February 16, 2011
Trying your settings
I'm trying your settings, Chuck.
It goes through your Google blog
program, as I first suspected.
Let me know if this comes through
as a post. Obviusly, you'll
delete it before it goes up one
the blog.
Next, I'll try my settings.
Bob M.
It goes through your Google blog
program, as I first suspected.
Let me know if this comes through
as a post. Obviusly, you'll
delete it before it goes up one
the blog.
Next, I'll try my settings.
Bob M.
October 29, 2005
Where We are Now
Let’s recap where we are as of 10/29/05
The former Republican majority leader of the House, Tom DeLay, is under indictment:
The current Republican majority leader of the Senate Frist is under investigation for giving specific instructions to the trustees of his “blind “ trust to sell his family company’s stocks just before the stock took a dive in value;
The chief procurement officer of the Bush administration has been arrested for fraud and embezzlement;
Lobbyist Abramoff with ties to the White House, DeLay and other Republicans is under investigation for blatant bribes and payoffs;
Libby, one of the top two advisors in the Bush administration, has been indicted for a felony crime;
Bush had to accept the withdrawal of the Miers’ nomination because it was an incredibly unqualified and stupid nomination;
We have crossed the 2,000 mark of American soldier deaths in Iraq with no end in sight and no strategy for getting out;
Bush and Cheney have turned Iraq into a recruiting center for radical fundamentalist Islamics;
ben Ladin, the person who actually attacked us is still on the loose in spite of "dead or alive" Bush rhetoric;
For the first time in American history, we have tax cuts being advocated in wartime;
Like during the second term of the Reagan administration, we have record deficits. But what do we care? Our children will have to pay the bill when the Bank of China says we need to pay up. But if you don’t have children, what do you care?
Cheney-backed oil companies have just reported price-gouging-obscene profits. Capitalism at it’s finest.
Go Bush/Cheney and screw America! But at least gays can't get married. Don't you feel safer now?
The former Republican majority leader of the House, Tom DeLay, is under indictment:
The current Republican majority leader of the Senate Frist is under investigation for giving specific instructions to the trustees of his “blind “ trust to sell his family company’s stocks just before the stock took a dive in value;
The chief procurement officer of the Bush administration has been arrested for fraud and embezzlement;
Lobbyist Abramoff with ties to the White House, DeLay and other Republicans is under investigation for blatant bribes and payoffs;
Libby, one of the top two advisors in the Bush administration, has been indicted for a felony crime;
Bush had to accept the withdrawal of the Miers’ nomination because it was an incredibly unqualified and stupid nomination;
We have crossed the 2,000 mark of American soldier deaths in Iraq with no end in sight and no strategy for getting out;
Bush and Cheney have turned Iraq into a recruiting center for radical fundamentalist Islamics;
ben Ladin, the person who actually attacked us is still on the loose in spite of "dead or alive" Bush rhetoric;
For the first time in American history, we have tax cuts being advocated in wartime;
Like during the second term of the Reagan administration, we have record deficits. But what do we care? Our children will have to pay the bill when the Bank of China says we need to pay up. But if you don’t have children, what do you care?
Cheney-backed oil companies have just reported price-gouging-obscene profits. Capitalism at it’s finest.
Go Bush/Cheney and screw America! But at least gays can't get married. Don't you feel safer now?
October 27, 2005
Welcome from the Left
Does Rush Limbaugh drive you nuts? Are you a fan of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Al Franken? If your answer is yes, then I'm your man. Welcome liberals, left wingers and Democrats. I look forward to your help in battleling Slats, the far right and other forces of darkness.
Cow Hoof Prints
Dear Slats:
There is an old adage in the law that we say to juries. When you are standing in a cow pasture and you see cow hoof prints, it is reasonable to conclude that the prints were made by cows even though the cows are not present at that moment.
From my point of view, you and the other Republicans are so anxious to protect Bush and his cronies, that when you see cow hoof prints in the cow pasture, you conclude that they were made by a guy on stilts with a cow hoof tacked to the bottom of each stilt. Possible, but highly unlikely.
On Sunday, I emailed to all of you an article written by Frank Rich where he went through a detailed history of how the Bush administration got us into Iraq including the activities of the WHIG.
I have concluded based upon the cow hooves that I've seen that Bush and the WHIG intentionally manipulated the intelligence available in order to scare Americans and get us into a war in Iraq. That to me is lying.
When we went into Iraq and found no WMD, Bush changed the reason why we went into Iraq. He now said that we went in because Saddam was a part of the 9/11 terror attack. That turned out be a lie.
Now we being told that the reason we are there is to build a free, democratic nation in the Arab world. The problem is that nobody voted for us to do that. If this is the true reason for "liberating" Iraq, then what's next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Sudan? Do you want to send your Andrew to free those peoples? I don't want to send mine.
We are supposed to have a "defense department." We are not supposed to have an "attack department." Unfortunately, with Cheney and Rumsfeld in control, that is what it has become.
In any case, I think that the trials of Rove and Libby will bring this all out.
There is an old adage in the law that we say to juries. When you are standing in a cow pasture and you see cow hoof prints, it is reasonable to conclude that the prints were made by cows even though the cows are not present at that moment.
From my point of view, you and the other Republicans are so anxious to protect Bush and his cronies, that when you see cow hoof prints in the cow pasture, you conclude that they were made by a guy on stilts with a cow hoof tacked to the bottom of each stilt. Possible, but highly unlikely.
On Sunday, I emailed to all of you an article written by Frank Rich where he went through a detailed history of how the Bush administration got us into Iraq including the activities of the WHIG.
I have concluded based upon the cow hooves that I've seen that Bush and the WHIG intentionally manipulated the intelligence available in order to scare Americans and get us into a war in Iraq. That to me is lying.
When we went into Iraq and found no WMD, Bush changed the reason why we went into Iraq. He now said that we went in because Saddam was a part of the 9/11 terror attack. That turned out be a lie.
Now we being told that the reason we are there is to build a free, democratic nation in the Arab world. The problem is that nobody voted for us to do that. If this is the true reason for "liberating" Iraq, then what's next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Sudan? Do you want to send your Andrew to free those peoples? I don't want to send mine.
We are supposed to have a "defense department." We are not supposed to have an "attack department." Unfortunately, with Cheney and Rumsfeld in control, that is what it has become.
In any case, I think that the trials of Rove and Libby will bring this all out.
Response to Dowd Disappoints
Maureen Dowd's op-ed piece today has something to do about Dick Cheney has his involvement with the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. I started to read it but quickly lost interest. I would link to it but you need to be a paid subscriber to gain access.
Once Slats sees that the article is critical of his beloved Bush and/or his cronies, Slats conviniently loses interest.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
I never said that Bush was the worse President in US History. However, it is something to consider.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
A more accurate statement would be that Slats does not take Dowd seriously. I have never accepted Slats as the spokesperson for everyone on the “Right.”
And as far as his critique that “no one cares,” that is not only untrue, it is insulting. Although I can’t speak for “everyone,” I certainly care. And I don’t think as myself as “no one.”
And as far as “research” is concerned, what a cop out! Slats won’t do it because he is afraid that if he did, it would support what Dowd has to say.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
This is like the attack of Cheney, Libby and Rove on Wilson. If you can’t refute the facts or the conclusions drawn upon those facts, endeavor to discredit the messenger.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Slats does not consider that the disparity between the on-line criticisms between Limbaugh and Dowd is because what Limbaugh has to say is half truths which are the worst kind of lies while what Dowd has to say is the truth that can not be effectively refuted. Slats knows that Limbaugh is a dangerous demogog. His only retort to Dowd is to endeavor to falsely paint her with the same brush.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
I am convinced that even if Bush were caught screwing goats in the Clinton alcove, it would make no difference to Slats or to his avid Republican Bush scincophant followers. What Slats fails to realize that neither Dowd nor I are interested in converting the likes of Slats conservatives to become Democrats. We are endeavoring to appeal to pratical Americans who are willing to put reason before a failed ideology.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
I like Michael Moore, George Soros and Cindy Sheehan. Slats, please name the specific Democrats that you are referring to?
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
Hummm. I will have to research this. Seems like an over-the-top statement.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
I will email Dowd on this to get her source.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
Wilkerson was there! He observed what he observed. How much more factual do you need than that?
Once Slats sees that the article is critical of his beloved Bush and/or his cronies, Slats conviniently loses interest.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
I never said that Bush was the worse President in US History. However, it is something to consider.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
A more accurate statement would be that Slats does not take Dowd seriously. I have never accepted Slats as the spokesperson for everyone on the “Right.”
And as far as his critique that “no one cares,” that is not only untrue, it is insulting. Although I can’t speak for “everyone,” I certainly care. And I don’t think as myself as “no one.”
And as far as “research” is concerned, what a cop out! Slats won’t do it because he is afraid that if he did, it would support what Dowd has to say.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
This is like the attack of Cheney, Libby and Rove on Wilson. If you can’t refute the facts or the conclusions drawn upon those facts, endeavor to discredit the messenger.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Slats does not consider that the disparity between the on-line criticisms between Limbaugh and Dowd is because what Limbaugh has to say is half truths which are the worst kind of lies while what Dowd has to say is the truth that can not be effectively refuted. Slats knows that Limbaugh is a dangerous demogog. His only retort to Dowd is to endeavor to falsely paint her with the same brush.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
I am convinced that even if Bush were caught screwing goats in the Clinton alcove, it would make no difference to Slats or to his avid Republican Bush scincophant followers. What Slats fails to realize that neither Dowd nor I are interested in converting the likes of Slats conservatives to become Democrats. We are endeavoring to appeal to pratical Americans who are willing to put reason before a failed ideology.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
I like Michael Moore, George Soros and Cindy Sheehan. Slats, please name the specific Democrats that you are referring to?
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
Hummm. I will have to research this. Seems like an over-the-top statement.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
I will email Dowd on this to get her source.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
Wilkerson was there! He observed what he observed. How much more factual do you need than that?
October 26, 2005
Dowd Disappoints
Maureen Dowd's op-ed piece today has something to do about Dick Cheney has his involvement with the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. I started to read it but quickly lost interest. I would link to it but you need to be a paid subscriber to gain access.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:
(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:
(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
October 25, 2005
Cheney, Libby & Rove Like Attack On Wilkerson
Red State Republican Slats’ remarks are in red-state red while my blue-state RightLeft’s responses are in blue, true blue.
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
There is nothing wrong with being critical of a witness’s credibility provided that the criticism is credible. What my noble adversary has done here is primarily unsubstantiated name calling. As you will see below, he has attributed the label of “liberal” to Wilkerson as if this was equivalent to convicted child molester.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
The implication here is that Wilkerson is really stupid in that he is not reporting fact but is instead reporting falsehoods which he is endeavoring to raise to the level of fact by improperly “leveraging” the wonderful reputation of true-red Republican Colin Powell. However, it is more than interesting to note that wonderful true-red Republican Colin Powell has not refuted anything that Wilkerson has said.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
Wow. Name Calling Gone Wild. Send in $9.95 and I will send you the tape. $14.95 for the DVD. Here is a sample of the unsupported name calling that you will get with the Slats tape or DVD. "same old liberal talking points;” “same old worn-out liberal pladulums;” “typical liberal bipartisanship;” “petulant and juvenile remarks.” Do you really think that this Republican appointed chief-of-staff would say what he said if wonderful true-red Colon Powell would come out and disagree with him which he has not?
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much too lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
Slats admits that he has no idea why Colon Powell has remained silent in light of Wilkerson’s remarks. However, he SPECULATES that because Powell is a “revered hero” and a “dedicated and loyal American,” he has remained silent. Is this logical? A revered hero and dedicated and loyal American remains silent when his chief-of-staff goes public with falsehoods? It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "notdoing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the warin Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University atBuffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
Where to begin with this? Yes, Bush and Cheney were elected by an apparent majority of Americans. However, they were elected by a majority that was falsely but effectively terrorized by the threat of gay marriages and “nucular” mushroom cloud attacks by terrorists. In any case, here again, Slats needs to resort to name calling to make his point – “whining, sniveling liberal” – with absolutely no evidence that Wilkerson whines, snivels or is a liberal. But what else should one expect from a Bush devotee? Think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
There is nothing wrong with being critical of a witness’s credibility provided that the criticism is credible. What my noble adversary has done here is primarily unsubstantiated name calling. As you will see below, he has attributed the label of “liberal” to Wilkerson as if this was equivalent to convicted child molester.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
The implication here is that Wilkerson is really stupid in that he is not reporting fact but is instead reporting falsehoods which he is endeavoring to raise to the level of fact by improperly “leveraging” the wonderful reputation of true-red Republican Colin Powell. However, it is more than interesting to note that wonderful true-red Republican Colin Powell has not refuted anything that Wilkerson has said.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
Wow. Name Calling Gone Wild. Send in $9.95 and I will send you the tape. $14.95 for the DVD. Here is a sample of the unsupported name calling that you will get with the Slats tape or DVD. "same old liberal talking points;” “same old worn-out liberal pladulums;” “typical liberal bipartisanship;” “petulant and juvenile remarks.” Do you really think that this Republican appointed chief-of-staff would say what he said if wonderful true-red Colon Powell would come out and disagree with him which he has not?
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much too lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
Slats admits that he has no idea why Colon Powell has remained silent in light of Wilkerson’s remarks. However, he SPECULATES that because Powell is a “revered hero” and a “dedicated and loyal American,” he has remained silent. Is this logical? A revered hero and dedicated and loyal American remains silent when his chief-of-staff goes public with falsehoods? It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "notdoing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the warin Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University atBuffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
Where to begin with this? Yes, Bush and Cheney were elected by an apparent majority of Americans. However, they were elected by a majority that was falsely but effectively terrorized by the threat of gay marriages and “nucular” mushroom cloud attacks by terrorists. In any case, here again, Slats needs to resort to name calling to make his point – “whining, sniveling liberal” – with absolutely no evidence that Wilkerson whines, snivels or is a liberal. But what else should one expect from a Bush devotee? Think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Wilkerson's Sour Grapes
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much to lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports:
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much to lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "not
doing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the war
in Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University at
Buffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
October 24, 2005
PR Once Trumped Competence, but No Longer -- Thank Goodness for America
W. won the election in 2004 because his PR guy Rove understood that incompetence could be trumped with issues that would turn out the voters such as wrong-headed and ineffective Rambo tactics against Islamic fundamentalists which caused many Americans to think that something positive was being done and wrong-headed tactics against gay marriages which scared many Americans to the point that many of Americans voted for Bush even against their personal economic best interests. As such, Rove, the soon-to-be-indicated-criminal-and-Goering-propagandist-of-the-Bush-administration, was able to make competence a non-issue and thus insure the election of W. Now the utter and overwhelming incompetence of the Bush administration is coming home to roost. The emperor has no clothes and all of the king's horses and all of the king's men, can't put W. together again because they are under indictment.
What Lawrence Wilkenson Has to Say
Lawrence Wilkenson is a retired Army colonel who served as chief-of-staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Recently, Mr. Wilkenson spoke to a the New American Foundation, an independent public policy institute. Here is some of what he had to say.
"We have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran," said Mr. Wilkerson. "Generally, with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita ... we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."
"The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
When the time came to implement the decisions, said Mr. Wilkerson, they were "presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out."
"You've got this collegiality there between the secretary of defense and the vice president, and you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."
While not "evaluating the decision to go to war," Mr. Wilkerson told his audience that under the present circumstances "we can't leave Iraq. We simply can't." In his view, if American forces were to pull out too quickly, the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.
Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."
Mr. Wilkerson said he has taken some heat for speaking out, but feels that "as a citizen of this great republic," he has an obligation to do so. If nothing is done about the current state of affairs, he said, "it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."
Note: I took most of this from an article written by Op-Ed Columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times and published on 10/24/05.
Recently, Mr. Wilkenson spoke to a the New American Foundation, an independent public policy institute. Here is some of what he had to say.
"We have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran," said Mr. Wilkerson. "Generally, with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita ... we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."
"The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
When the time came to implement the decisions, said Mr. Wilkerson, they were "presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out."
"You've got this collegiality there between the secretary of defense and the vice president, and you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."
While not "evaluating the decision to go to war," Mr. Wilkerson told his audience that under the present circumstances "we can't leave Iraq. We simply can't." In his view, if American forces were to pull out too quickly, the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.
Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."
Mr. Wilkerson said he has taken some heat for speaking out, but feels that "as a citizen of this great republic," he has an obligation to do so. If nothing is done about the current state of affairs, he said, "it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."
Note: I took most of this from an article written by Op-Ed Columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times and published on 10/24/05.
Response to Slats Statement that the Left Supports Mediocrity on the Bench
How outrageous is this? You would think that a Democratic president nominated Miers! The truth is that W screwed up so badly with this appointment that Republicans are caught in a dilemma -- admit that their man, the incompetent W, screwed up again or find something, anything to make lemonade. And that lemonade or purple koolaide, sour, unpalatable and ultimately deadly as it is, is all the Right has. However, trying to blame the Democrats for not vehemently complaining about the president's incompetence is something that my esteemed republican friend should be much embarrassed. After all, I think it was Republican majority leader Bob Dole who said that if the majority is self-destructing, shut up and get out of the way.
The Left Supports Mediocrity on the Bench
Conservatives are up in arms over Miers not because she is potentially less conservative then we would like; but more because she is not qualified or minimally, not the best qualified candidate available. Anti-Miers conservatives are mostly upset about the fact that she is not a superb candidate ala John Roberts. In other words, many people think she is "not the best" and in fact may be simply mediocre. This is why the right is all distressed.
Clearly, Bush would have done better to frame the Miers nomination NOT as "the best jurist available" but instead as "the right jurist at this time, someone who is not Yale/Harvard, someone, like Rehnquist, who was not a judge until now". This, I think, would have helped a great deal to minimize the outcry we are hearing from the right.
But the bottom line is that Conservatives are skeptical of Miers not because of her beliefs, but rather because there are better candidates available. It is still very possible that Miers will not make it in front of the Judiciary Committee. One popular "exit strategy" being opined is that Bush could withdraw the nomination, nominate Miers to the Federal bench where she can get more experience, and nominate instead Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Clement, which basically creates the opening for Miers.
This would not disappoint me at all.
But let's consider the Right's concern over the Miers nomination compared to the reaction from the left.
Republicans were unanimous in their support for Ruth Bader Ginsberg even though her judicial philosophy was totally wrong based on what we believe in. We supported Ginsberg because she was the President's choice and because she was a quality candidate with strong credentials.
We do not know what Democrats are going to do with Miers but many pundits think the Dems will support Miers because if Miers does not get confirmed, Bush would nominate a more forceful and effective conservative.
So what we have here is a true insight into Democrat behavior: Bush's nominees deserve their support only if they are mediocre. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats who voted against John Roberts will vote on Harriet Miers. Miers clearly appears to be not as qualified as Roberts (although we will get a good handle on this once the hearings begin). If these Democrats vote for Miers after voting against Roberts -- it will once again prove that Democrats really don't vote for what they believe in, they instead vote for what will best get them elected and/or serve their political agenda.
Clearly, Bush would have done better to frame the Miers nomination NOT as "the best jurist available" but instead as "the right jurist at this time, someone who is not Yale/Harvard, someone, like Rehnquist, who was not a judge until now". This, I think, would have helped a great deal to minimize the outcry we are hearing from the right.
But the bottom line is that Conservatives are skeptical of Miers not because of her beliefs, but rather because there are better candidates available. It is still very possible that Miers will not make it in front of the Judiciary Committee. One popular "exit strategy" being opined is that Bush could withdraw the nomination, nominate Miers to the Federal bench where she can get more experience, and nominate instead Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Clement, which basically creates the opening for Miers.
This would not disappoint me at all.
But let's consider the Right's concern over the Miers nomination compared to the reaction from the left.
Republicans were unanimous in their support for Ruth Bader Ginsberg even though her judicial philosophy was totally wrong based on what we believe in. We supported Ginsberg because she was the President's choice and because she was a quality candidate with strong credentials.
We do not know what Democrats are going to do with Miers but many pundits think the Dems will support Miers because if Miers does not get confirmed, Bush would nominate a more forceful and effective conservative.
So what we have here is a true insight into Democrat behavior: Bush's nominees deserve their support only if they are mediocre. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats who voted against John Roberts will vote on Harriet Miers. Miers clearly appears to be not as qualified as Roberts (although we will get a good handle on this once the hearings begin). If these Democrats vote for Miers after voting against Roberts -- it will once again prove that Democrats really don't vote for what they believe in, they instead vote for what will best get them elected and/or serve their political agenda.
October 23, 2005
Let's Review Where We are Today
Last Saturday's election in Iraq apparently approved the Constitution. However, ABC News filmed one voter filling out seven "yes" ballots and putting them in the ballot box.
The Republican majority leader of the House, Tom Delay, who was reprimaned three times by the House for unethical conduct has been indicted twice;
The Republican majority of the Senate, Bill Frist, is under investigation for violating the terms of his supposedly blind trust by ordering that his stock be sold just a few days before it dived in value;
Bush has appointed a woman who has no qualifications other than thinking that he is the most brillienat person she ever met;
Bush's approval rating is at 39% or lower, the lowest of his presidency;
We keep borrowing in record amounts from China, Japan and South Korea in order to pay for Iraq and Katrina while Bush is sill intent on implementing further tax cuts for his rich cronies;
The stock market is in the toilet;
A prominent Bush lobbyist has been indicted;
The head of the Government Procurement Department. appointed by Bush, has been arrested for fraud;
Rove and "Scooter" are about to be indicted.
It has been revealed that there was a WHIG (White House Iraq Group) formed in Cheney's office early in 2002 to develope a strategy to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people.
A right wing religious minister says that he was assured by Rove that Miers would vote the "right way" to overturn Rove v. Wade.
Mies stated in a questionaire that she was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to allow states to bar abortions and is passed, she would support a Texas law criminalizimg abortions.
Bush's answer to the possible bird flu is to call out the Marines. No Manhatten Project to develope a vaccine.
The Republican majority leader of the House, Tom Delay, who was reprimaned three times by the House for unethical conduct has been indicted twice;
The Republican majority of the Senate, Bill Frist, is under investigation for violating the terms of his supposedly blind trust by ordering that his stock be sold just a few days before it dived in value;
Bush has appointed a woman who has no qualifications other than thinking that he is the most brillienat person she ever met;
Bush's approval rating is at 39% or lower, the lowest of his presidency;
We keep borrowing in record amounts from China, Japan and South Korea in order to pay for Iraq and Katrina while Bush is sill intent on implementing further tax cuts for his rich cronies;
The stock market is in the toilet;
A prominent Bush lobbyist has been indicted;
The head of the Government Procurement Department. appointed by Bush, has been arrested for fraud;
Rove and "Scooter" are about to be indicted.
It has been revealed that there was a WHIG (White House Iraq Group) formed in Cheney's office early in 2002 to develope a strategy to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people.
A right wing religious minister says that he was assured by Rove that Miers would vote the "right way" to overturn Rove v. Wade.
Mies stated in a questionaire that she was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to allow states to bar abortions and is passed, she would support a Texas law criminalizimg abortions.
Bush's answer to the possible bird flu is to call out the Marines. No Manhatten Project to develope a vaccine.
Response to Slats Post Re: What Is Secularism
Slats states the following:
"What is wrong with a community that wants to post the Ten Commandments in their civic center?"
First, the issue that has been considered by the Supreme Court does not involve "civic centers." It involves courthouses.
Second, the problem with displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses or on any government property for that matter is that the purpose of the original Ten Commandments as written in Hebrew was to establish a state religion. Of course, as even Slats admits, this is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Third, the majority of Ten Commandments. especially as originally written, have little to do with current law and in some cases are adverse to current law. And as much as some religious right wingers people may want, there is no secular law that makes seven of the Ten Commandments a crime or a violation of any current law. The three that are a crime are murder, theft and prejury.
Below is an explanation of the original Ten Commandments. In light of the First Amendment of our Constitution, does anyone really think that it is appropriate to place in a courthouse, public school or on any government property the first two commandments?
And if we actually enforced the third Commandment, Bush and most of his entire administration would be in jail, espeically with regard to the reasons why we went into Iraq and the cover up of the Valarie Plane leak. Then again, maybe we will enforce it.
And although honoring one's father and mother is a nice thought, should either be honored if they were cruel or abusive?
The following is from an online encyclopedia.
"Jewish thought generally divides the Ten Statements into two halves, the first five dealing with the relationship between God and humanity, and the second dealing with relationships between people.
Traditional Jewish belief is that the commandments contained in the Ten Statements apply solely to the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on the rest of humanity are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws. In the era of the Sanhedrin, transgressing any one of these theoretically carried the death penalty; though this was rarely enforced due to a large number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the oral law.
"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."The belief in the existence of God, that God exists for all time, that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that God determines the course of events in this world. This is the foundation of Judaism. To turn from these beliefs is to deny God and the essence of Judaism. (1)
"You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."One is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah. (2)It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve such as crucifixes, and any forms of paintings or artistic representations of God. (3)One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God. (4)One is prohibited from making sculpture of human beings even for the fine arts. (5)
"You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. This includes four types of prohibited oaths: an oath affirming as true a matter one knows to be false, an oath that affirms the patently obvious, an oath denying the truth of a matter one knows to be true, and an oath to perform an act that is beyond one's capabilities. (6)
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"One is to declare of the greatness and the holiness of the Sabbath, each Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day that God defined for the Jews during the Exodus. Each day of the Exodus, God provided food to the Jews to collect except on the Sabbath. Instead a double portion was provided the day before the Sabbath. (7)One is enjoined from performing work on the Sabbath. One may not change the day of the Sabbath. (8)
"Honor your father and your mother..."The obligation to honor one's parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one's actions towards one's parents. This commandment is an interesting development when compared to other laws of the Ancient East (for instance, the Code of Hammurabi) that do not call for equal respect of the father and the mother. (9)Jewish sages note that the 5th commandment, on the border between the two groups, is to "Honor your father and your mother...", and draw lessons from this that a person should respect parents (and by implication, elders) only somewhat less than one would God himself, and that parents should be moral guidance to a person as god is to society.
"You shall not murder"The Hebrew word is unambiguously murder; kill is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another. Another case is killing in self-defense. (10)Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not dogmatically regard abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits abortion in most circumstances based on several other prohibitions.
"You shall not have sexual relations with another man's wife." (11)
"You shall not kidnap"Theft of property is forbidden elsewhere. Theft of property is not a capital offense. (12)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere. Lying is not a capital offence. (13)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. (14)
"What is wrong with a community that wants to post the Ten Commandments in their civic center?"
First, the issue that has been considered by the Supreme Court does not involve "civic centers." It involves courthouses.
Second, the problem with displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses or on any government property for that matter is that the purpose of the original Ten Commandments as written in Hebrew was to establish a state religion. Of course, as even Slats admits, this is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Third, the majority of Ten Commandments. especially as originally written, have little to do with current law and in some cases are adverse to current law. And as much as some religious right wingers people may want, there is no secular law that makes seven of the Ten Commandments a crime or a violation of any current law. The three that are a crime are murder, theft and prejury.
Below is an explanation of the original Ten Commandments. In light of the First Amendment of our Constitution, does anyone really think that it is appropriate to place in a courthouse, public school or on any government property the first two commandments?
And if we actually enforced the third Commandment, Bush and most of his entire administration would be in jail, espeically with regard to the reasons why we went into Iraq and the cover up of the Valarie Plane leak. Then again, maybe we will enforce it.
And although honoring one's father and mother is a nice thought, should either be honored if they were cruel or abusive?
The following is from an online encyclopedia.
"Jewish thought generally divides the Ten Statements into two halves, the first five dealing with the relationship between God and humanity, and the second dealing with relationships between people.
Traditional Jewish belief is that the commandments contained in the Ten Statements apply solely to the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on the rest of humanity are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws. In the era of the Sanhedrin, transgressing any one of these theoretically carried the death penalty; though this was rarely enforced due to a large number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the oral law.
"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."The belief in the existence of God, that God exists for all time, that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that God determines the course of events in this world. This is the foundation of Judaism. To turn from these beliefs is to deny God and the essence of Judaism. (1)
"You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."One is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah. (2)It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve such as crucifixes, and any forms of paintings or artistic representations of God. (3)One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God. (4)One is prohibited from making sculpture of human beings even for the fine arts. (5)
"You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. This includes four types of prohibited oaths: an oath affirming as true a matter one knows to be false, an oath that affirms the patently obvious, an oath denying the truth of a matter one knows to be true, and an oath to perform an act that is beyond one's capabilities. (6)
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"One is to declare of the greatness and the holiness of the Sabbath, each Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day that God defined for the Jews during the Exodus. Each day of the Exodus, God provided food to the Jews to collect except on the Sabbath. Instead a double portion was provided the day before the Sabbath. (7)One is enjoined from performing work on the Sabbath. One may not change the day of the Sabbath. (8)
"Honor your father and your mother..."The obligation to honor one's parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one's actions towards one's parents. This commandment is an interesting development when compared to other laws of the Ancient East (for instance, the Code of Hammurabi) that do not call for equal respect of the father and the mother. (9)Jewish sages note that the 5th commandment, on the border between the two groups, is to "Honor your father and your mother...", and draw lessons from this that a person should respect parents (and by implication, elders) only somewhat less than one would God himself, and that parents should be moral guidance to a person as god is to society.
"You shall not murder"The Hebrew word is unambiguously murder; kill is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another. Another case is killing in self-defense. (10)Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not dogmatically regard abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits abortion in most circumstances based on several other prohibitions.
"You shall not have sexual relations with another man's wife." (11)
"You shall not kidnap"Theft of property is forbidden elsewhere. Theft of property is not a capital offense. (12)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere. Lying is not a capital offence. (13)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. (14)
What is Secularism?
I thought I understood the word "secular"; however, now I am not so sure.
Webster defines it as:
Some Evangelical Christians seem to be saying that America is going down the tubes because we are moving farther and farther away from Christianity as a nation. The sense I get is that they believe the Founding Fathers did not intend this. I'm not so sure. The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". This seems, to the originalist me, to be fairly clear. I am not an expert; however, my understanding is that even though the Framers were perhaps God-fearing Christians, they purposely wanted to create a Union that did not mandate what religion the citizens practiced or how they practiced it. Didn't they leave Britain to escape this sort of State-sponsored religious persecution?
They may not have had the forethought to conceive what our country has become; however, after 200 years of immigration by people of various religious backgrounds -- Eastern European Orthodox Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, Hindus from India, Arabs, Chinese and other Orientals, etc. -- we have become a religious melting pot. I think this is a good thing. And this is what I think of when I refer to our country as being secular.
It seems fairly clear that the Framers envisioned America being created on a strong foundation of faith. The Left complains about Evangelical Christians hijacking the Republican Party; however, if this is true, then it is equally true that the extreme left wants to strip this country of ALL of its faith-based and religious traditions. What is wrong with public schools allowing students 5 minutes each day to pray -- to a Christian God, to Allah, or to Buddha -- or even to just meditate quietly and contemplate atheism? What is wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance having the words "under God" in them? What is wrong with a community that wants to post the Ten Commandments in their civic center? What is wrong with the words "In God We Trust" on our currency? I think these are all things that are consistent with our heritage and do not violate the First Amendment -- and most importantly they remind us that our country was founded on strong faith.
I am not a religious scholar but it appears to me that most of the world's main religions have matured to the point where they are all consistent with the Christian ideals that our Founding Fathers had when creating our great country. Perhaps one notable exception is Islam; however, I am faithful that the world's Islamic religious leaders will ultimately step forward to reform Islam much like Christianity was reformed after the age of the Crusades. To me, a faith-based country where people of all walks can practice the religion they want, or not, would seem like a great place to live.
The real issue, I think, is the issue of the impact of relativism on our free society and to me, this is much, much more a concern of mine than the issue of whether or not this is a Christian nation. I think the real price we have paid as a result of the sustained effort by the left to socialize our country, is that we are now a country of relativists and moral relativists and we no longer know right from wrong and good from bad. We live in a country today where we call terrorists "freedom fighters" and we are told we need to "see things from the perspective of the radical Islamists". There seems to be no right and wrong any more. This from moral-relativism.com (really!):
The reason I am a conservative is that I think we need to get back to a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong.
But the key question is: Can we do this in a country full of religious diversity, or does it have to be a country based on Christian ideals as the Framers perhaps envisioned?
In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."
Washington perhaps could not envision the religious diversity that we now enjoy; however, it seems clear that he (along with the other framers) understood that our freedom as a nation cannot exist without strong fundamental notions of basic right and wrong. And based on why they left England, I am willing to believe that the framers would not object to the diverse religious freedom that we now enjoy as guaranteed by our constitution. This is my view of America as a great "secular" nation.
Webster defines it as:
It appears that 1b and perhaps 1c are what we are talking about.1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical .
Some Evangelical Christians seem to be saying that America is going down the tubes because we are moving farther and farther away from Christianity as a nation. The sense I get is that they believe the Founding Fathers did not intend this. I'm not so sure. The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". This seems, to the originalist me, to be fairly clear. I am not an expert; however, my understanding is that even though the Framers were perhaps God-fearing Christians, they purposely wanted to create a Union that did not mandate what religion the citizens practiced or how they practiced it. Didn't they leave Britain to escape this sort of State-sponsored religious persecution?
They may not have had the forethought to conceive what our country has become; however, after 200 years of immigration by people of various religious backgrounds -- Eastern European Orthodox Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, Hindus from India, Arabs, Chinese and other Orientals, etc. -- we have become a religious melting pot. I think this is a good thing. And this is what I think of when I refer to our country as being secular.
It seems fairly clear that the Framers envisioned America being created on a strong foundation of faith. The Left complains about Evangelical Christians hijacking the Republican Party; however, if this is true, then it is equally true that the extreme left wants to strip this country of ALL of its faith-based and religious traditions. What is wrong with public schools allowing students 5 minutes each day to pray -- to a Christian God, to Allah, or to Buddha -- or even to just meditate quietly and contemplate atheism? What is wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance having the words "under God" in them? What is wrong with a community that wants to post the Ten Commandments in their civic center? What is wrong with the words "In God We Trust" on our currency? I think these are all things that are consistent with our heritage and do not violate the First Amendment -- and most importantly they remind us that our country was founded on strong faith.
I am not a religious scholar but it appears to me that most of the world's main religions have matured to the point where they are all consistent with the Christian ideals that our Founding Fathers had when creating our great country. Perhaps one notable exception is Islam; however, I am faithful that the world's Islamic religious leaders will ultimately step forward to reform Islam much like Christianity was reformed after the age of the Crusades. To me, a faith-based country where people of all walks can practice the religion they want, or not, would seem like a great place to live.
The real issue, I think, is the issue of the impact of relativism on our free society and to me, this is much, much more a concern of mine than the issue of whether or not this is a Christian nation. I think the real price we have paid as a result of the sustained effort by the left to socialize our country, is that we are now a country of relativists and moral relativists and we no longer know right from wrong and good from bad. We live in a country today where we call terrorists "freedom fighters" and we are told we need to "see things from the perspective of the radical Islamists". There seems to be no right and wrong any more. This from moral-relativism.com (really!):
"In describing her view on morality, the President of Planned ParenthoodAnd this:
Federation of America once stated, "…teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for
believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for
themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly
intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in
fact, neutral."
"Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral" than a
"hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst
Bill O'Reilly, who asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly
cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American
universities. Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently
teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the
questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural
diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the
world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about
moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."
The reason I am a conservative is that I think we need to get back to a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong.
But the key question is: Can we do this in a country full of religious diversity, or does it have to be a country based on Christian ideals as the Framers perhaps envisioned?
In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."
Washington perhaps could not envision the religious diversity that we now enjoy; however, it seems clear that he (along with the other framers) understood that our freedom as a nation cannot exist without strong fundamental notions of basic right and wrong. And based on why they left England, I am willing to believe that the framers would not object to the diverse religious freedom that we now enjoy as guaranteed by our constitution. This is my view of America as a great "secular" nation.
