Guantanamo, not to mention the CIA "black sites."
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Need I say more?
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
I really want to stop spending billions on this war and start spending those hard earned tax dollars on education, public health, disaster victims, and the other slew of domestic problems this country needs to deal with!
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Abortion laws are being overturned left and right, the Supreme Court is poised for a stealth attack on Roe vs. Wade, and it seems like a woman's right to contraceptive medicine is threatened. Not to mention the fact that homosexuals are treated as second class citizens.
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Remember when the pentagon was planting fake news stories in Iraq's newspapers?
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
The terrorists are in our backyard! They will kill you, and all your babies! Trust this administration to protect you. All we need is all your civil liberties...
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Doesn't this president claim to get messages from God? I also feel like a lot of the justification for the way this administration operates has to do with Christianity. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? It was one of the founding priciples in this country.
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
This is what the lobbyists have been doing in Washington. Big oil owns them.
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Remember when the NSA decided to tap our phones without a warrant? As far as I know, no one has been punished for this...
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Unlike the wise Abraham Lincoln, who surrounded himself with political opponents in order to keep himself in check and do what was best for the country, this president surrounds himself with yes men, and can't see beyond his own personal ambitions.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
We all remember Florida in 2000, and then Ohio in 2004.

I would just like to remind the president one more time that he is not a dictator, so please, stop acting like one.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

No Such Agency

This from cbsnews.com: "President Bush said any domestic intelligence-gathering measures he's approved are "lawful," and said "appropriate" members of Congress have been briefed." For starters, we now know, thanks to The Boston Globe that "lawful" is a relative term. Lawful according to whom? To Congress? Ok. To the Senate? Ok. To the president? This is where we have a problem. If the president says something is "lawful," we're in trouble, since W.'s interpretation of lawful usually means "I'm the decider and I decide [what's lawful]." Of course, the lawfulness or not of something traditionally was the realm of the courts, but our president doesn't play that way. He's the decider, remember?

Apparently, our privacy is "fiercly protected." That's why Big Brother now has records of my conversations with my boyfriend. Thank you, Verizon, for giving away my personal information. And what does "appropriate" mean? If "appropriate" is no one, then this could have been completely unilateral. I wouldn't put it past this administration. Thank you, George Bush for telling no one that you were protecting my privacy by letting the National Security Agency into my private communications. "One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns." Do they have cell phone service? I want to switch to them. Apparently, they didn't have to turn over information "because of privacy and legal concerns," unlike Verizon. I wonder why?

"'The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a highly classified and exceptionally sensitive intelligence-gathering program, and only those with a special need to know are provided details about this classified program,' Roehrkasse tells CBS News." I need to know. I was told by this president that my privacy was "fiercly protected." I fiercly want to know why the hell I'm being monitored by the NSA, and why the fourth ammendment is being violated.

"The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, and whether they are local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, USA Today said." And this is supposed to make it okay? Of course, Bush's newest choice in a military man to head the civilian CIA is something everyone is supposed to swallow. He'll have no problem passing through the Senate, since it's owned by the GOP. It really is. The GOP bought it. Jack Abramoff gave them the money, if they would just keep sweatshops open in the Northern Marianas Islands.

Why is it that the citizens of this country can't control government payroll? After all, they are our employees. We should be able to withhold our income tax in protest. I don't want any of my money to go to people I find unfit to do their jobs! This wiretapping program is in violation of the fourth ammendment! I have never committed a crime, and yet my phone records are being scritinized by the NSA. There is no probable cause here. And there are millions more out there in the same situation! The constitution is being raped.

I'm sick of giving up my civil liberties in order to be safer from some phanthom nemesis. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." No, it was not some crazy bleeding-heart liberal that said this. It was Benjamin Franklin (and I hope everyone reads this and repeats it). He was one of our founding fathers. The current state of this country would be an embarassment to those who founded this nation.

Back with Leonardo

Ok, so in my previous post I basically berated Dan Brown and his novel. I would like to take a step back here and talk about what is good about this thriller. Like it or not, Brown brings to the fore a much more important question that the veracity of the Bible or an old conspiracy theory. The most valuable issues he raises are: the place of women in the Church and the questioning of faith. I went to Focus on the Family for my answers regarding what the Christian right has to say about this (by Greg Hartman). It seems to me that the greatest message of all is "don't question anything."

I would like to point out that the writer of this article does not seem to have read the book very closely: "The Da Vinci Code belongs with the most lurid anti-Catholic tracts and comic books: Jesuit assassins; secret societies that pull governmental strings all over the world; a 2,000-year-old Vatican conspiracy to pervert the Bible." The assassin was in Opus Dei, there were no governmental strings being pulled, and, well, as for that last claim, I think it depends on where you're coming from. And to compare it to comic books? I have to say many comic books are of far greater literary value than The Da Vinci Code, but that's besides the point. It just seems like a cheap shot to me, completely unrelated to any part of the argument.

Why is it that some Christian groups are so threatened by the possibility that a woman may have been chosen to be the rock on which God's Church is built? It is a matter of fact that women greatly presided over the earliest masses. Those masses were held in living rooms and family rooms, traditionally the realm of the feminine, and not in public temples since the religion was illegal. Women are the rock on which the Church was built until Constantine made it legal, so men could once again lay claim over leadership since the religion was now in the public realm. This, the public versus the domestic, is where the debate for female empowerment began (read Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women). Women were placed in the domestic realm and men in the public. When Christianity moved to the public realm, female leadership was relinquished in favor of men, who (at the time) were more equipped to lead in the public realm (this is all based on the idea that women were called the weaker sex because, given their situation at the time, this was true). Unfortunately, this antiquated idea still persists in much of the Christian church today.

There really seems to be nothing opposable in a female priest. Women are just as equipped as men to understand theology and preach to their congregations. Furthermore, the male priesthood is a matter of discipline and not a matter of dogma. It is traditional to have male priests, and nothing more. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman is forbidden to lead a congregation (if you can find a verse that says a woman is incapable of understanding the will of God, or is unable to communicate the message of Jesus, please, show it to me, and then I'll be convinced that the Bible was written by misogynists bent on keeping women out).

Even though reading The Da Vinci Code was somewhat of a painful experience, Dan Brown's incompetence as a writer aside, it raises questions that should challenge a Christian's faith. There is no other more rewarding experience than to have that faith challenged! If one never challenges her faith how will she ever know that it is solid and real? The idea that women deserve a greater role in church leadership is not one to be scoffed at, and needs to be taken seriously. If the idea that a woman may have been the rock of the church makes you double over with pain, then it's about time you dissected your faith instead of blindly following what generations of men have said about what you should believe.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Everyone Loves a Conspiracy Theory

Just this weekend I read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I began reading this book with the greatest of prejudices. I started on the assumption that Brown is a mediocre writer who stumbled on a good story. I was right on both counts, in my opinion. Brown's style is lacking in fluidity and his narrator's voice is insulting at times. He beats you over the head with some of his plot points. When he lays out the puzzles, it almost seems like Brown is smirking in the background thinking, "I'm so clever" whilst the reader cannot believe the characters have not yet figured out the obvious. That having been said, I enjoyed the book. Like the title of this piece says, everyone loves a conspiracy theory.

I can understand why there is a controversy surrounding this book; however, I think that much of what is "controversial" about Brown's novel is overstated by his opponents. First of all, there is nothing in the fabric of the story that tells me Opus Dei is evil. From my understanding, of the main characters in Opus Dei, one was a zealot (and God knows there are many real-life zealots out there who would do far worse), manipulated because of his very loyalty to his faith, and the second, the leader of Opus Dei who despaired. I am not convinced that the organization as a whole is portrayed negatively (except in Dan Brown's slightly biased style, but I do not think Brown is the person to go to in matters of religious scholarship). I saw nothing shocking about how Brown portrayed their choices. Perhaps this is because I have studied corporal mortification. It has a long history, and it certainly did not start with Opus Dei.

My main beef to pick with Dan Brown is that, even though The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, he seems to be speaking from a position of authority, like a religious scholar. It is here that I would like to remind everyone that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction! It is not a work of religious scholarship. I didn't see any footnotes, directing me to verifiable sources. I saw no peer review of the material. Yes, Dan Brown does rely on some amount of research, and yes, there have been stories about the Priory of Sion floating around for a number of years, but that doesn't make them authoritative. In fact, I heard about this theory years ago, before The Da Vinci Code was a twinkle in Dan Brown's eye. In short, the idea that the Holy Grail is not a grail at all is not new. In 2001 I made a clay sculpture in art class called "The Keeper of the Holy Grail," and it was an image of a pregnant woman. I explained to my teacher the theory that Mary Magdalene was pregnant with Jesus' child, fled to Gaul, and continued Jesus' bloodline. And I went to a Catholic high school! Shockingly eough, my sculpture was not banned from the student art show.

That someone would write a novel exploring this possibility as a reality, that there is in fact a Priory of Sion, and that the material exists to verify it, does not surprise me in the least. In fact, I can't imagine the book didn't write itself. The whole concept is rich with conspiracy potential: The Church is hiding something, there is a shocking truth, there is a secret society involved, etc. It is a wonderful fancy.

When I read Brown's novel I did not assume that what he was telling me is fact. His research is flawed, and scholars have looked in the same places he has and shown us those flaws. For example, the scene where Prof. Langdon and Sophie are at the Teabing estate and Teabing shows an exerpt from a Gnostic Gospel saying Jesus loved Mary Magdalene the most and often kissed her on the mouth, scholars have shown that the manuscript on which Brown relied in order to make that claim is incomplete, and parts of it, such as kissing her on the mouth, are absent from the original and were inserted as ediorials. Also, the catalogue of names of the Grand Masters of the Priory were written and submitted to the Bibliothéque in Paris in the 1960's, and there is no paper trail to show that the information had not been fabricated.

There is no answer to the question of whether or not the story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is true. Unfortunately, historical records from that time period are very rare, and often in terrible condition when they are found. Regardless of the veracity or not of that information, I would rather look to theology and history for an explanation, rather than a novel.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Impeach President Bush

This administration is infuriating me more and more each day. I have written letters to Representative Capuano in Congress and to Senators Kennedy and Kerry of Massachusetts urging them to remove George W. Bush from the presidency of the United States. Here is the transcript of my letter:
I am writing because my outrage at this administration becomes greater by the day. When The Boston Globe published its article on the president's use of signing statements to essencially put himself above the law, I felt the need to voice this opinion to my representatives. More and more, I feel that this administration is edging dangerously close to a dictatorship. My opposition to this president is not anti-American! Last I heard, leader worship was a characteristic of fascist regimes. I do not want a government that ignores the system of checks and balances, and that is why I would like President Bush to be removed from power, and that the concentration of power in the executive branch be equalized. Please, impeach President Bush.
I urge you to contact your representatives in the House and Senate if you feel this way about the current state of our country's administration. Only by telling our representatives what we think and believe will they know how to act on our behalf!

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Life in the Slammer

Zacarias Moussaoui gets life in prison, and as this cbsnews.com coulumnist, I wholeheartedly agree that it is the most fitting conclusion to the three ring circus that the trial has been. Andrew Cohen says exactly what I have been thinking:
It ends with prosecutors losing the trial of their lifetimes, defense attorneys losing a client they probably wish they never had, the government losing a case it desperately wanted to win, and the judge losing from her courtroom and her docket a cast of characters and issues that caused her one headache after another for nearly four-and-a-half years.
I think perhaps most importanty, the government lost this case. The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui was a sham. He was an al Qaida wannabe who shouted inflamatory slogans and took credit for a crime he did not committ in an attempt at self-aggrandizement. Moussaoui is a fraud and a liar, and did not deserve to have his wish of martyrdom fulfilled. This government was using Moussaoui as their crown jewel. Some kind of lame attempt at showing the public they were doing something. Moussaoui is the only person tried and convicted in relation to the September 11 attacks. If life in prison is a defeat for the U.S. government, I will accept that as a slap in the face for this administration. I will let Cohen conclude this segment because he said it so well:
Prosecutors, too, deserved to lose because they fought so shamelessly and recklessly to win. It wasn't just that they got caught cheating with their aviation witnesses. It wasn't just the paucity of independent evidence linking Moussaoui to the crime. It was the hypocrisy of trying to substitute Moussaoui for Osama bin Laden, Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and the 19 lunatics who actually flew into the buildings and the ground. This sham reached its nadir during closing arguments, when prosecutor David Novak told jurors that Moussaoui "murdered 2,972 innocent people on 9/11 and he will kill again in prison."

And high-ranking government officials, who crassly tried to make political points by blaming Moussaoui for the crimes of the dead hijackers, deserved to lose so they cannot continue to spin this case, this trial, as a huge victory in the war on terror.

This battle in the war on terror was lost years ago, when it became clear even to U.S. officials that Moussaoui was not the 20th hijacker slated to doom Flight 93 and when the defendant himself began to take advantage of his constitutional rights to manipulate the judicial system. It is a stain on the record of this administration that it attempted to make a show trial out of the Moussaoui case when it could have simply put him on ice in Guantanamo Bay or charged him with lesser crimes.
It is a fitting end to a trial that never should have taken place over a man who was never worth the trouble he caused. Don't go away mad, these jurors finally told Moussaoui after a week of deliberations, just go away.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

W. Tyrannus

I think this administration needs to learn a lesson in accountability. I will turn to classical literature for an answer to this jarring question: should the president be held accountable for basing a war on faulty intelligence? Now, I will give the president the benefit of the doubt and say that it was an honest mistake. He thought Iraq had WMDs, and with that, decided that the U.S. should step in, take action, and pull Sadam from the seat of power, overhaul his regime, and install a new, America-friendly democracy. In other words, should President Bush be held accountable for making a decision (that put American and Iraqi lives on the line) based on incorrect information, assuming he really was ignorant of the truth.

In case you are not familiar, I will quickly recap the story of Oedipus Tyrannus, the 5th century B.C. play by Greek tragedian Sophocles. The king and queen of Thebes have a child and go to the Delphic oracle for a prophecy about their baby. The oracle says that the child will grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. Without skipping a beat, they hand the kid over to a servant who is given the charge of killing the child. The servant takes pity on the child and hangs him from a tree from his ankles (thus Oedipus, or "swollen feet") instead of quickly relinquishing the child's life. A shepherd finds the child and takes him to king Polybus of Corinth, where he is raised as a prince. As a young man, Oedipus finds out about the prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother. Not realizing that the king and queen of Corinth are not his natural parents, he flees the city to avoid the fulfillment of the prophecy. On the road to Thebes, he squabbles with a group of travellers and end up killing Laius, who, unbeknownst to both of them, is his father. He went on to solve the riddle of the Sphinx and, as a reward, was made king of Thebes and given the queen to marry. In this case it was his mother, Jocasta. Mind you he has no idea that he has killed the king of Thebes. He also has no idea that the king of Thebes is his father, and neither does he know that the woman he is to marry is his mother.

During the course of Sophocles' play, Oedipus discovers that he was the cause of all this misfortune: the murder of his own father, the incest with his mother, and her subsequent suicide. Despite his not knowing he was fulfilling the tragic prophecy dealt by Delphi, Oedipus takes out his own eyes in anagnorisis, or recognition of his sins, and as punishment for his ate, or spiritual blindess. He is holding himself accountable for his mistakes, instead of throwing up his hands and saying "jeez guys, I had no idea," whilst a plague is ravaging the city of Thebes because the murderer of Laius has not been brought to justice (starting to sound familiar?).

That having been said, I would like to go back to my initial question: is George W. Bush accountable for the war in Iraq? The answer is a resounding YES! Regardless of whether or not he was using intelligence to fill a policy gap (which more and more seems to be the case), Geroge W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of more than 2000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqi civillians. It seems to me that this administration has been hiding behind the veil of "oh dear, we really had no idea. Oops." Quoting John Kerry, "how do you tell a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Seems like we're heading deeper and deeper into another Vietnam.

Oedipus was ignorant of his sins. He committed two of the most heinous crimes you could committ in Ancient Greece: he killed his own kin and he was in an incestuous relationship. And Oedipus was lucky. The gods unleashed the furies on Orestes when he killed his mother is Æschylus' Oresteia. Bush's incompetence (if that is indeed what it is) is bordering on the criminal. I am tempted to say that there should be some kind of law that makes leaders accountable for their erratic and irresponsible behaviour, but Bush would probably sign it into law amidst much pomp and circumstance, and then file a signing statement saying he feels it is unconstitutional and impinging upon his power as commander in chief to be held accountable.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Scotty Is At It Again

I won't elaborate much on this, since I think it's absurdity is self-evident. This was pulled from salon.com:


Reporter: Scott, given the current situation in Iraq, what the president described today as havoc ... could he, would he, possibly stand under a sign that says "Mission Accomplished" today, as he did three years ago?

McClellan: Well, I think that there are some Democrats that refuse to recognize the important milestone achieved by the formation of a national unity government. And there's an effort simply to distract attention away from the real progress that is being made by misrepresenting and distorting the past. And that really does nothing to help advance our goal of achieving victory in Iraq.

Reporter: So, Scott, simply yes-or-no ... could the president stand under a sign today …

McClellan: No, see, this is a way that ...

Reporter: This has nothing to do with Democrats. I'm asking you ...

McClellan: Sure it does.

Reporter: … based on reporter's curiosity: Could he stand under a sign again that says "Mission Accomplished"?

McClellan: Democrats have tried to raise this issue. And like I said, misrepresenting and distorting the past, which is what they are doing, does nothing to advance the goal of victory in Iraq.

Reporter: I mean, it's a historical fact that, you know, we're all taking note of ...

McClellan: Well, I think the focus ought to be on achieving victory in Iraq and the progress that's being made. And that's where it is. And you know exactly that Democrats are trying to distort the past.

Reporter: Let me ask it another way: Has the mission been accomplished?

McClellan: Next question.

Reporter: Has the mission been accomplished?

McClellan: We are on the way to accomplishing the mission and achieving victory.


So whenever the administration blunders, its a left-wing conspiracy... gotcha. Whatever happened to accountability?

Monday, May 01, 2006

Stephen Colbert is Not Your Monkey

Today I read an article on salon.com about Stephen Colbert's appearence at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Sometimes I wonder if organizations like this research the people they invite to speak. It seems to me they made the same mistake Tucker Calrson (before he was booted over to Fox) made when he invited Jon Stewart to participate on Crossfire.

What Jon Stewart had to say about the show rang very true to me. Appearing on political debate shows is part of the strategy; it is part of the machinery of campaigning and politics. It does not help the public understand the positions of the politicians on the show. I see this in modern debates, like the 2004 presidential debate. They are given the questions in advance, and can prepare their defences beforehand. What happened to putting them on the spot, and making them think on their feet, without all the prepressed rhetoric? This is what Jon Stewart is talking about when he says Crossfire is hurting America. It is not fostering honest debate, but rather opening its forum to more codswallop from politicians.

According to the salon.com article, Stephen Colbert's performance left the audience dumbstuck. He was the perfect "imitation of the quintessential GOP talking head," something which probably hit quite close to home for many of those attending the dinner. Apparently, the first lady, the ever charming and elegant Laura Bush (about whom I don't usually have anything bad to say), did not shake his hand. A sure sign that Colbert's appearance had the right effect on his audience, and one that I am certain, was not intended by his patrons. Like what Jon Stewart was talking about on his appearance on CNN, the dinner was a self-important moment when the White House correspondents congatulated themselves. There is no dialogue, and a hard-hitting message like the one Colbert was sending out is ill received by a group so blinded by their own self-rightousness that Colbert's parody is taken as an insult, a sure sign that the targets of his jest take themselves too seriously.

As the idiotic patriot, Colbert "uncovered the inner workings of the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate," precisely the theater Stewart said Crossfire was staging. "Colbert's jokes attacked not just Bush's policies, but the whole drama and language of American politics, the phony demonstration of strength, unity and vision," which is what this administration has been peddling to us through a policy of fear-mongering and empty promises. "They invited Colbert to speak for levity, not because they wanted to be criticized." Yet another sign that the bureaucrats in Washington have no idea what they're doing.