God Help Us

As appalling as this is, I'll ignore the idiocy (milk???) and the lies and the imminent, probably inevitable, prospects of theocracy for this country. I'll not comment on the implications of such people actually gaining (re-gaining, really: although Bush was more of a player than a user) control of what's left of our country. I'll refrain from reiterating the argument that separation of church and state does more to protect religion (at least the religion of everyone but these guys) than any other option. Not that they care. Nor will I point out, while they decry the godlessness of the US, that numbers of people who claim belief has risen over the years, and that the US has a higher percentage of believers, more houses of worship per populous than any Western nation. All that, I'll disregard. Rather, let's talk about what kind of trouble we're in if we're indeed ruled by a god who answers prayer.

In brief: if god answers prayer, then by definition and by looking around, we are at the mercy of a capricious, nasty and/or incompetent deity. It should scare the bejesus out of us (of course, living in mortal fear is exactly what many religions, particularly the evangelical forms of Christianity, want.) Really, if one can step back and just think about it (the opposite of religious posture), there's no other conclusion.

First: the people most likely to resort to prayer are those that also believe god has a plan for us all. So how does prayer fit into that idea? If he has a plan (if, as some believe, god knows you and has it all worked out before you're even born), how can prayer be needed? Does their god change his mind? If so, was his plan flawed? Does it take your prayer to point out his error? What does that say about your imperfection, compared to his? Or is it just that he's willing to let bad things happen to you if you don't -- regardless of your means or knowledge -- stroke him first. On the other hand, didn't he know if you were going to pray or not? Omniscient is he.

Second: what good do "prayer circles" (or whatever you call what those leaders of ours were doing) do? If the likelihood of prayers being answered is dependent on the number of people praying, what about the poor soul praying like hell in the loneliness of a solitary life? Why should prayer need amplification? Is there some sort of divine punch-card? And what about the people starving around the world? Is their starvation part of a plan, or is it because they don't have enough people praying for them? Either way, it bespeaks a pretty heartless overlord, doesn't it? Sorry, man, a piddling number of prayers just don't cut it with me. And what is the magic number? Ten? Three? A hundred? If numbers matter, aren't we all potentially screwed if, in our hour of need, we can't grab a gang of grovelers? If you've fallen and you can't get up, and you don't have that little beeper thing, aren't you wasting your time? The guy likes groups.

Third: doesn't the idea of god answering prayer completely eliminate the possibility that we have free will? If god chooses to answer a certain prayer, it follows that he chooses NOT to answer the ones that, clearly, aren't being answered, by the millions, hourly. So, whether you pray or not, god is choosing the direction of every event, everywhere, at all times. Unless he's fallible, imperfect, unable to hear the prayers of everyone, or unable to control events. In which case, he falls way short of the perfection attributed to him by those doing the praying. Logically, god controls everything, or he controls nothing. There's can't be an in-between. Everything that happens is his will, or nothing is. If he CAN act, then, in all cases, he DID act. Unless he's either not there at all, or is completely hands off. In which case...

It helps to remember that George Bush told us god doesn't hear the prayers of Jews. (Wait, if he can't hear them, then he's not perfect. It must be that he hears them and says "screw you." That's better.) So I guess the correct thought is that god ignores the prayers of those that don't follow certain guidelines. (Careful, all you believers: when was the last time you stoned your son to death for insubordination? Or sacrificed a heifer, for that matter?) Which certainly explains the starving children, birth defects, school bus crashes. Bunch o' miscreants, deserved what they got. But if god knows us before we're born and has our lives mapped out, then aren't those starvations, and other miserable deaths and deformities part of his plan? In his perfection he must know each kid who's born, know their faith or lack of it, must have planned it all in advance. So their lack of proper faith was part of the plan. And that means, this god wants people to starve by the millions, die painful deaths, be born into crushing poverty, get acne and halitosis. Not to mention be Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Muslims.

If god is perfect -- all powerful and all knowing -- then it simply can't be that prayer works. It would mean his plans are changeable or incomplete. It means you, the prayer, think you know more than the prayee. If prayer works, god is fallible. Anyone who changes his mind is, by definition, not perfect. It's only if prayer DOESN'T work that we can (sort of) maintain the concepts of perfection, omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility.

Well, it's said, god has his reasons. We can't question why the child dies of cancer, slowly, painfully. God knows all and it's all his will. We must trust in him. Okay, makes sense.

Then why the hell are we praying?

[Addendum, 1/13: Right on schedule, that despicable self-important sub-human, Pat Robertson, weighs in on Haiti. Turns out they made a pact with the devil, and that's why the earthquake happened. But he's gonna pray for them. What? A god who gets off killing 100,000 people who had nothing to do with the "pact," lots of babies and children among them -- that sort of god is going to be influenced by prayer? But you know damn well there are thousands of people -- right wing voters, all -- nodding in agreement with the (at best) illogical and (actually) evil message. Pact with the devil. Amazing. Wonder where it was, who attended, and what hors-d'-oeuvres were served.]

.

Dyscourse

I read an interesting article. It's about one of the climate scientists whose emails were part of the latest "gate." In the process, I learned some things. Unfortunately, I also had my worst fears reconfirmed: I made the mistake of reading the comments.

It's the perfect microcosm of where we are, politically speaking. Never mind the status of climate science, per se, or why it is that what side a person is on depends entirely on one's political leanings and, often, one's religious beliefs, rather than on any sort of data analysis and science. Just read the comments, and note the content: personal attacks, ignoring arguments, repetition, and virtually no addressing of the facts in play. It's appalling. Dispiriting. Predictive.

In my view, a reasonable discussion of climate change ought to include the addressing of several questions: does carbon dioxide cause a greenhouse effect? Can it be shown experimentally? Is there a documentable rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? What is the evidence that the rise is anthropogenic? Can adding literally billions of tons of the gas to the atmosphere annually be shown to be trivial? Is there demonstrable acidification of the ocean? If so, to what extent is it anthropogenic? How does it affect ocean flora and fauna, and is this good or bad? Is the temperature of the ocean rising? Why? Is there increasing release from the ocean floor of methane? If so, has it to do with temperature and/or acidification? If it is occurring, is it true or untrue that methane release is a positive feedback loop (with methane being a potent greenhouse gas which causes more warming which causes more methane release)?

More: given the evidence of previous climate changes (ice ages forming and receding), what is the evidence that the current receding of glaciers and polar ice is different? Is it at the same rate as past ages, or not? [I don't think there's a need to address the Hannitobeckian argument that cold snaps in winter disprove climate change.]

The above, best I can tell, are the central issues raised by climate scientists, the vast majority of whom seem to answer affirmatively regarding the greenhouse effects of human activity, and the unprecedented rapidity with which ice is receding, the planet warming. And yet the arguments in the public square, exactly like those in the comment thread in the referenced article, rely on personal attack, off-point distractions, ignorance and ignoring of the scientific arguments. The important stuff is entirely out of the argument.

Not unlike pretty much the entire spectrum of political intercourse in this country.

Clarity

Honest to god, it's been mystifying to me why Dick Cheney would be saying such venal and demonstrably false things about President Obama. I doubt he's insane. Surely he's not stupid. So what's his agenda? Why announce to the world that the US is less safe now than when he was president? And suddenly, the answer appears. With the help of the alter kocker of the RWS™, Bill O'Reilly. One more terrorist event, says Bill, and Obama is gone. How else do you explain the falsehoods about Obama's response to the underpants bomber?

Given what we've seen from the Congressional Republicans, is it really a stretch: they'd rather derail everything this country needs, damn the consequences to America, than see Barack Hussein Obama get credit for anything. This is, most literally, party first, with country a very distant second. The point: the Republicans, the RWS™, the teabaggers, all actually want to see another terrorist attack on the US.

Come on, Cheney says, it's wide open for you. Our defenses are down. And O'Reilly, neither particularly insightful nor able to keep his ego in check, spills the beans as to why. Do it. We need you. It's our path back to the way it was. Meaning, of course, a buffet for the wealthy, get it while you can, screw 'em to the rest. Endless wars, high oil prices, unchecked executive power to arrest and torture anyone. And lower taxes for Dick and Bill.

Given that there's no way to prevent all terrorist attacks (airports are among the easiest to fix), another one is inevitable. Count on this, too: when it happens, unlike 9/11 when everyone rallied around George Bush, if it happens on Obama's watch the entire right wing of the county will take their fingers out of their (noses) and point them at the White House.

The sorriest part of the story, really, is that it'll work. Because whereas they've made a huge swath of the country stupid, the Republican leaders aren't. They've filled the air with distortions and dishonesty knowing it'll take root in the feculent soil they've spread. It already has. Perfect example: The latest lie -- there's simply no other term -- is that Obama doesn't use the words terrorism, or war. Said over and over again, people believe it, despite the reams of evidence that disproves the claim. You expect such things from the RWS™ (Hannity, after all, is still claiming 2009 was the coldest year on record. In fact, it was one of the warmest.) But it's being said in Congress as well. This, despite the fact that Obama continues to do things which strengthen us (while having to undo what Bush did to make us less safe, and to fix the communication issues that led to 9/11 and which, astoundingly, Bush evidently ignored for the next seven years.) And Obama takes responsibility, which that other guy never did!

So there it is. The fear of Democratic rule which swept the country in 2008, has caused the Republicans to drop all pretense. Whatever it takes, whatever lie, they'll say it. Whatever needed reform, they'll block it. All for one reason: to stop Obama, to regain their power to rape the country. (Believe it or not, I really hate that sort of hyperbole, usually. But at this point it seems self-evident. As stupid and ineffective as most of the Congressional Democrats are, there's hardly an instance of bald-faced lying about agendas and programs like there is from the other side. And at least the Democrats are actually trying to do things, albeit in their usual Rube Goldberg way.)

In my memory, it's unprecedented. A constant bombardment of deliberate lies, aimed only at returning to power those that actually DID bring this country to its knees. Led by the execrable Dick Cheney, forces are aligned to prevent the United States from becoming a fairer country, because were it to occur, the trough would be emptier for them. And, as I've said many times over, they've managed to get the uneducated, the credulous, the angry and fearful to act against their own interest, unwittingly furthering this greedy agenda. An agenda that, we now see, overtly encourages terrorists (who, I'm certain, would much prefer another version of Bush to more of Obama). On all levels it's deeply appalling; the most significant of which is that the most vocal and crazed anti-Obamites in the populace have no idea that they're being taken for a ride.

Update, 6 pm: I guess there are actually a few Republicans who have some sense.

.

Rachel Calls Bullsh*t

While we're at it, this is revelatory, as well.

So is this.

.


.

Predictably Putrid

So here's the thing (Happy New Year, by the way):

That failed bombing of the plane to Detroit was most certainly the result of screwups. Janet Napalitano did herself and her president no favors by initially claiming that the system worked (even if she was, clumsily, referring to the warnings disseminated after the incident became known.) Clearly, we have a long way to go to make ourselves as safe as possible. But I find the response of the RWS™ and their Republican lickers putrid, if entirely predictable.

Recently a friend sent me a link to a very representative sentiment: Obama gets "an F" on protecting us. (I ain't providing the link: why should the author get traffic for such slime.) Whereas the writer of said screed listed the obvious concerns, he emphasized, in perfect RWS™ mode, on the fact that Obama was on vacation. He dredged up the time it took for Obama to speak about the incident (overlooking the fact that Bush took two days longer to address the issue of the "shoe bomber." He decried the idea that the failed bomber was arrested and remanded to Federal Court (exactly as was Richard Reid.) On it went, in that vein.

To my friend I sent a link to another article which correctly listed the concerns any reasonable person would have, but which didn't see the necessity to make some sort of perverse political hay over it by implying it shows Obama is somehow a failure.

Of the greatest concern, to me anyway, is the fact that there seems still to be the communication problems that characterized the pre-9/11 intelligence. But how is that strictly an Obama problem? George Bush had seven years to fix it, and didn't. (This was after, in order, opposing the DHS, privatizing the TSA and grudgingly federalizing it only after it became a monumental private failure, opposing the 9/11 Commission, and failing to put in place approximately 85% of its recommendations.) So, if there's blame to go around, isn't it proportionally more at the feet of the guy who had that seven years, as opposed to the one that had closer to seven months? Just asking.

To his credit, President Obama has stated that the incident demonstrates failures at several levels, in a way Bush never did. He's calling meeting to address them. Call me crazy, but I trust Obama actually to look into it and demand changes; Bush, as we saw, had no interest in such mundane matters. If you couldn't invade it, he'd rather ignore it. I suppose we can blame Obama for not going back in time and preventing the Bush State Department from granting the bikini bomber's visa. Indeed, maybe, before having been elected to the Senate, President Obama should have seen to it that the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission were followed, and that money was allocated to higher level screening. (Interestingly, unsurprisingly, the very senators now blaming Obama for his "weakness on terror," voted against funding airport security a few years ago.) Who'd have guessed, huh?

The friend who sent the link that annoyed me so much has, shall we say, certain reservations about President Obama's intentions. Yet in our conversations he acknowledges that there is literally no way to prevent certain kinds of terrorist attacks in this country; most especially at places not generally suited to (at least for now) the sorts of screenings that are routine at airports. So when the unavoidable next happens, let's remember this simple rule: whatever it is, and wherever it happens, it's always the Democrats' fault, whether they're in power or not. It makes things a lot simpler and easier to understand.

Finally, this: the most important indicator, evidently, of Obama's commitment to fighting terrorism is his use -- or lack thereof -- of the word "war." Never mind that he has, in fact, used the term; or, for that matter, that he has escalated (wrongly, in my opinion) the military presence in Afghanistan. Because he early eschewed the term "war on terror," which is one of the stupidest phrases ever invented to give an incompetent president war powers, Barack Obama is, according to Dick Cheney and the entire cadré or RWS™, failing to keep us safe. It is to laugh. Or cry. (I seem to be doing the latter, mostly.)

Finally finally, this: the panty-bomber came, evidently, via Yemen. Joe Lieberman, predictably speaking for all the deep thinkers on the right, is all tumescent for the next war there. The idea that disproves itself. Invade Iraq to prevent terrorism. Escalate in Afghanistan to prevent terrorism. Invade Yemen to prevent terrorism.... Anyone begin to see a certain logical flaw?

Happy New Year.

Unconvinced

I thought President Obama's speech at West Point was well-constructed, and well-delivered. It had the needed tone of seriousness, and conveyed the clear impression that he'd thought deeply about his decision. He outlined the history of our involvement, and made a case for the importance of staying involved. If it's true that a sign of a good contract is that both parties think they got screwed (that's what "they" say, although I could never figure out why it wouldn't also be true if both parties thought they got a great deal), then maybe the fact that no one seems to like it means he came to the best possible solution to an unsolvable and impossible situation.

I wish he'd gone the other way.

The threat of terrorism is real. Al Queda and similar groups, and crazy people (like the one at Fort Hood) influenced by them, represent very real dangers. The question is to what extent we can lower the threat with armies. And the answer, I'm pretty darn sure, is: we can't. Haven't. Won't. The corollary question is to what extent we can change the nature of a country like Afghanistan with soldiers or, for that matter, with good works and intentions. To the first part, the answer is the same as above; to the second, given decades of time and trillions of dollars, the answer is maybe there's an outside chance. At impossible cost.

A few guys living in caves have caused our country to burn trillions of dollars and thousands of lives -- not to mention lives not ended but forever altered. There's something terribly sad that, after all these centuries, the decisions of a few men, whether made in caves of limestone or marble, continue to cause soldiers to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, believing in their mission, perhaps, but understanding it not at all. And that, in the two current wars, the most hawkish voices arise from the gullets of those least familiar with war, least willing to wage it themselves. Five-Deferment Cheney, not a single one of whose utterances about Iraq proved true, is still given credence and air time. Kristol, Goldberg, Hannity -- none of those guys ever served, though they all were of an age that they could have, when it started. I did serve, I received wounds; and although my experience in Vietnam was far less traumatic than those of many (MOST) others, I think I know a little bit about what war is and what it does. I have a friend, much more conservative than I, who spent his year saving and restoring bodies blown apart. He hates war, too.

But really, that's not the point. War happens, and until humans evolve way further (assuming there's time left in which to do it), it must. The point is that fighting terrorism is not like fighting an invading army. Terrorism isn't a place. It doesn't need caves or countries. Is it reasonable to think that if we filled every hole in the mountains in Af/Pak, terrorism would go away? Can plots be plotted only there? Does calumny come only from caverns?

President Obama said he's willing to be a one-term president if that's what it takes to get health care reform. Would he make the same stand in the response to terrorism? If so, he'd deserve his Peace Prize. Because it might be only he that could do it. It'd be lost on the remaining Republicans (as opposed to true conservatives) and the RWS™. Supporters of Sarah would maintain their current and constant apoplexy, and reason would flow past them like amnion in Texas.

I suppose we can build nations. Arguably, we did in Japan and Germany after WWII. Vanquished, the citizenry of those countries bought in, or, at least, acquiesced. It remains to be seen what we did in Iraq. Whatever we did, was the cost worth it, in terms of our national interest? What argument is there to be made for "saving" Iraq, that can't be made for so many other failed states on the planet? Humanitarian concerns are -- no sarcasm intended -- laudable. In a split-second decision, I might risk drowning to save a kid; but is it a national paradigm? Do we destroy ourselves to rescue others? And that's the issue: is enough at stake to risk more lives and treasure and, possibly, our very existence as a nation? Of that, I'm not convinced. More specifically, even if we turn Afghanistan into Las Vegas East (okay, how about Cleveland?), will we have improved our own security? The President says yes. I'm not convinced. And, absent that "buy in" by Afghanis, nothing lasting will happen.

Also unknowable is how many more terrorists we will create in the fight. Nidal Hasan, it's said, is one. Without doubt, there are many more.

The speech we need to hear is the one that explains what it really takes to respond rationally to the threat of terrorism: the one that says you can't kill crazy; armies can't find and eliminate cells in all parts of the planet. We need to hear the speech that says we protect ourselves best by police work and intelligence gathering, and by regaining our position of respect in the world. By enlisting others, based on their view of us, to reject and to help find those who would do us harm. By changing the paradigm. And by addressing our own problems at home, not the least of which is a broken health care system that's killing, for lack of access, more people every month than died on 9/11, and has been doing so for decades.

I don't doubt that concerns for Pakistan, where the nukes are, are at the heart of Obama's decision. Nor do I claim to have the sort of knowledge needed to assess the risk of those nukes falling into terrorist hands, and to what extent the outcome in Afghanistan affects that risk. I'll admit, therefore, that I'm just talking into the wind. But I wish, when people are sent off to fight for something, to die and be maimed in the name of some executive decision made -- as always -- by those not actually doing the fighting, that it could be crystal clear that there's no alternative. That was, I'd say, the case in WWII. Maybe in Korea. Not, most assuredly, in Vietnam; Grenada; Iraq. Afghanistan? Probably, at first. Now, after eight years of inattention by F-D Cheney?

There's a pretty interesting report in the NYT about the decision-making process. I'm glad it was as deliberative and careful as it was; it seems the antithesis of what we know of (Bush's non-inquiry into) Cheney's decision to invade Iraq. And yet, by definition, if it took that much soul-searching, it's far from a dead certain choice among the options. So why not take the one in which fewer soldiers have to be destroyed? Why not make the case that in a war unlike any other, old tactics no longer apply, that we need to think outside the ammo box?

I think I know what would happen if he did: the RWS™ and those who find their paranoia and shallowness convincing (which seems to be an ever-increasing number) will rend the country apart. If we can't have a conversation about health care reform, the need for which is obvious, without deceitful demagoguery and cynical slime, we sure as hell can't have one about terrorism. The time when our political system can handle such a thing is long and irrevocably gone.

[For a somewhat contrary opinion, or, at least, an article that sheds some light on the strategy which makes it sound plausible, read this.]

Like It Is

In essence, that's what I've been saying here: our political system is broken beyond repair.

We have a president smart enough and willing to take on our very serious problems: health care, climate change, a broken economy. That there is need in all these areas is undeniable (except for people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and the rest of the RWS™.) And yet.

John Kyl announces every Republican senator will vote against health care reform. Every one. No matter what. And Mitch McConnell wants another six weeks of debate. Reconcile those two facts, will you?

That's but one example of the dysfunction. On the left we have a party of disorganization and undiscipline. On the right, one of ideological "purity," based on denialism. Of the failures of their central tenets; of the facts; of the damage being done to the country by fomented hatred, based on lies. And, of course, evolution. Sort of the perfect avatar.

So here we are, curarized by a full quiver of poison arrows: an unprecedented propaganda machine in particular (yes, Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio) willing unabashedly to distort and dissemble, and a lazy remaining media, ill-equipped and uninterested in countering it; liberal politicians congenitally unable to focus; conservative ones unable to rise above failed ideology or to assimilate facts; an electorate consisting of too many gullible people unwilling and unable to think for themselves, preferring paranoia over process. And in Congress, not limited to but egregiously exaggerated on the right, the easy forgetting of everything they've ever said when they were in power: the "nuclear option," "up or down vote," "elections have consequences." Today, down is up; if I said the opposite yesterday, well, you're a hater for bringing it up.

So, yeah, Friedman is exactly right. We're on the way to failure as a political entity, and when the dust settles and there's nothing left, the death will have been brought entirely by those who most vigorously (and disingenuously) claim to be fighting to save our country.

I wonder if there's a point at which they'd admit they were wrong: a tax-free country unable to provide any services, polluted skies and soaking seaboards, starving people unable to cross the moats around the castles? What is their ideal, their end-point? How much higher do health insurance premiums have to rise, how many more dying for lack of it? How far do the glaciers need to recede, how much further behind do our students need to fall? How much money do the oligarchs need to accumulate before it's enough, how wide the gap? Really. I'd like to know. What is the tea-party ideal, how do they plan to get there, what would it look like? Does the previous eight years not tell them anything about soil in which they plant their flag?

If they could wave a magic wand, who would be left in this country, what would they be doing, and how would it work? Based on what evidence?

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

How much do you have to hate Barack Obama to be upset at a decision to try KSM in American courts? How much do you have to hate America, for that matter, to believe that our judicial system is unable to handle such a case?

As predictable as gas after baked beans, the RWS™ are outraged -- OUTRAGED, I tell you -- at the Eric Holder announcement. It would be laughable were it not the case that their sad minions will dutifully ingest the fury without a nanomoment of reflection. The end is near, they'll agree. It's proof, once again, of the hatred Obama has for our country. How dare he, they'll assimilate like the Borg, act as if the Constitution is a worthy document, that American legal norms are to be honored. That showing the world that democracy is viable, is tantamount to proving the opposite.

And yet, there they are: in the halls of Congress, on the airwaves, scalded and screaming. Can there be any more solid proof that the right wing are willing to destroy everything we are, just to make political hay? And, in taking up their cries, is there any remaining doubt that the Republican party, as currently constituted, has NOTHING to say worth listening to? That they've gone so completely off the rails in their desire to discredit Barack Obama that they constitute a clear and present danger to our survival? That unless things change -- unless we can hope very soon to have a credible and useful opposition party -- we are, quite literally, doomed?

A-Well-a, Bless-a My Soul

Here's some good sense from a Christian press organization. Lordy, it's even from Texas!

"...From the old Procter & Gamble Satanism libel to tales of more recent vintage about President Obama’s faith and citizenship, Internet-fueled rumors seem to run rampant. And, frighteningly, Christians seem at the very least to be as susceptible as the population at large to the habit of spreading false stories..."

Of course, I'd say the nature of religious faith is such that it fuels more gullibility, especially as it leads to building a wall between faith and facts which might threaten it. Still, it's nice to see some clarity on the matter, from a religious institution. I don't think it's mere coincidence that the party of conservative religionists is the one in which these sorts of falsehoods spread so easily; nor that the need for unquestioned belief is paired with the willingness -- need, that is -- to accept them.

Public Option

I know a guy who was in a video...

Namaste

The "TED" series of talks is one of my favorites; always thought-provoking, always enlightening in some way. This one reflects much of what I've tried to convey, in my posts on religion, as to why the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving god makes no sense. The difference is that in this video the ideas are wrestled by a man of the cloth, with a soothing voice and a British accent (which, in my mind anyway, always denotes intelligence.)

That a man of faith struggles so openly and deeply is touching. I like it, even though, in the end, what he concludes -- which is eminently sensible -- requires no faith at all, and yet he needs to call it a sort of faith. What he concludes -- that there is a center of spirituality in all of us and that if we relate to each other from that center we'd be better off -- is perfect; and perfectly absent the need to invoke some sort of sky person to live it. Having thought hard about the contradictions inherent in the biblical view of god, he comes to the only thoughtful conclusion: it makes no sense. He even repeats a thing I've said in both of my blogs: if that's the way god is, I want no part of him.

But, as do I, he concludes that while there are things we can't know, we do know we are capable of love and reason and pain and that acting toward one another and the world in acknowledgment of that ought to be enough. Why addle it all up with a bunch of contradictory rules and beliefs that make no sense, and add nothing to that basic truth, that inarguable basis for dealing with one another?

Perhaps the Vicar wouldn't approve of my synthesis of his talk. If not, it wouldn't be by much that we disagree.

iPhoam

Prized Opinions

These about cover it.

Genesis

It's been, what, 6000 years? Finally, God has come up with a new model.

According to the latest specs, etched in two tablets of stone and handed down from atop Mount Sinai, the new bird is anticipated by God to be His finest creation to date. Available in two colors-—male and female—the bird reportedly combines everything God has learned from His previous works into one "new twist on an old favorite."

Wonder what got him thinking he needed to get back to work. I'm guessing it was watching Tom Delay on "Dancing With The Stars," or listening to Glenn Beck.

Once he gets that creation thing back up and running, let's hope he'll recall humans and come up with something a little less embarrassing.

(On the other hand, he did pretty well with this.)

Microcosmi

A political story that has it all: stupidity, lying, cynicism, pandering, weakness. It's the perfect demonstration of everything that's wrong with our politics, and proof that there is, undeniably, no hope. Congress is failing us. Willfully. Gleefully. Irretrievably.

Unable to pass health care reform, unwilling to stop the flow of money to insurers who have no role providing care, the Senate Finance Committee nevertheless looks ready to approve the appropriation of fifty million dollars for "abstinence only" education. "It works," says Orrin Hatch.

He is, of course, entirely right. Assuming that by "it works" one means "it doesn't work." Study after study has shown its failure to change the biological call to the rutting of teenagers. Unanimously, Republicans voted for it, along with enough Democrats to pass the proposal.

So, what's the explanation? Are they too stupid to read; do they know the facts but choose simply to ignore them; is it a naked case of pandering to those in their parties who are, in fact, too stupid to read or understand? These fighters for fiscal discipline: willing -- nay, anxious -- to spend money on a discredited program. At best out of duncedom; at worst for completely cynical political reasons. Fifty million -- a drop in the bucket nowadays. But perfectly symbolic of where we are.

Fair is fair: let's not ignore the fact that Democrats, along with many Republicans, have voted to spend billions to continue building C-17 cargo planes, despite the fact that the Pentagon says they're unneeded, and despite Obama's urging to kill it. Credit to John McCain for calling them all out. (Unlike abstinence education, one can at least argue for building the planes as a jobs program. At least that would be semi-honest.)

Obama ought to veto the appropriations bill. I'm betting he won't.

Stupidity, ignorance of fact, craven playing to the craziest of one's supporters, caving to well-financed lobbyists. These stories have it all, and show, once again, why it is no longer rational to hope for good governance from Congress. This stuff was simple, binary: abstinence education -- doesn't work; more C-17s -- not needed. If they can't deal with such mindless stuff, how can we expect anything good on health care, energy, education, economy?

Answer: we can't.
.