The Schubertiad Review

Kimo Hussey strums, talks about the uke and PMF

2006-10-10T20:51:00.000-10:00

This past August, Kimo Hussey was a guest on KPFK radio's "Ukulele Spotlight," where he talked about his lifelong love for the ukulele and Hawaiian music, and about his work with Pacific Music Foundation. He also strums a few numbers, giving listeners a feel for his smooth and classy playing. If you haven't heard him before, you're in for a treat. He has a really graceful and flowing style that's small on ego, big on music, that's featured on his solo album "Eminent Ukulele" and on the upcoming Ho'omalie debut, "Only You."

As he says about playing, "I think that if you do nothing more than get out of the way of the music, it fends for itself very well."

When you hear him play, I think you'll agree.

Please take a listen.

Over the hurdle at last

2006-10-09T09:41:00.000-10:00

To all friends and interested parties, I just received notice that I passed the Hawai'i bar exam. I have a swearing-in ceremony on Nov. 6th and then receive a license to practice law in Hawai'i. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO relieved. It's been a long slog and now I'm almost at my destination.

I just thought I'd share.

Frist says war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily, Taliban must join government

2006-10-02T23:22:00.000-10:00

There was general agreement in this country that it was necessary to invade Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, who were openly supporting al Qaida and Bin Laden. So we invade, make progress, almost get Bin Laden, have the Taliban on the run...and then divert our forces and energy toward Iraq, which did not support al Qaida or Bin Laden.

A few short years later, the mission in Afghanistan is failing, the Taliban are resurgent and widely supported, Bin Laden is nowhere to be found.

Bill Frist and Mel Martinez go over there, realize the fight can no longer be won militarily, and decide the only solution is to get the Taliban involved in the Afghan government. All the justifications, tortured logic, and bending-over-backward done by the right wing blogger fans over the years has possibly reached its limit. How are they gonna make excuses this time when Republican leadership is talking about making nice with the folks who were good neighbors to al Qaida?

As The Daily Kos documents, the line may have finally been crossed.

Well, they're welcome to cross party lines. Plenty of room in the big tent.

Rational explanations for mystic experiences

2006-10-02T20:50:00.000-10:00

The more we learn about the human brain, the more we realize how unhelpful and misguided spiritual explanations are. They lead to a retreat from understanding, and from reality. The feelings and indescribable "extrasensory" experiences that, among other things, reinforce religious conviction and supernatural beliefs, it seems, are merely the result of brain events, not epiphanies. Mystical conclusions may be interesting from a human psychological and sociological standpoint, but are no more than contexts imposed upon natural processes. They lack objective truth.

Here's yet another article providing evidence to support that conclusion.

A fine idea: throw Denny Hastert out

2006-10-02T19:37:00.000-10:00

Abramoff knew of coming Iraq war in March 2002

2006-10-02T11:53:00.000-10:00

The Daily Kos has posted an article looking at events of March 2002. Included are exerpts from the Downing Street Memos, a Bush speech, and an email from Jack Abramoff in which he refers to "the upcoming war on Iraq." Though this should come as no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to events leading to and stemming from the Iraq war, it does provide one more bit of evidence that the war in Iraq was a done deal long before Congress authorized the use of force, even as Bush was denying publicly any decision to invade. It also illustrates how much of a White House insider Abramoff was, chatting about top-secret policies with Karl Rove.

The stench of corruption from the GOP is staggering, and moderate, ethical Republicans need to carve out the rot and reclaim the party. Cleaning House (and Senate) in November would be a good start.

Incredibly sophomoric, but funny

2006-09-30T11:22:00.000-10:00

Here's a video I saw posted at The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right that's really funny in a 10-year old kinda way. Robert Tilton, TV evangelist, has a little problem...

Waterboarding, for those who are curious about what Congress has authorized the President to do

2006-09-29T11:26:00.000-10:00

Congress has given Bush the right to determine what techniques are and are not torture (save for certain techniques causing great bodily harm and death). Waterboarding, for example, considered torture by civilized nations everywhere, considered torture by this country until this administration, is now ok if Bush says it is. That's right, it's up to him to make that call.

So what is waterboarding? What is this method, which was used so extensively by the Khmer Rouge, among other tyrannical regimes, to elicit confessions? What does it entail? Congress has lowered our nation to a Pol Pot standard, so shouldn't we, the citizens, know what it is all about?

Take a look at this article.

Regardless of whether the people we use this against are the terrible criminals we assume them to be, and many will not be, we must not become like them in achieving justice. The issue is as much about who we are as it is about who they are. It's also about moral leadership in the world, and how Congress and the president have knowingly, willfully squandered it, much to our shame. Your good name may be the most valuable thing you have, and when you destroy it recklessly, it is exceedingly difficult to regain.

To blow your mind: turtle porn on Japanese TV

2006-09-28T20:09:00.000-10:00

I just saw this new post on TV in Japan and thought I ought to share it with the world: Turtles gettin' it on. Complete with authentic turtle grunts and a pop shot. And the biggest turtle Johnson you'd ever care to see. Makes you wonder where the little guy hides it throughout the day.

The death of democratic values

2006-09-28T10:56:00.000-10:00

Congress is very close to handing the president tyrannical powers. As this New York Times editorial neatly summarizes it,

"Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error."

Unfortunately, it seems most of the voting public is either poorly or not-at-all informed about the matter and/or entirely disinterested in learning about it. Fundamental human rights principles and cherished American values are being gutted, and the people just sit back and stuff their faces with McDonalds.

I sure hope things change in November.

Olbermann examines Bush's first 8 months in the White House

2006-09-27T18:25:00.000-10:00

This is a story of the utmost importance. The Bush/Cheney/GOP crew is trying to duck or rewrite history, blaming 9/11 on Clinton and accepting no responsibility. For example, in response to Clinton's recent smack down on Fox News of the non-journalist Chris Wallace, Condi made the claim that the Clinton administration (including counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke) didn't hand them any comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism. The facts show otherwise, as Olbermann documents.

(Thanks to Crooks and Liars)

Japanese Toilet Prank

2006-09-26T23:15:00.000-10:00

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's a bit from a Japanese TV show where they did a couple of pranks involving portable toilets. The results are hilarious but mortifying. Completely shocking and embarrassing. But funny. Hope this never happens to you. This could never happen in the U.S. without incurring massive, sure-thing lawsuits. But in Japan, it's just another comic segment on a TV show...which I now share with you. (You may want to grab your chin so your jaw doesn't hit the floor.)

Funny Drifters skit

2006-09-26T19:25:00.000-10:00

Here's a funny skit from Shimura Ken and Kato Cha of the Drifters, a classic Japanese comedy group. Their stuff tends to be brilliantly ridiculous, beautifully stupid, and very, very funny. A lot of it goes beyond language, so it's possible to enjoy it without understanding exactly what they are saying. This is a fine example.

The premise of this bit is that a director (Shimura Ken) is shooting a short fight scene in a samurai movie. A new extra (Kato Cha) comes on the set, ready to film his part, which is nothing more than a momentary battle with the hero ending in the extra's death. They're all speaking Japanese, but somehow something gets lost in translation between the director and the extra.

Feeding the flesh

2006-09-20T11:23:00.000-10:00

Did you realize that:

1) There is a God
2) He is the God of the Bible
3) He can do anything
4) He wants to make you stinking rich

Come to our church/stadium and we'll show you the way.

Yes, according to the health and wealth Gospel, God wants to shower his children with blessings in this lifetime, not just in the next. So, while most of the world lives on less than $2 a day, and people all over starve and die for lack of food and clean water, God wants you to have a big ranch house with acres of land. He wants you to have monster trucks and speed boats, a fleet of ATVs, and a big screen TV in every room for watching "Touched by an Angel" and Monday Night Football. A pony and jetski for each of your children. A steady supply of migrant labor to till your fields, tend your orchards, and slop out the stables. Anything your hungry little heart desires. In fact, God loves you so much he's dying to give it to you. Really. Don't forget, Jesus died not only so you could get into heaven, but so you could live in luxury. Just name it and claim it.

It seems so easy. All you have to do is "put Christ first." And putting Christ first largely means accepting his material blessings, so there's really nothing to it.

No wonder these megachurches are doing so well. Nothing but pious orgies of vulgarity.

Focus on the Family: A marriage of religion and politics

2006-09-18T17:43:00.000-10:00

James Dobson is a deeply partisan pillar of the evangelical Christian right. Through his TAX EXEMPT organization, Focus on the Family, he regularly involves himself in political matters, urging his followers to support conservative (read: Republican) candidates. The organization is nothing if not political.

Are there rules against political activities of tax-exempt organizations? Does the IRS have an obligation to investigate such activities and potentially revoke tax exempt status? Does Focus on the Family stand in violation of such rules and deserve investigation?

I will offer no advice or judgment here. I will leave it to my readers to puzzle it out. The answers are easy enough to track down and are worth considering.

Bush's push to torture, plus Paul Krugman's take

2006-09-18T16:55:00.000-10:00

As we all know, Bush is in a frenzy to legalize methods of interrogation that have been illegal under international law. He goes on and on about "clarifying the law" and how he's not going to order American interrogators to commit illegal acts, but that's just because the law right now doesn't allow the "techniques" he supports (and orders).

It's like a situation where the law says, "Don't beat the crap out of your neighbor," but you want to keep on ripping out his fingernails and dislocating his limbs. "It's vague," you argue. "What does beating the crap out of your neighbor really mean? What if no crap actually comes out of my neighbor? Is that ok? Who can tell! I need better guidelines." So you push to change the law, either by cutting out the "beating the crap out of your neighbor" language, or by carving out an exception for ripping out fingernails and dislocating limbs. If you get your way, you're absolved and cleared for takeoff!

Paul Krugman has a few words to say about it.

Chuck Norris is out of his mind, and I mean that with all due respect

2006-09-17T14:53:00.000-10:00

I hadn't realized Chuck Norris, the badass, butt-kickin good guy (who apparently wore black) is full-tilt member of the Christian Right. He wants a Bible curriculum in every public school in America.

Every. Public. School. In America.

He uses the completely discredited argument that "Our forefathers founded this country on Biblical principles" to push his point, and then makes it worse by adding, "...and they never intended the Bible to be removed from our schools."

What do you think, too many roundhouses to the head? I wonder, 'cause he seems a bit removed from reality.

Yes, there were certain "founding fathers" who argued to make ours a Christian nation and have an established religion, but they lost the argument. They made their case, and the majority said no, we should be a nation of secular laws with government removed from the religion business. That's why the Constitution reads as it does. That's a fundamental principle of the U.S. from the start on through to the present. It is intellectually dishonest to take the writings of a few, comparitively obscure founding fathers and say that they represent the feelings of the majority. It just isn't so.

But listen to Chuck make his case.

Republicans talking sense, not just Republican talking points

2006-09-17T14:25:00.000-10:00

Today's Crooks and Liars links to a couple of refreshing items: Republicans talking sense about political and moral issues. Usually, you expect the extremist truthiness, specious arguments, and fuzzy thinking about issues, but here we have a couple examples of intelligent, rational, and moral positions, not mere moral posturing. If it's a bug going around in the Republican party, let's hope it's catching.

The first is Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on why we should not come up with our own, watered-down interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners, as Bush is desperate to enact. (Part of Bush's motivation, of course, is to make legal, retroactively, the many war crimes he has committed through condoning inhumane treatment of prisoners in secret prisons. If you break the law, it's convenient to be able to change what the law used to be so you're off the hook.)

The other is former Republican Senator and Episcopalian minister John Danforth on the extremist positions espoused by Bush/Cheney and the Christian right, including criticisms of the the position that this is a "Christian country." Just imagine how different the last 6 years would have been if Danforth had been chosen for VP rather than Cheney.

This Modern World: The absolutely true story of Bill Clinton and 9/11!

2006-09-13T14:24:00.000-10:00

History as ABC would have it.

I'm gonna give Matt Lauer some credit

2006-09-11T20:20:00.000-10:00

Matt Lauer gets in the president's face just a bit with this interview, asking pointed questions about secret prisons and inhuman treatment of prisoners. I got the impression Bush wanted to either a) shove or b) slug Matt. Instead, dubya got worked up and delivered illogical arguments and the same old cloudy thinking we've come to expect. It is so easy to dismantle Bush's points...but it takes a bit of guts to do it to his face, which to his credit, Matt tried to do. I wanna see more of that. More full court press (bad pun) to get some honesty and accountability into the debate. It's time to reaquire spines.

"Tarako, tarako, tappuri tarako"

2006-09-11T09:38:00.000-10:00

I watch a lot of Japanese TV shows, but somehow I missed this commercial. My friend Val shared it with me, and now I share it with you. Just try to get it out of your head.

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

For those who are curious, tarako are cod roe eggs. The product is cod roe egg flavoring for spaghetti, which actually ain't too bad. Kinda tasty.

"The Best War Ever"

2006-09-11T08:30:00.000-10:00

Latest SWIFT online

2006-09-08T21:06:00.000-10:00

This week's edition of the JREF newsletter contains a real doozy that's worth the price of admission all by itself (so to speak--it's actually free). Randi gives us a little helping of the enormously popular "End of Days" series by tag-team Christian authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The writing is horrible and juvenile, the character names are absurd cliches, the subject matter self-serving and self-congratulatory. Really bad stuff. Ah, but it sells by the wagonload.

Plus other enlightening articles. Take a look!

Frank Rich: "Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis"

2006-09-05T10:50:00.000-10:00

Another smart, well-argued editorial from Frank Rich. This one is about the media blitz the White House is putting on as they wind up to 9/11--and to the November elections--with all the deceptive analogies, new buzzwords, and contempt for dissent. It's a good read.

Fry & Laurie take a poke at Uri Geller

2006-09-04T10:24:00.000-10:00

Here's a funny little sketch about a spoon bender.

"New Mac Pro defeats Dell handily in cost, usability"

2006-09-03T12:44:00.000-10:00

More evidence that MacPros cost less and are far better designed than comparably equipped Dells. You want the best? Get the best--and for less--than the junky competition.

Rumsfeld's "Nazi appeasers" analogy revisited

2006-09-03T12:00:00.000-10:00

Rumsfeld's recent assertion that critics of Bush's anti-terrorism policies are akin to Nazi appeasers deserves a second look. It's amazing how easily Rummy's glass house is shatterred.

1981-85: The golden age of pop music?

2006-09-02T20:09:00.000-10:00

If you think about it, there were so many classic albums released between 1981-1985. There were a few bleed-overs from '80 and '86, but for the most part '81-85 was a great time in pop/rock/new wave. Then, in '86, things started to suck. The hair got bigger, the snare drums got slappier, the production became wet and shimmery, the songwriting started to get lame. There were so many bands that were great from '81 to '85 and then totally lost it in '86. Even great bands that never ended up sucking fell apart in '86. Van Halen started anew with the far-less-entertaining Sammy Hagar in '86 with "5150." The Fixx went from the great album "Phantoms" in '85 to the middling "Walkabout" in '86. Ultravox released the terrible "U-Vox" in '86 and never recovered. Berlin went from the fine "Love Life" in '84 to the MOR "Count Three and Pray" in '86. A Flock of Seagulls had lost guitarist Paul Reynolds by '86's totally unessential "Dream Come True." The wheels started coming off Modern English with "Stop Start" in '86. The Police never even made in to '86, other than "Don't Stand So Close to Me '86," when they weren't really a band anymore. I could go on.

Yes, there were a few notable exceptions. The Smiths managed to break the curse and triumph in 1986 with "The Queen is Dead," but then collapsed in '87 before the release of "Strangeways, Here We Come." U2 managed to make a classic album in "The Joshua Tree" before meandering through the rest of the decade without a clear focus. Depeche Mode continued to make great albums through the end of the decade and beyond, especially with 1990's "Violator."

There weren't many bright spots other than those from '86 on. What happened?

Deceptive political cartoon

2006-09-01T23:30:00.000-10:00

I saw this political cartoon in the local paper today and it really annoyed me. The cartoon unfairly and knowingly misrepresents the position it attempts to skewer, that of US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. It suggests that the judge is opposed to listening in to the phone calls of terrorists. "How dare you!" she says to Uncle Sam as he tries to discover the latest infernal plot. Of course, if that is the judge's true position, then we can lean forward in our chairs, jab a finger in the air, and say, "Aha! This judge’s position is ridiculous! It’s dangerous! It’s irresponsible! And worse, it’s un-American!"

That is seemingly what the cartoonist would have us do. But the argument is a strawman; a deliberate mischaracterization of an opponent's position, a mere mockery that one may assail with great gusto and smug flourishes. "See how foolish my opponent is? He believes the dumbest things! Obviously I am right." But these are schoolyard tactics. They are unworthy of mature political debate. Sure, it is always easier to attack the caricature than the opponent’s true position, because the counterfeit is a thing of one's own making and control. Easier, yes, but there is no honor in it. If done inadvertently, it may be excused to human cognitive frailties. If it is done deliberately, it must be rejected as deception and cowardice.

In fact, the underlying meaning of the judge's opinion is that the president is sworn to uphold and defend the law, not to disregard it at his convenience. He may use all constitutional measures to protect our nation from internal and external threats. He must work within the four corners of the law to fulfill the duties of his office. He may not assume he has license to go beyond those bounds. If the line is crossed, the rule of law and the fundamental authority of the Constitution are ruinously undermined. We would be as a nation of hereditary kings. This ruling, quite correctly, stands in opposition.

Let us not adapt the tactics of tyranny in order to defeat its adherents. Let us not become the beast in order to slay beasts, real, imagined, or contrived. Let us not turn our backs and hope the government will always act in our best interests, unchecked, left to its own discretion. And let us never give a free pass to dishonest political debate.

It takes all kinds

2006-08-30T13:45:00.000-10:00

It looks like there is an emerging environmental movement in American evangelical Christianity sparked by concerns over global warming. This is good for everybody, because it's going to take contributions from all over to address this problem. Now if they could only light a fire under their born-again commander-in-chief, we'd really be getting somewhere.

We are a nation of secular laws, and that is to our benefit.

2006-08-30T10:38:00.000-10:00

The Carpetbagger takes a look at the standard conservative Christian argument that our nation's laws are founded on the Ten Commandments. On Saturday, Katherine Harris tried to use that to explain her earlier ridiculous comments about the church/state division being a "fallacy." With even the quickest glance, you can see how that argument is nothing but religious sentimentality and wishful thinking.

How many of those commandments actually reflect our fundamental legal principles? How many are are actually the opposite?

Take a look and see.

Fox News is tanking

2006-08-30T10:17:00.000-10:00

The numbers are in and it appears that Fox News has lost a lot of viewers over the past year. Their primetime audience, for example, is down 28 percent from last year. I'm not sure of the specific reasons for the reversal, but it could be that their lusty cheerleading for war (Iraq or any other) and sycophantic Bush idolatry are ringing hollow with more and more Americans. Since Fox News has so strongly tied its fortunes to Bush and war, and Bush and war are very unpopular right now, it only follows that Fox News would get creamed, too. If they were not so transparently shills for the RNC, but actual journalists and reporters, I'm sure their fortunes would not mirror Bush/war so closely.

Paul Krugman: "Broken Promises"

2006-08-28T09:44:00.000-10:00

Paul Krugman takes inventory of things as we approach the first anniversary of Katrina. What he finds is a failure of leadership and a list of empty and "broken promises." Bush will try to distract you from that this week and tell you how it's been "hard work" and that "we're makin' a lot of progress." But don't buy it. It's the same old sh*t sandwich he always tries to sell us.

Juan Cole: "Republican Congressional Report on Iran Riddled With Errors"

2006-08-25T10:53:00.000-10:00

As much as the neocons would hunger for it, we can't do 2002-2003 all over again, with the made up intelligence and the rush to judgment and Middle-East quicksand war. If we let them roll over us and we repeat that terrible mistake with Iran, the consequences will be much, much worse.

They're like gambling addicts, losing at $5, then betting $10, losing at $10, then betting $20, losing at $20, then betting $40, losing at $40 and then deciding its time to mortgage the house, just to free up some cash. They'll double-or-nothing until their big strike comes in, not caring that the rest of the family doesn't want to play along. "I'm the grown-up, and I can cash in your damn college fund if I want to! Now get outta my way so I can roll these dice!"

Juan Cole doesn't want to play along, either, and writes up this knowing critique.

Latest SWIFT online

2006-08-24T22:48:00.000-10:00

Yes, the work of the JREF goes on. In this issue, yet another free-energy device, delusional breatharians, "true" ghost stories, Einstein the clairvoyant (really!), witchcraft for AIDS, and other illuminating topics.

Please go over and give it a peek.

"A State of Mind"

2006-08-23T22:30:00.000-10:00

We just watched "A State of Mind," a good documentary about the North Korean Mass Games. The Mass Games is an enormous spectacle involving hundreds of thousands of gymnasts, acrobats, sign-holders, and musicians that they put on every so often. Incredible amounts of time, energy, and dedication go into this celebration of the group, the leader, and the communist state. Each individual gladly surrenders himself to the whole.

The movie captures this huge event through the experiences of two young schoolgirl gymnasts. You get to see them train, but also see their home life and their classes at school. On one hand, you can see through the politics and find common elements of humanity in the friendships and family interactions. But every aspect of life in North Korea has a political element to it, as propagana invades every waking moment.

You feel for the girls and their families, even though they are among the most fortunate of North Koreans, living in central Pyongyang. You wonder how they would react to a walk through downtown Seoul, or Tokyo, or Manhattan. How would they handle a western supermarket or shopping mall? Or discovering the ordinariness of Americans, the people they are taught to hate and fear? The shock, the utter implosion of their worldview, of their understanding of life, would be devastating. I'm sure they'd manage, but it would be incredibly disruptive to their thinking.

The movie also shows the girls making a sort of political/quasi-religious pilgrimage to the mountain where the nation supposedly had its birth. The girls are overcome with wonder at the magnificence of the scenery, coupled with the enormous statues of Kim Il Sung, his "holy family," and his comrades in uniform. They come away from the experience reaffirmed in their devotion to "the General" (Kim Jung Il) and to the communist state.

Watching it, it reminded me of every religious retreat, every pilgrimage, whether to Lourdes, Guadalupe, the Vatican, Jerusalem, Salt Lake City, Mecca, Tibet, or whatever holy site a given religion cherishes. It was the same spiritual passion and awakening you'll see under any banner.

Unfortunately, as we continually observe, each fundamentalist brand of faith thinks that IT ALONE IS RIGHT. In fact, they're all so sure they're right that they either 1) welcome 2) accept 3) justify 4) excuse or 5) exult in their own deaths or the deaths of others (the type of response depends on the faith). Some reach for the guns and bombs with greater passion, others offer themselves or their followers up readily as sheep for the slaughter. In any case, that's what you get when people are so absolutely consumed with the specific and exclusionary rightness of their particular brand of faith. Heck, you might as well throw the neocons into the bunch, too. I'm not sure what their holy site is, but they sure do thirst for the slaughter.

In any case, it was a good movie. You can rent it from Netflix.

Cripes, here we go again

2006-08-23T16:22:00.000-10:00

This shouldn't come as a surprise, but reading it almost makes me wince. It's a bad omen all around:

"Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States."

Or as a "senior United States official" puts it:

" 'The people in the [intelligence] community are unwilling to make judgment calls and don’t know how to link anything together.'"

"'We’re not in a court of law,' he said. 'When they say there is "no evidence," you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term "evidence"?'"

It's just like before. The political wing tells the intelligence wing what the intelligence is and/or means. Anyone who stands in their way gets steamrolled. That is not good policy or good governance.

Does that sort of talk give anyone else the chills?

Robert Parry: "Is Bush a Clear & Present Danger?"

2006-08-23T11:41:00.000-10:00

Here's a good article that argues cogently that Bush was and continues to be a serious threat to U.S. and Israeli national security. His unilateral, inflexible, incurious, polarized, false-dichotomic mindset (e.g., good/evil, with us/against us, support the president/embolden the terrorists) is a one-way road to hostility and violent conflict. This was precisely the neocon strategy, and has proven over and over not only that it doesn't achieve its objectives, but that it creates the opposite effect than what was intended.

Instead of a birth of western-style democracies in the Middle-East, we see either chaos or the "wrong guys" elected. Instead of American prestige on the ascendancy, the reputation of America has been battered. Instead of destroying "the terrorists," we have swelled their ranks with eager recruits. Instead of a new flowering of peace across the Middle East, there is expanding bloodshed. The Project for the New American Century has been a complete, unmitigated failure. But their plans are still the only ones on the table.

Bush's unwillingness to change his mind or reconsider his approach, even as the consequences (and bodies) continue to pile up, places our country (and the world in general) in further danger. And that is every bit as scary as "the terrorists."

Reason v. old talking points on Hardball

2006-08-22T15:01:00.000-10:00

If the Republican party is ever going to regain its honor and America's respect, it's going to have to stop cranking out talking-points clones like Van Taylor. Take a look at this Hardball clip and you'll see what I mean. The guy is unable to respond to anything off the Ken Mehlman script--all he can do is keep repeating the old discredited RNC lines and catchphrases programmed into him. He is completely outmatched next to Paul Hackett and Chris Matthews. Now, I'm no Chris Matthews fan, but he does a good job pressuring Taylor to support his (Cheney-approved) positions. Taylor, seemingly unable to engage in reasoned debate, retreats to his comfy RNC mantras, e.g., "We're fighting Al Qaida over there in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here in the States." (That's not an exact quote but fairly represents what he says over and over.) One is reminded of a cult member; he can talk and smile and sing his songs for hours, but there's not really anyone at home. He relies on the high priests for his wisdom and nourishment, and cherishes the bliss that comes with the surrender of the self.

Ok, that sounds a little harsh. And I must give him credit, in all honesty, for serving in the military, especially during a time of war. But he gives every impression of being a little absent from this world of complexity and fact. We've got enough of those folks in government already.

(Thanks to C&L for the clip.)

Shortfall in the Marines

2006-08-22T11:26:00.000-10:00

The strain on the armed forces continues. The Marine Corps is facing a shortfall in personnel and will have to recall thousands of Marines involuntarily to meet requirements in Iraq and Afganistan. So how are we going to handle a new war with Iran?

With the constant drag on all branches of the military caused by this administration's reckless behavior, it is unavoidable that our ability to protect our interests at home and abroad have been compromised. Our all-volunteer forces have only so much to give, and potential new recruits aren't lining up for the administration's abuse. I would remind the right that such an approach is not conservatism, but something quite radical. The sooner the Republicans disenthrall themselves with the neo-cons, the better it will be for the U.S. and the world. The pendulum needs to swing back, and hard.

This Modern World: Taking Terror Seriously

2006-08-22T11:00:00.000-10:00

The latest comic from Tom Tomorrow is up.

Spot the Looney: Sen. Inhofe

2006-08-22T09:43:00.000-10:00

The esteemed Republican Senator from Oklahoma is out of his mind. Or maybe he's totally sane but living in a parallel universe where everything is upside down, inside out, that sorta thing. Only in such a world could our experience in Iraq be deemed incredibly successful, even "a miracle." Read the whole Tulsa World article an be amazed by the human capacity for denial. I can't imagine too many people would still buy that assessment, but in the land of the faithful, anything is possible.

Sure, it's a sign...of misrecognition

2006-08-21T11:03:00.000-10:00

It's amazing where you can find images of Jesus and/or Mary, or their various appendages: toasted cheese sandwiches, plate glass windows, wood-grains in doors, potato chips...the list goes on. But now you can add chocolate drippings. Yes, one could argue that the Holy Mother and her Son choose to appear in a choco-stalagmite to inspire and encourage the faithful in the food-products manufacturing sector. Or one could argue that the human brain is programmed to recognize faces and forms, and with little imagination can find them in clouds, inkblots, random scribbles, abstract art, and the like. Which explanation is more plausible? If you chose the miracle message, try again.

Frank Rich on fear in America outstaying its welcome

2006-08-21T10:36:00.000-10:00

Frank Rich provides a really good summary of the current state of affairs in fear-weary America. The hyperbolic terror message just isn't working for the Republicans like it used to. The administration and its allies in Congress and the media have used those plays so many times that people have started to grow tired of being hit over the head that way. It's about time.

Small town island

2006-08-20T14:53:00.000-10:00

Saw Leland and Duane Lee Chapman riding motorcycles on Kapahulu. They were in our lane right in front of us as we were driving over to Foodland. I recognized Leland right away and then realized it was Duane Lee next to him. It was just one of those normal Hawai'i small town moments.

Latest SWIFT online

2006-08-19T13:56:00.000-10:00

You can read it here.

Documentary about the neocons and their alter egos, the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists

2006-08-19T11:05:00.000-10:00

There's a remarkable documentary originally broadcast on the BBC that discusses the eerily similar rise of neocons and Islamic fundamentalists. In so many ways, they are like two sides of the same coin, from their motivations to their radicalizing influence in government to their perception of the world as a battle between good and evil. Both need a clear enemy to demonize, which allows them to marshal public support for their extremist agendas. Both accept and even welcome violence as a way to achieve their goals. Both developed as a reaction to western democratic liberalism and social permissiveness. Both have been a major destablizing force in the world. Both are unwilling to compromize their visions.

It's really instructive and well worth watching.

Updated Iraq Timeline

2006-08-19T10:53:00.000-10:00

Think Progress has updated its Iraq timeline. There you can find all the corners turned and impending victories. Then you can go cry yourself to sleep from the waste of it all.

On living in peace

2006-08-17T13:41:00.000-10:00

Living in peace may seem a futile act, but so is living, period. So is exercising. So is playing music and singing songs. In the end it is all for naught, because you are destined to decline and die. Any momentary increase of health or happiness will be lost sooner or later. If you judge futility and non-futility by this measure, you don't leave much in the category of non-futility. And you will be left fishing for motivation, or else give in to more primal, animalistic motivations. Humankind has too much destructive potential to fall into that cynical trap.

You cannot live in peace with yourself and everyone else at all times. However, your life will be a much better experience along the way if you make that your goal. That's the case for many other apparently futile acts. You have to try to make the world the way you want it to be, a way that reflects your higher ideals.

It does not create a peaceful self-denial. I don't think that understanding yourself deeply and wanting to improve what you find a form of self-denial. For me, denial is deeply dissatisfying and feels intellectually dishonest. But it is not the inevitable product of self-understanding and self-improvement. For many people, it may be the best they can achieve in life, but it's certainly not what I advocate.

He's certainly earned it: 34 percent

2006-08-16T14:05:00.000-10:00

It looks like Bush is still stuck on a ledge near the bottom. Only 34 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing as president. That's not quite down-in-the-dregs territory like Cheney, but let's just say Bush is standing on Cheney's shoulders at the bottom of a very big barrel. Which, come to think of it, is rather a good way to describe the Bush presidency.

It's just the hardcore conservative Republicans who continue to stand by their man. It seems they haven't realized that borrowing mountains of money from China to pay for Iraq isn't particularly conservative. Nor is destroying the military and squandering resources on a rush-to-judgment high-stakes war. But these are mere details, right?

Another magnificent "Word" from Colbert

2006-08-16T13:25:00.000-10:00

With the right wing and much of the mainstream media's talk about the Lieberman loss as a blow to mainstream Democrats and a sell-out to the radical fringe of the party, indeed to the "Pol Pots" of the Democratic Party, Colbert's take on the matter shows how ridiculous those arguments are.

Lieberman is in favor of the war in Iraq. Lamont is against it. If 86 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Americans are against the Iraq war, how is that a fringe or extreme position?

(Domo Crooks and Liars.)

More good faith assertions and honest political debate from the right

2006-08-16T13:21:00.000-10:00

In just the last few days we've had more reasonable civil discourse from our pals on the right. No, nothing shrill or bombastic, no outrageous characterizations, just careful, measured remarks. Bon appetit:

Ann Coulter: The "anti-war, anti-American wing" of the Democratic party is "absolutely in the ascendancy right now."

More Ann Coulter: If not for affirmative action, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters "would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat." Not to mention, "Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism."

David Horowitz: The Democrats are "being apologists for the terrorists and directing all their fire at the United States and our -- our defenses against the terrorists" and "are a serious internal threat now." Oh, and "We have leftists now supporting Hezbollah."

Rush Limbaugh: "There is so much anti-Semitism today in the Democratic Party."

Dennis Prager: Within the Jewish community, "there are those who believe .. not necessarily even consciously .. if I take the side of those who wish to kill us, I won't be hurt."

John Gibson: "The Khmer Rouge wing of the Democratic Party is making a bid for a complete takeover," and, in reference to the Daily Kos blog, "Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party."

Cal Thomas: The Lamont win over Lieberman "completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing."

Glenn Beck: "Good Muslims" should be "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head." He didn't mention how your average "good Muslim" would be able to distinguish your average "bad Muslim" from the general Muslim public before shooting him in the head. But he may have a big sympathetic ear from the American people, where 39elieve U.S. Muslims should be required to carry a special I.D., and only 49
hink U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.

And to top it off, how about those hilarious guys at the Republican Party website, GOP.com. In a banner they put up, somebody cleverly shadowed in a Hitler mustache on Howard Dean. Ha ha!

(Thanks, of course, to the good folks--and I mean that--at Media Matters and Think Progress for their hard work keeping on top of all of this right wing ugliness.)

Randi explains homeopathy

2006-08-16T13:18:00.000-10:00

I suppose homeopathy would fall under "alternative medicine," or rather, "an alternative to medicine." That's because when you pay your good money for it, you're buying only "the vibrations" of the active ingredient, rather than the active ingredient itself. And the less present the active ingredient, the more powerful it's supposed to be. If we could only feed the starving people of the world with vibrations. Based on homeopathic principles, the vibrations of nutrients should work even better than the nutrients themselves. Amazing!

Watch, and you'll see what I mean.

"Greenland's ice cap is melting at a frighteningly fast rate"

2006-08-16T13:17:00.000-10:00

A new article that describes the accelerating pace at which Greenland's ice cap is melting. When you add that with the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, you get ocean levels rising at a much faster rate then before.

Too bad, then, that we get these right wing guys with big financial backing to treat it all as a big joke. Build a wall around Florida? Have everyone move up to a temperate Canada? What kind of smug nonsense is that? If you want to talk about how raising fuel efficiency standards will ruin the economy (which it won't), try examining the financial impact of abandoning huge developed areas of coastal lands and/or erecting hundreds of miles of sea walls. This is insanity.

Article on evolutionary sources of religion

2006-08-16T13:14:00.000-10:00

This new article discusses a recent study that shows how humans are more likely to be honest when they know eyes are watching them--even if those eyes are clearly just pen and ink drawings of eyes. It also discusses how this could have served as an evolutionary advantage for societies. That is, if people believe there is a god watching them all the time who will punish them for bad behavior, they are more likely to do good and cooperate with their fellow citizens, helping their society survive. To what degree this is cultural training and to what degree it is hardwired in the brain is still unclear. But it does suggest how such beliefs would have been more likely to survive and be carried down the generations than a cultural lack of belief in a watching deity.

The mistake in reasoning would be to extrapolate that because this belief persists, it is evidence that a god figure is actually there watching, and that it was a god figure that programmed such a belief into our brains. Belief in something, whether "instinctual" or culturally programmed, does not make it true. That is to say, because the presents appear under the Christmas tree doesn't mean that Santa Clause put them there. The validity of the belief is a separate question that must be supported by evidence. As Carl Sagan would say, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. The claim that there is an unseen supernatural force--whether god, your ancestors, angels, Santa Claus, or some other spirit--always observing your every move, is certainly an extraordinary claim. So far, there is no evidence to support such claims, and certainly not extraordinary evidence.

Another mistake in reasoning that is frequently made would be to say that without a belief in a supernatural force watching your every move, ready to punish you for infractions, you will naturally act in a completely selfish, immoral way. This is a standard claim of religious leaders. For example, the more secular America has become, the more wicked it has become. Because the people no longer fear God, they naturally engage in a Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle, they cheat, steal, murder, etc. "A" inevitably leads to "B." That, of course, is not true. "A" and "B" operate quite independently. People who believe and those who don't have the capacity and desire for both good and bad acts. In fact, a quick survey of history and politics will reveal that societies who believe in a watchful, punishing god are capable of extreme acts of cruelty--often with the excuse that the deity has called for those acts, or that the victims have brought it upon themselves through their rejection of the true god.

There are many people who follow the golden rule not because the eyes of God compel them, but because it represents their values and hopes, and because their consciences compel the to do so. Live compassionately because you want to live in a compassionate world. Do not do violence to others because you do not want to live in a violent world. Be kind to others because you want to live in a world where people are kind to each other. Do not rape and pillage the earth, because you do not want to live in a world with a destroyed environment. Act in a way that would make the world the way you want it to be, and the way you want it to be for others and for generations yet to come. Do it even when you feel like you're just spitting in the wind. These principles are not the exclusive property of religions. Furthermore, this moral and ethical stance does not make room for the slaughtering of infidels, holy wars, the subjugation of women, or other common destructive plays found in many religious playbooks. This is stuff we need to think long and hard about.

Cosmos clip and homily

2006-08-16T13:11:00.000-10:00

Here's a clip from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series summarizing 4 billion years of evolution. I really wish he were still around. He had a great way of communicating mind-blowing concepts in an accessible way, at the same time appealing to our sense of wonder and our conscience. Knowing the history of life on our planet, and knowing we are the first species able to destroy life and habitat on a massive, global, catastrophic scale, should make us extremely cautious in how we act. With that terrible power comes great responsibility, and humankind has been far too lax about that.

Of course, if you are just waiting around for Jesus to come and give you your reward, it's much easier to wash your hands of the matter. Sure, the world's going to hell, you say, but that's because of the wickedness of the world, and it will only get worse before the Lord returns in glory. If you assume that war, suffering, and global destruction are part of God's plan, you can feel better about inaction, or even root for conflict (note the excited fundamentalist response to war in the Middle East). But if you believe that this life and this world are all we get, you are more inclined to defend and protect it. For all our sakes, let's keep fighting (nonviolently) for the common good.

"The God Who Wasn't There"

2006-08-16T13:07:00.000-10:00

Just watched "The God Who Wasn't There" last night. It's a provocative film about a very touchy subject, but (and?) is worth seeing. You can rent it from Netflix.

One of the points of the film that particularly resonated with me was that if you are to take the Bible seriously, and literally, as the inerrant authoritative Word of God, you cannot have the kind of moderate Christianity you see all over the world. If you truly act on what the Bible instructs, your thoughts and actions must be total and uncompromising. But when you do that, you run into all the inconsistencies, obvious errors, and historical inaccuracies in the Bible that then must either be ignored (which you can't do), explained away (which requires ignoring mountains of external evidence), or simply accepted (which requires a surrender of reason). The more seriously you take the Bible as the perfect bedrock of the Christian faith, the more cognitive dissonance, or cognitive surrender, one must undergo, or else begin to step back and compromise any difficult points. Furthermore, the emotional and psychological burden one must carry if one considers the Bible literal truth is considerable.

How do you explain the different creation myths in Genesis?

How do you explain the Noachian Flood in light of the fact that it isn't supported by historical or physical evidence? If everyone but Noah and his family drowned, are we to believe the Chinese, the Aboriginal Australians, the Sub-Saharan Africans, et al. all Jewish?

If the plagues upon Egypt were as written, taken as fact, why is there no evidence to support it? Why are there no contemporary accounts in Egyptian writing? Why is there no real evidence of the Jews being slaves in Egypt and causing all this terrible ruckus? It would seem a noteworthy series of events, and Egyptians wrote about many events of much less significance.

If the sun indeed stopped in the middle of the sky for one full day, meaning that the Earth stopped rotating, wouldn't there have been some serious natural consequences? And wouldn't anyone else in any other culture around the world have noticed and written it down somewhere? Why is it found only in the Old Testament?

How do you explain how Elijah was taken up into heaven, where according to Christian teachings no sin will be allowed in God's presence, and yet as a man Elijah was with sin? Also, he could not have known Christ, much less accepted him as his lord and savior, so wouldn't he have died and been sent to hell?

How do you explain the differences in the "begats" in the gospels leading to Jesus' birth?

Why don't the gospels agree on how many times, and when, the cock crowed?

Why do Matthew and Acts have such different explanations of Judas's death and the 30 pieces of silver?

If Jesus knew his fate, the reasons behind it, and his impending resurrection, why did he ask why God had forsaken him? Wasn't he God to begin with? How can he forsake himself?

Why, according to Matthew and Mark, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit an unforgiveable sin, though blasphemy against the Father and the Son would seem to be forgiveable? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. Taking that teaching at its word, anytime anyone even thinks in his head, "Awww, there's no Holy Spirit. That's nonsense." he is eternally, irredeemably damned. The blood of Christ cannot help him. All the begging and pleading for forgiveness, although totally sincere, will not save him. Wouldn't that make all of us guilty of unforgiveable sin? How effective was Christ's sacrifice if it couldn't cover all sins, especially one that was so easily and casually committed?

How do you go about life as a compassionate person without being crushed by sadness, knowing that most of your fellow human beings will end up in eternal damnation of a kind so horrifying, so total, that you can't even begin to put your mind around it? How do you feel comfortable being accepted into enternal paradise knowing so many others are condemned to the worst imaginable fate? How do you place that burden of knowledge upon a child without causing lasting psychological damage?

I could go on, but it's enough to tie you up into a psychological pretzel. One thing I do know is that when you start asking Christians about this, they tend to get defensive and uncomfortable, and then assume you are an agent of Satan trying to plant doubt in their heads.

Anyway, the movie is worth watching. I wish it were longer and even more in-depth, with more interviews with more people, but it did the job well enough considering a limited budget.

Jon Stewart's propaganda bit

2006-08-16T12:53:00.000-10:00

Here's the clip from last night's The Daily Show where Jon Stewart talks about propaganda (see prior post). It's just a shame that it takes "fake newsmen" like Jon Stewart to point this out to the public. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he does it, and he does it in a very funny way. I just wish the mainstream media also noticed the change and put it before the public in a critical way, rather than just repeating the message.

It seems like this is a big rebranding effort to turn the tide of public opinion before November. Maybe they are realizing that "stay the course" isn't selling well anymore, and they need something fresh and nimble to get more people behind them. That's fine, I suppose, but the way Mehlman treats it as if "adapt and win" was really the message the whole time, not "stay the course," is so cynical and contemptuous to the intelligence of the American people. But that's propaganda for you. "It has no internal logic or integrity to violate." That's Ken Mehlman for you, too.

(Thanks to C&L for putting up the clip.)

Jon Stewart on propaganda

2006-08-16T12:52:00.000-10:00

In reaction to the Republicans' new line about Iraq (it's not "stay the course," it's "win by adapting", dummy!) Jon Stewart had this insightful comment on propaganda:

"It has no internal logic or integrity to violate."

So true, and so regularly and cynically exploited by this administration and their waterboys at Fox, the RNC, FrontPageMag, the Drudge Report, in Limbaughland, etc.

(Thanks to Think Progress for posting the clip.)

Hold them to their words

2006-08-16T12:51:00.000-10:00

As the situation in Iraq worsens (over 3,400 civilians killed in July), and the faith in "victory" becomes increasingly untenable, conservative pundits are having to change their prognoses. Bit by bit, we're seeing that happen. (It seems even Bill Kristol is doubting the happy talk Rummy's been handing out.) But will they turn their harsh words of condemnation upon themselves for backtracking on their victory narrative? Wouldn't that be "emboldening the enemy" and "hurting the troops"? Media Matters takes a look at the issue.

Breatharianism: A Dangerous Delusion

2006-08-16T12:48:00.000-10:00

There is a New Age belief called "breatharianism" which takes as its central tenet the assertion that certain people, through enlightenment, are able to exist solely on air--no food, no water, just air. They believe that as long as the air is fresh, they are able to get all the nutrients they need by just breathing. As you can imagine, the more fervently one believes this, the less likely one is to live very long. So it seems that most who preach this belief hedge a bit by eating and drinking, but just to be social, not because they need to eat or drink to survive.

So an Australian TV show decided to put that to the test and contacted a prominent breatharian, who is the author of a whole shelf of breatharian books. She claims that there are possibly up to 100 million who believe in this and (presumably) practice it. She insists there's nothing at all strange about it, that there have been many people who have lived for years without food or drink, just fresh air. The show called her bluff and challenged her to undergo an experiment in which she would be monitored 24 hours a day, to make sure she doesn't eat or drink anything. She heartily agrees, certain of her success, and the results are just what you'd predict.

Take a look.

This Modern World: The liberal jihad against kindly Joe Lieberman

2006-08-16T12:45:00.000-10:00

Another good one from Tom Tomorrow. Seriously, this is the language the right has been using to describe the Lamont victory over Lieberman in CT. It's extreme, bombastic, inapplicable, inappropriate, uncivil, and true to form for those folks. This comic is really no exaggeration.

The answer is "yes"

2006-08-16T12:18:00.000-10:00

Joe Scarborough asks a key question of our times. You can tell that the guy from the conservative Wall Street Journal is really stretching to maintain the excuses.

(Thanks C&L)

"A Different Way to Heal?"

2006-08-16T11:55:00.000-10:00

Here's a really interesting video from the PBS show Scientific American Frontiers (hosted by Alan Alda). This episode take a look at "alternative" healing therapies--herbal medicine, chiropractic, acupuncture, healing touch--with a scientist's skeptical eye. In some case, is unclear whether there is any medical effect, or if there is an effect, what is causing the effect. In other cases, the therapies are downright dangerous. In any case, it's worth watching.

(It may take a little time to load, but I think it's worth the wait.)