Reading the news today, I was astounded by how far we, as Americans,  have fallen from basic civility.  Since I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, I didn't hear this myself so I had to wait a day or two to be astonished:

From the August 15 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

Since he is unclear on the matter, allow me to clarify things for the Esteemed Mr. Limbaugh, Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq.  It happened.  No one made that up.  No one faked it.

Secondly, how dare he, or anyone else for that matter, decide for Cindy Sheehan, or any other mother, how she should mourn the death of her child.  Do not decide for her what is and is not an appropriate expression of grief or an appropriate period of mourning.  When your child is killed, then you can decide how to behave. 

How disrespectful for anyone to presume to set the standards on appropriate behavior.

The war and the anti-war movement are contentious issues.  There are strong passions on all sides.  But it doesn't matter what your stand on the issues are, what matters is that you treat this woman with a modicum of respect - her son is dead, he died for his country and she is hurting. 

Do not use her as your whipping girl du jour.  Do not use her as your poster child.  Stand with her or against her, but respect her right to petition her government for redress.

While these are not my words, they express my opinion on this 'war effort' perfectly.  So if you support the war, then what are you doing to pay for it?

Published on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 by UExpress.com

Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It

by Ted Rall

If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.

Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."

To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.

I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.

Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.

The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:

"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"

I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:

"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."

Did I call that one or what?

David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.

I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."

If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.

I came across the lists below on a blog where the author has decided not to allow comments.  I found this to be so over the top that I couldn’t resist commenting anyway. 

Where to start?  OK, first, it’s about over-simplifying a complex issue.  Unless I’m more ignorant than I sometimes appear, the subtle theme of this post is:  conservatives are strong macho men and liberals are limp-wristed pussies.

So, the conservative list shows that remembering 911 properly shoulb be done in non-Christian ways.  Do not turn the other cheek…  Do not forgive those who trespass against you… Round everyone up and kill them. 

Given that a religious response to a politically motivated attack is not always the best response, one can overlook the ‘WWJD’ part. 

But, If the appropriate response by a conservative is to hunt down the perpetrators, attack and kill them, then most conservatives must be really pissed off by the way the US has been handling the post-911 world. 

#1 seems to be handled quite well.

#2 has been shot out of the water – we’ve apparently forgotten that it was al-Qaeda and not the Iraqis that committed the atrocity. 

#3 we do very well - just not toward the correct people. 

#4 and #5 we’ve completely let go to hell – we’re so focused on the insurgency we created in Iraq that we’re not even talking about Osama bin Laden let alone trying to track him down.

Now, regarding the LEFT/LIBBER version,I’m somewhat confused by the term ‘Libber’.  In common American slang, that usually refers to a member of the Women’s Liberation movement; a less common meaning put it as a member of the Libertarian Party.  So this is either about female activists or opponents of big governemnt.  But I'm done pretending to be thick – it’s obvious against whom the slur is intended.

As for his 5 points of light, I spend quite a bit of time reading commentary and news from the Left and I have never seen those 5 items mentioned anywhere.  In fact, the only place I’ve seen them are in right wing commentaries on what the Left thinks. 

In today's news, there are fresh articles about the unreleased images from Abu Ghraib and the pentagon's efforts to keep them out of the public's eyes:

New York-- Senior Pentagon officials have opposed the release of photographs and videotapes of the abuse of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, arguing they would incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of U.S. soldiers and officials at risk, according to documents unsealed in federal court.

Gen. Richard Meyers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said in a statement put forth to support the Pentagon's case that he believed that riots, violence and attacks by insurgents would result if the images were released.  [article]

 These are images supposedly portraying far worse things than alittle boyish hazing.  These supposedly show rape and murder.  So let me see if I have his argument right: the images are so bad that, if they are released, muslims will riot so it's better to just keep them under lock and key so as not to inflame these violatile people.  We're concerned about their safety as well as our citizens' and soldiers' saftety.  Quite admirable.

Now, does this concern have anything to do with the Administration's safety?  Could it be that they do not want all those uncomfortable questions, anger and indignation that could come from the unwashed masses here in the US?  Could it be that there will be questions about why we weren't told about this when the abu Ghraib story first came out?  Could it be that the images are worse now that they also have the taint of censorship on them?

... there could be demonstrations and calls for investigations and other messy things that could get in the way of our government's efforts to make the world safe for millionaires.... But, the Administration is above mere politicking.  I'm sure their only concern is protecting the sensibilities of the general public.

Common wisdom in some circles has is that if someone does not approve of the war in Iraq, then one does not support the men and women fighting there.  Following that logic, then I do not support our troops. 

But what does that mean when someone says I don’t support them?  My brother is over there.  Does this mean that I do not worry about him being stationed just outside Baghdad?  Does it mean that I hope that he and his comrades come to harm? 

From looking around here in balmy Dallas, Texas, it appears that supporting the troops means that I have a yellow metallic sticker on my vehicle.  It appears to me to be a catch phrase to mean that I support the President’s policies in his struggle with violent extremism.  If that is the case, then I do not support our troops.  I didn’t support the troops before the war started and they said that they had proof of these weapons of mass destruction aimed at US cities.  I did not support the troops when they tried to link Saddam Hussein to 911.  I didn’t support the troops when they glibly said that freedom was messy.  I didn’t support the troops when their response to the escalating violence was, “Bring ‘em on!”

I show my lack of support by advocating their swift return from Iraq.  I show my lack of support by wanting them to have the armor they need for protection.  I show my lack of support by opposing the cover-ups surrounding prisoner abuses and ‘special renditions’ that are doing so much to worsen our already horrible image overseas.  I show my lack of support by insisting that the freedoms they are supposedly protecting don’t erode any further.

I must be a terrible person.  I obviously hate this country and should probably leave – who else but an unpatriotic hater would want this country to live up to it’s noble ideas? 

It seems that every time I turn around there is another report about the battle between Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. 

Personally, I think the concept of Creationism is absurd.  I do not for a moment believe that creation story in Genesis is a factual account of what happened.  There was no ‘Poof!’ and there everything was.  I think the creation stories passed down to us from our various cultural ancestors were a way for early man to explain how things came into existence.  I look at thunder as being the anger of the gods this same way. 

Evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain how life came to exist in the forms we see today. 

Intelligent Design is a religious'political theory attempting to explain who caused life to exist in the forms we see today.  Essentially, they are trying to say that something happened to create life, but life is so complex that it’s obvious someone had to be designing some portions – that these things could never have occurred by trial and error. 

One of the methods used to justify Intelligent Design as a science is by explaining everything that scientists cannot yet explain as being proof of intercession by a designer.  The absence of an explanation cannot be used as proof of intent.  That assumes that there are only two possible explanations and if something isn’t one then it must be the other.  Essentially, if science hasn't explained something then it must have a religious answer.

Intelligent Design pretends to be science but cannot be a scientific position because it’s not measurable nor is it reproducible.  As such, it has no room in scientific textbooks or science classes.  Its proper place is in the realm of religion and philosophy.

For the Regressive Right that is not acceptable.  The whole purpose for the debate is that Evolution contradicts Creationism - which is Correct and True.  Intelligent Design is a thinly disguised veil over Creationism that, purely for political purposes, is being pushed by Christian extremists.  They’re trying to appear moderate to people who believe in God and think that evolution could be just a way of explaining how He/She/It did it. 

Now, just because one believes in Evolution does not mean they do not believe in God.  I believe in God and I believe Evolution more accurately explains the origins of life than any other theory.  What I don’t believe is the fundamentalist stance that each and every word in the bible has been written by God and is the literal truth – it is instead a collection of writings and oral histories done by numerous humans. 

Molly Ivins has been a favorite commentator of mine for a couple decades now.  (god, I’m getting old.)  I don’t always agree with her – although I usually do.  My great love for her, however, comes more from her humor and her down home, practical view of the world.

This a quote from this past Tuesday’s column.  It’s a reprint from 2001 and still just as amusing today:

“One of the most profound insights I have ever had about our national life is that you cannot outlaw bad taste in America … Some people just like old refrigerators on their front porches, fountains of little boys peeing and plastic roses.  Get over it.” 

Ya gotta love it.

I stole this from The Onion.  I needed a good laugh today.

White House Denies Existence of Karl Rove

WASHINGTON, DC—The White House denied rumors of wrongdoing by anyone named Karl Rove Monday, saying the alleged deputy chief of staff does not exist.

"To my knowledge, no one by the name of Karl Rove works for this president, his staff, or for that matter, anyone on earth, since he is not a real person," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Monday.

Despite White House denials, allegations have surfaced in recent weeks that Karl Rove is the man who leaked covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press. He is rumored to be President Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, architect of the president's 2000 and 2004 election victories, and the current deputy White House chief of staff, as well as a frequent guest on televised political talk shows.

"None of these allegations are supported by the facts," McClellan said. "The opponents of this administration have created a mythical figure in order to discredit the president. All they have done is divert attention from the important work at hand—the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In doing so, they have dishonored the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform."

"This time," he added, "the Democrats have gone too far."

According to fringe journalist Lou Dubose, author of Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Brains Behind The Remarkable Political Triumph Of George W. Bush, Rove was born Dec. 25, 1950 in Denver, CO. Dubose alleges that Rove lived in Colorado with his family until 1963, when he moved to Salt Lake City, UT. According to Dubose, the shadowy figure entered politics in college, quickly moving through the ranks to become the chairman of the College Republican National Committee at age 22.

The White House has called such reports "nonsense."

McClellan reiterated his denial of Karl Rove's existence 33 times during the press conference. When pressed, he distributed a list of "real, actual political figures about whom I'd be happy to comment." The list included only President George W. Bush and Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

Rumors of the figure's existence were given a boost early this month when, as part of the official investigation into the CIA leak, a Time magazine reporter named Rove as the source of the leak.

"This is a very clever fiction concocted by those on the other side of the aisle," Vice President Dick Cheney said. "It's preposterous at its core."

The phantom advisor has come under heavy fire in recent weeks from critics of the administration, who say he should be fired for his role in the scandal. President Bush has pledged that anyone in his administration found to be involved in the CIA leak will be dismissed.

"There is no such organization as the CIA," McClellan said. "This is tinfoil-hat stuff."

Initially demanding that the alleged Rove be fired, Democrats say they are now focusing their efforts on proving the figure's existence.

"I believe this deputy White House chief of staff is real, despite White House claims to the contrary," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "But to disprove this wild ghost story, we must begin an exhaustive fact-finding mission, for which I pledge all the time and resources of the entire Democratic party."

I’m a little surprised.  For the first three parts of by diatribe, the only comments have been words of support.  I was expecting someone to take offense ..  I guess the bubbas, dittoheads and other non-thinkers are otherwise occupied.  I can think of three reasons – I’m making good sense; they haven’t been told what to think; or I’m being ignored. 

It’s most likely the last one, but that’s OK as I’m still going to speak my mind.

You Liberals think that … Part 4 (Civil Liberties)

I believe that all humans have certain inalienable rights.  When those rights are trampled on – regardless of who is the trampler and who is the tramplee – men and women of good conscience need to stand up and support them.  That's why I support the ACLU and other civil liberties groups.  If one person or group is being denied their civil rights then what is to prevent our own rights from being taken away?

The Bill of Rights

I fully support the first ten amendments to the constitution and the rights that are enshrined in them.  I support them for everyone – not just US citizens and not just for people in the US.  (In case you need to review them, go here.)  Just to make myself clear, here are some comments on some of the rights most commonly argued over:

Freedom of Religion – Each person has a right to worship God, or not, in any manner they see fit.  No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on anyone. 

When it comes to the battle over the separation of Church and State, I side with the Civil Libertarians.  I look at it this way – how would I feel if a Public institution, funded by my tax dollars, expressed religious beliefs I disagree with?  If you’re Christian, who would you feel with a Muslim prayer being broadcast before your high school football game?  Well, it’s exactly the same for non-Christians… and sorry, but that’s the way the Constitution is written and interpreted.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave.

Freedom of Speech – I have the right to say anything I want about any topic I want.  So do you.  So does everyone.  Now, I have no problem with restrictions against speech inciting violence or panic – that’s common sense.  I will support, with all my strength, your right to say any damn fool thing you want – no matter how offensive to me personally.  Likewise, I have every right to reply back to you.  Speaking my mind is not un-patriotic – it’s my right … and sorry, but that’s the way the Constitution is written and interpreted.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave.

Freedom of Assembly and to Petition the Government – Each person, or group of people are free to peaceably assemble in groups as they see fit, they are free to protest government actions and other grievances.  This is not the freedom to protest unpopular things only nor is it the freedom to only assemble in approved locations or with approved people… and sorry, but that’s the way the Constitution is written and interpreted.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave. 

Right to Bear Arms – Each of us has the right to own a gun.  I personally have never exercised that right – but I can.  I have no problem with restrictions such as background checks or waiting periods – it’s like with Speech – guns can be dangerous so maybe a couple common sense restrictions are needed.  This amendment does not say that we have the right to buy a gun with the same ease that we would buy a loaf of bread just that we have the right to one … and sorry, but that’s the way the Constitution is written and interpreted.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave.

Other Rights and Responsibilities

I don't believe that every inherent Right is enshrined in the US Constitution.  There are other basic rights and responsibilities tha t are also inherent to all humans:

Each person has the right to live their life as they see fit so long at they do not harm others.

Each person has the right to live their life with dignity and the right to end that life in a dignified manner.

Each person has the right to earn a living wage and to support their family.

Each person has the right to determine for themselves who comprises that family.

Each person is responsible for their own actions.

Each person is responsible for everything that happens in the world.

Each person has the responsibility to uphold the rights of all other people.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  I’m not always right, but that’s what I believe.

So, it’s time for the next installment on what I believe.  As I’ve said before, I am not interested in being told what I think by someone who gets all their opinions fed to them and can only argue a point when I stick to the pre-determined script. 

Elsewhere I said I was going to talk about Civil Liberties in part 3.  Well, apparently I lied because I’ve decided to skip ahead and talk about the 600 pound gorilla in the living room:

Terrorism

Now, I am, and always have been, proud to be an American.  I love the principles we say we stand for.  I love that I’m free to stand up and disagree with my government without fear of reprisal.  I have no intention of leaving just because some yahoo in a pick-up truck has decided that I’m unpatriotic if I exercise my rights as a citizen.

I had just got home from an extended business trip in Stockholm the weekend before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  After just getting off a 777, it was easy to see myself on one of those 4 airplanes.  I watched, along with most of the country as innocent men and women died.  I cried for the first time when I saw New Yorkers walking out of Manhattan by the thousands toward safety – American refugees haven’t been seen in 140 years.

Using terrorist tactics to make a point is evil.  The planners of these crimes need to be hunted down, captured and made to answer for their actions.  There is no excuse for what they did.  That said, I hate that as a progressive, I feel the need to say all that – it’s what I believe and it pisses me off that someone would doubt that just because I disapprove of the US’ methods.

The approach we’ve taken to fighting terrorism as a country is wrong.

First, by making it a ‘War on Terror’ and predominately utilizing the military to conduct this war elevates these people by making them legitimate adversaries.  They are criminals and need to be treated as such.  This ‘war’ should involve the World’s spy networks and international police groups and not soldiers.

The whole world was behind us after 9/11.  Then we tossed that support away by killing innocent people, invading nations that had nothing to do with the attacks, acting like barbarians in our prisons and telling the world that if they don’t like it then they can just go to hell ‘cuz we’re the US and therefore always right.

Secondly, we declared it unpatriotic to wonder if any of our own actions led these men to think that their only possible response was to blow up innocent people.  Instead, we said that they hate us for our freedom.  That’s idiotic.  If that’s the case, why aren’t they attacking Canada or Sweden or Germany?  Those are nations just as free as the US.  Maybe, just maybe, the US has supported totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.  Maybe, just maybe, the US policy toward Palestine has been a little too one-sided in favor of Israel.

None of that excuses acts of terrorism, but maybe, just maybe, if we stop acting like arrogant Imperials and actually start supporting democratic movements around the world, we won’t have some many oppressed people hating us.

It’s a lot easier to say, “oh poor little us, why did they attack us?” instead of looking at some of the evil things done in our name over the past 60 years or so … but it’s not particularly useful.

Iraq

I went to my first anti-war protest in November 2002.  I thought then and I still think that the Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq and were just trying to find a casus belli (if you’re not familiar with that term, then look it up.) so that we can look like the good guys instead of the aggressor.  Iraq was never about WMD or terrorism or ‘spreading democracy’.  It is and always was about expanding the US control over the Middle East.

My brother is in Iraq as part or the Texas National Guard.  I hope that he comes home in one piece.  I hope no one else – American, Iraqi, British, whatever – has to die in this war.  I believe that the best way to support our troops is to pull them out of that nightmare. 

And by the way, those stupid ‘Support Our Troops’ ribbons on so many SUV bumper stickers are more about supporting the President’s policy than the people on the ground – what have you done to support the troops?

As a side conversation, isn't it convenient that the mid-term elections are next year, support for the war is at an all time low and now we're hearing rumors about bringing soldiers home before the elections?

Abu Graib, Gitmo and Torture

What the hell were they thinking?  We are supposed to be civilized people and members of a culture that is a shining example to others.  Why then are we acting like barbarians when it comes to the treatment of prisoners? 

There is no proof (remember about innocent until proven guilty?) that all these people humiliated and intimidated were actively fighting against the US.  It’s quite possible that many were but not all of them. In Iraq we routinely round up people, imprison them then release them without being accused of anything.  If we treat them like untermensch (look that word up too) then why are we surprised that they then become our enemies?

Even if Abu Graib was all a mis-understanding by a few low-level soldiers, then why does the Administration do nothing to make sure there isn’t even the appearance of prisoner mistreatment in these prisons? 

We are supposedly a civilized people.  Start acting like it.