Month: December 2006

An Episcopalian writes:

As the Washington Post article rightly notes these votes are taking place in 3 churches of the 193 Episcopalian churches in Virginia. As an Episcopalian I can only say good riddance to them and the Nigerian churches. These people are so misled by their narrow view of scripture that they would break the bonds of fellowship that have united the Episcopalian church for hundreds of years (even after the Anglican Church became unpopular in the new nation of America because of its association with England).  I think a better idea of where this debate is in Northern Virginia is garnered by the results in the 8th district regarding Amendment 1. In the areas these two churches represent, Amendment 1 (banning all legal protections for same-sex unions) was defeated in a landslide 66.83 percent to 33.17 percent (2 to 1 margin). These churches are a minority amongst the minority Episcopalian church, and as such their views are laughable were they not granted such prominence by a national media that loves playing the ‘icky gay’ card.

Far from divided over our church’s stance on equality and against bigoted definitions of faith, most Episcopalians are proud of our church. Now if only some of our lost sheep (such as former Episcopalian George W. Bush) could learn from Christ’s message of tolerance and love, perhaps we could stop letting bigots rule the debate.

Look at these pictures. Three ridiculously well-armed soldiers to guard and escort a defenseless inmate with no shoes, driven to mental illness, who has a record of perfect compliance with his jailors and who has seen all the main charges against him dropped. An American citizen detained without charge for almost four years – in solitary confinement and darkness and forced to wear goggles and sound-erasing ear-plugs in public. More video photos here.

One man is responsible for this. And he is president of the United States. I am told I am hysterical to be angry about this. But my anger gets deeper the more we know. I simply do not understand why the anger and sense of disgrace is not more widely felt.

Actually, if you live four years. A gem from Rich Lowry:

It’s a good lesson in why you should put your faith in principles not in men. It was always weird that so many conservatives stayed so vested in Rumsfeld ‚Äî mostly because they liked his style and he was attacked by the left ‚Äî when the policy he preferred was pretty close to that of Murtha: Begin to scale down, so the Iraqis will have an incentive to help themselves.

Well, as I recall, it was National Review among others that championed re-electing Bush in 2004 and re-electing Republicans in 2006, knowing full well it meant more Rumsfeld. And those of us who called for his ouster were variously slimed and attacked as pro-terror or somehow lily-livered fair-weather war-supporters. And even now, Lowry continues to mouthe the emptiest of phrases:

On the merits, needless to say, I think the Rumsfeld proposals to pull back are folly. Chaotic areas of Iraq need more U.S. forces not less.

From where? How many? 50,000 now? I could go on. Actually, I have gone on and on and on. Because I actually wanted the Iraq experiment to work more than I wanted Republicans to save face. And that’s the difference here: not between men and principles, but between party and principles. Lowry picked party. He’s now living with the consequences. In fact, we all are.

(Photo: Stephen Chernin/Getty.)

Another reader has had enough:

You ruffle many feathers (and feathered boas) from your blog position on high.  You‚Äôve attacked everything from Christianists to Chomsky. But when you attack Def Leppard’s ‘Pour Some Sugar on Me’, you’ve gone too far. Whether it’s the song or the video, ‘Pour Some Sugar on Me’ is untouchable. At long last, you‚Äôve crossed the Rubicon.

You obviously view the world from Pet Shop Boys-colored glasses, through which the true genius of Def Leppard is obscured. That you see talent in Bronski Beat, yet pretend to be blind to the Sugar, only serves to shine an even brighter light on your bias.

I pray for your musical soul.

Remember the p.r. push to declare that the coalition forces and Maliki were poised to take back Baghdad from the militias this fall? It was hoisted by all the usual Bush apologists during the election campaign, and my suspicion is that it was entirely about the election campaign rather than a genuine desire to seize control of Baghdad, something Rumsfeld refused to do from the day the U.S. forces got there. Now we have some evidence for how empty the gesture really was:

A four-star general who declined to be identified discussing a confidential conversation told of this encounter with Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who was in charge of day-to-day ground operations. "Do you have enough forces? Enough to clear an area and stay there to secure it 24/7?" Chiarelli replied, "Of course not." The four-star recalls replying, "It’s going to fail, it’s absolutely going to fail." The Americans never had enough forces to sweep even half the city, much less secure it.

Just worth knowing the details of the vast chasm between the White House and reality. Now put yourself in the position of an American soldier ordered to do something he doesn’t have the back-up for, in order to provide window-dressing for a re-election campaign. The troops are heroes not just for doing their work, but for doing it under one of the most clueless commanders-in-chief in recent history.

Pekin, Illinois, 2 pm.

A nice little swipe from the senator from Illinois:

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect."

A reader writes:

Re: Santorum at the UN. I guess it’s true what I’ve heard – crack doesn’t smoke itself.

Even JPod agrees. But the crack goes on …

The Democrats won over a lot of disgruntled freedom-loving Republicans last month. Markos Moulitsas has flirted with liberal libertarianism. My own positions on medical marijuana, marriage equality, end-of-life issues, and habeas corpus have made the Republicans almost impossible to support in their current authoritarian, big government, Christianist guise. But can the Democrats really find a place for lovers of liberty? Brink Lindsey writes:

If Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning voters, they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are we content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we want to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.

Enjoy.

In some ways, it was the arrival of the Islamist government in Tehran in 1979. And the picture that best summed up the nightmare of religious totalitarianism won the Pulitzer Prize. The Wall Street Journal finally tracked down the photographer, who remained anonymous at the time. His name is Jahangir Razmi. Here’s a fascinating story of how the man responsible came to be discovered. He’s still around. And unafraid. And has more photographs that the WSJ has unearthed.