Speechless.:
This sort of says it all:
According to former senior U.S. military officers and others interviewed by TIME, sending a convicted abuser back to Iraq to train local police would have sent the wrong signal at a time when the U.S. is trying to bolster the beleaguered government in Baghdad, where the horrors of Abu Ghraib are far from forgotten. "If news of this deployment is accurate, it represents appallingly bad judgment," says retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded a division in the first Gulf War. "The symbolic message perceived in Iraq will likely be that the U.S. is simply insensitive to the abuse of their prisoners."
What does anyone expect of the Torture President?
You're Doin' a Heckuva Job:
And then, there's this. Let's hear it for the Rubber-Stamp Congress:
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.
Do I really need to say anything here?
Ah, Yes -- Ted Haggard
Is this a surprise to someone? Anyone? Well, maybe in the particulars, but Haggard joins a long line of super-evangelists who preach one thing and do another. Tristero, at Hullabaloo, makes some cogent comments on the morality of those who preach "morality." Particularly interesting is this post by David Wayne at Jolly Blogger. Tristero objects to this statement by Wayne, or at least hte last sentence:
But lets also be careful that we not assume some moral superiority to, or moral authority over, Ted Haggard. Those of us who do not base our ministries on moral superiority and moral authority may feel morally superior to those who do. We may feel morally superior because we rely on grace not moral superiority.
The truth is, I am Ted Haggard, we are all Ted Haggard, and Ted Haggard is all of us.
I object to the last sentence, but I wonder about the substance of the quote. Wayne rejects moral superiority as a grounds for interaction with non-Christians (even though he may not realize it), and moral superiority is the main message of the political arm of the evangelical movement. (Wayne also notes that evangelicals are uneasy with political activity, or should be, but I wonder how true that is. Maybe we need some further slicing and dicing here -- I know that not all evangelicals are of the Dobson Gang mold, but I wonder if they do, and I wonder how many of them realize they're hanging out where they don't belong.)
No, I am not Ted Haggard because I am not a hypocrite. For starters, I'm a very poor liar. Mostly, it never occurs to me to lie, and when it does, I fumble it, so I long ago decided it just makes more sense to be as truthful as possible all the time. Nor do I castigate people for doing things that I do myself.
Granted, Haggard has not been as anti-gay as others in his movement, but if anything, I'm less patient with those who would grant us a second-class existence in the name of "charity." I don't need your charity. Just get out of my way.
If Haggard were unique, it would be one thing. But. . . .
New Jersey Redux:
See Jon Rowe's comments on the New Jersey decision.
I've read the opinion, and had actually started writing a post on it, and forget whether I ever posted it. I find the dissent's argument that the majority's reasoning is circular to be convincing -- "it's never been this way, so it can never be this way" just doesn't really cut it for me, y'know?
While it makes political sense to pass the question of means back to the legislature, I'd be happier with a firmer stance on constitutional absolutes. But, as Rowe points out, it takes time, and while an unwilling populace could be brought into line with the Constitution as far as racial bias goes, times have changed, the opponents of equality have much better funding and are much more vocal. In the absence of anyone in a position of prominence to call them on their lies, I guess we'll just have to wait until the Democrats develop some morality of their own.
I hate to think they've got the courts on the run, though.
Footnote: Remember that the majority and the dissenters all found that same-sex couples merit the full protection of the law, and that the only real difference in the opinions is that the dissenters -- including one Republican -- felt that, indeed, a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
Another Page Scandal:
This is the way it ought to be handled:
Some lawmakers have said parts of the special legislative session should be held behind closed doors to protect the page when he testifies, but Schoenbeck said he believes the entire session should be open.
If testimony is heard in private, all 35 senators and the other people involved would later give their own interpretation of what happened, Schoenbeck said. It would be better for the public to hear the testimony firsthand, he said.
"The public either gets to see the facts in an open session or they hear a bunch of different people's versions of the facts after a closed session," he said.
Anti-Marriage:
It looks as though anti-marriage amendments in South Dakota and Wisconsin might fail, and even that big nasty in Virginia won't get the margin that was normal at the height of the panic.
There's something very comforting about being on the right side of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment