‘Honor Murder’ Redux

See previous post: ‘Honor Murder’

20+ dead in ‘honor killing’ reprisal

CNN Video: May 30, 2007:

Hugh Riminton of CNN reports on the ‘honor killing’ investigation and retaliatory massacre.

Twenty random Yezidi men have been murdered in retaliation for the April ‘honor killing’ in Bashika, Iraq, where over 2000 people flocked to watch a teenage Yezidi girl being stoned to death by her family for being seen with a Sunni man.

Read the original CNN article.

Read my own, small commentary.

Police officers witnessing the event did nothing, and no charges have been filed against them or will be.

In the CNN video, the Bashika Police Chief is quoted as saying:

• Things are friendly now, everyone has had their blood, and that’s enough.

Sadly, so long as religion bonds people in irrationality and xenophobia, it will never be enough.

*

See previous post: ‘Honor Murder’

Image from CNN

Rove: eBay Turns You Republican

The market-oriented & the center-right

In Jeffery Goldberg’s headlining New Yorker article, Party Unfaithful - The Republican implosion, Karl Rove interprets technological and religious “societal trends” as positive indicators for the future of the Republican Party:

Rove thinks that more voters now are being influenced by technology and religion. “There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” he said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.”

I always knew eBay was up to no good…

He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.”

Keep that in mind all you eBay buyers. According to Rove’s projections, the dollars you spend online now will later fill the coffers of the Republican National Committee.

Somewhat conversely, Rove describes aging baby boomers as looking beyond their materialistic years for deeper meaning:

As for spirituality, Rove said, “As baby boomers age and as they’re succeeded by the post-baby-boom generation, within both of those generations there’s something going on spiritually—people saying it’s not all about materialism, it’s not all about the pursuit of material things.

If you look at the traditional mainstream denominations, they’re flat, but what’s growing inside those denominations, and what’s growing outside those denominations, is churches that are filling this spiritual need, that are replacing sterility with something vibrant, something that speaks tothe heart of the individual, that gives a sense of purpose.”

Rove believes what he has always believed: that the Christian right and, to a lesser extent, tax- and regulation-averse businessmen will continue to assure Republican victories.

Let’s look at this age demographic of eBay consumers, from eBay’s March, 2005 Seller Central Report:

• 18-24: 7%
• 25-34: 17%
• 55+ : 22%
• 35-44: 26%
• 45-54: 28%

Auctionknowhow notes that more than 1/3 of all US internet users visit eBay.

With 50% of eBay consumers (many of whom are also sellers) closing in on or in their retirement years, should Democrats fear a Republican wave of retiring internet-savy entrepreneurial church-goers?

I have no idea.

But remember eBay’s tagline: Whatever it is…you can get it on eBay.

The “it” just might be Republican votes.

*

See also:

• Rove: Iraq is Lose-Lose for Next President
• Rove Riddance

Commemorate Our Armed Forces: Grow a Backbone

Democratic leaders display a history of backing down

I am reminded this Memorial Day of the following video run on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee website in the early summer of last year. An excellent campaign video, it was quickly lambasted by Republicans for a brief image of flag-draped coffins.

By the DCCC exposing the true toll of the Iraq war wrought by Republican leadership, Republican’s denounced the Democrats as unpatriotic and opportunistic. On June 13th, 2006, the Republican National Committee website roared the following ballyhoo: DEMOCRAT DISGRACE

Some immediately saw right through the Republican smear, such as Bob Geiger, who wrote in his July 13, 2006 post on AlterNet:

• So there you have your Republican mock indignation of the day, from the same people who have used the 9/11 tragedy every day over the last five years for their own benefit.

How did the Democrats, eager to wrest power from the Republicans and show their leadership skills, respond?

They took the video down.

Fast forward to May 18th, 2007, when in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, former Pres. Jimmy Carter declared:

• “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.

His statements received wide support, including my own, small commentary. His statements also received harsh criticism.

Newsweek summed up Carter backing down in the following way:

• Carter subsequently backtracked; after the White House branded his comments “reckless” and “sad,” Carter told NBC his remarks had been “careless or misinterpreted.”

Come to think of it, former Pres. Carter also backed down on the title and a passage from his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid:

Now the current Democratic leadership has backed down, as noted in a May 22nd, 2007, New York Time’s article by Carl Hulse: Democrats Pull Troop Deadline From Iraq Bill. The first two paragraphs summarize the article:

• Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

• The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.

The Democrats were obviously in a bind, having exhausted, what they determined, the politically viable options available to them.

Left-wing Democrats feel betrayed by Congress passing a war funding bill without prerequisite timetables for withdraw. This is compounded by a history of Democrats backing down when they should be leading the way forward.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC displays an example of this outrage:

To show true leadership and win the White House in 2008, Democrats needs to grow a backbone, set the debate, and quickly counter attack as they did in winning Congress last year.

Formally known as Decoration Day, Memorial Day began after the Civil War when communities set aside a day to observe the war’s end. My, how Memorial Day has changed.

*

——–

Listen to Steve Inskeep and Juan Williams discuss how Congress is doing on NPR’s Morning Edition, May 28, 2007: Click here for audio.

DCCC.org

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

Doug Giles and the Twelfth Commandment

Doug Giles is the center of his own universe

Giles asserts Christianity is the center of atheist morality

In the May 26th, 2007 article by Doug Giles, Hey Atheists … Get Your Own Moral Code, Giles argues that atheists can not have a strong moral code in which God and the Bible are irrelevant, and yet follow moral and ethical codes “similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions”.

The question is, why not?

Since Gaylord Parkinson/Ronald Reagan safely coined the eleventh commandment (they can have it), Giles must have proclaimed the twelfth: Do Not Mimic Me!

In Giles own words:

“The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions.”

Why is that a problem?

You would think that Christians would be pleased to have atheists follow moral and ethical codes similar to Judeo-Christian principles, even if they do not subscribe to a religious doctrine.

The evolutionary river of moral responsibility has many tributaries, Judeo-Christian traditions amongst them. Obviously the Bible has some good ideas in it, how else could it have endured so long as such a powerful force. But arguing that atheists cannot adhere to a moral and ethical codes similar to those in the Bible is self-righteous Christian egomania.

You can live a life with high moral and ethical standards without ever hearing of a book called the Bible. Judeo-Christian traditions are part of human heritage, and atheists living a life of high standards are going to use the most fruitful ideas humanity has to offer, while rejecting what they view as the rotten ones, such as religion.

Giles explains how atheists should act:

“If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn’t exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored—I sure as heck wouldn’t be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life’s glide path.”

Giles is mistaken in his belief that atheists have hand-picked parts of ‘God’s wisdom’. Atheists believe morality and ethical responsibility are human traditions, human principles.

Mr. Giles’ statements expose the root problem of many unnecessary tragic human conflicts around the globe and throughout human history, all stemming from religious perspectives.

Would the Crusades have occurred without the impetus or excuse of religion? Would the women of Salem have been viewed as witches without God in the mix? If the Middle East was secular, would there be as much conflict and tit for tat murder?

Many religions assert that their way is the correct one, and all others will suffer if they do not convert. Many faithful feel it is their duty to convince other people that they should believe in the mythology they do.

While Mr. Giles has the right to speak his mind, it is difficult to respect those who feel you are wrong (or simply going to burn in eternal damnation) if you do not share their beliefs. It is doubly difficult to respect those whose religious beliefs promote the indoctrination of others. Just the other day Mormon missionaries knocked repeatedly upon my door. What arrogance.

While Giles is not attempting to indoctrinate anyone with his article, he is claiming morality as if Christians invented it.

He asks to atheists the following questions and offers suggestions:

“Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don’t ‘cha? Don’t live by the Ten Commandments. Don’t live by the Golden Rule. Don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s our stuff. That’s the Judeo-Christian way.”

That’s our stuff?

I’m afraid Mr. Giles is mistaken again. Some of the Ten Commandments are simply common sense rules to live together in an honorable society, such as Thou shalt not murder. Um, duh. The “Golden Rule” has also been around a lot longer than Christianity and is packaged in many forms. I’m sure you’ve seen the poster:

Poster

By subscribing to religious doctrine the faithful are donning their belief-blinders, shunning the ideas of other religions, secularists, and philosophers, and unable to see the cornucopia of ways others choose to live a moral and ethical life.

Just as many once believed the Earth was the center of the universe, Mr. Giles demonstrates what many faithful still believe, that their religion is the center of the universe, and what is similar to it must be based upon it.

Doug Giles fails to recognize that morality and high ethical standards are principles created by people, not the divine. By following high moral and ethical standards, atheists demonstrate that you do not need religion or the belief in a supernatural being to live a life of virtue.

I’m sorry Mr. Giles, but faith and morality are separate issues.

*

More on Religion

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/the_universe/images/bigbang2b.gif
http://www.clashradio.com/doug_giles_2007.jpg

loljuxtaposition

Slate hosts a slide-show of lolcats and takeoffs

• Slate’s article by Michael Agger
• Jump to the slide-show

• Lolcats To Lolpolitics

The Simpletons of Terror

Tucker Carlson & George Pataki display a shallow depth of thought

On the May 24^th, 2007 airing of MSNBC’s The Situation with Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson hosted a discussion about Bob Shrum’s memoir on John Edwards with guests former Gov. George Pataki and Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter.

See MSNBC Video: Beginning of the end for Edwards?

Former Gov. George Pataki & MSNBC host Tucker Carlson display a shallow depth of thought in their interchange on John Edwards’ rejection of the “global war on terror”. Not only are they misguided on the matter, but they actually seem to believe what they are saying.

Taken from the MSNBC video link of the show:

Pataki: But I don’t care what he (John Edwards) said in 1998 in private, what I care about is what he said last week that we’re not really engaged in a clash of civilization…

Carlson: Right.

Pataki: …against Islamic fanatics - We are, and that’s to me what disqualifies him as President.

Carlson: Well I absolutely agree with that.

Did former Sen. John Edwards really say that our country is not engaged in a clash of civilizations against Islamic fanatics?

Of course not.

When candidates were asked by Brian Williams at the first Democratic presidential debate, “Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?”, Edwards refrained from raising his hand in the affirmative.

Edwards explanation of his stance is quoted in Mike Allen’s piece for TIME, entitled: Edwards Rejects the “War on Terror”:

And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as “a Bush-created political phrase.”

“This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do,” Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. “It’s been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there’s a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don’t think that’s true.”

Edwards clearly views the notion of a “war on terror” in a much more expansive light than the narrow, indoctrinated perspectives of Tucker Carlson and former Gov. George Pataki. Terror is a strategy, not an enemy. While protecting our country is rightfully the administration’s charge, Edwards rejects the “war on terror” as a battle cry and excuse for our government to do the unjustifiable.

Former Gov. George Pataki’s characterization of former Sen. John Edwards’ stance on terrorism is false, libeling, and deplorable.

Further along in the MSNBC video:

Carlson: How about his contention yesterday—he gave a speech to the council on foreign relations—saying that the war on terror is a bumper sticker. That there isn’t a war on terror, that there aren’t all these lunitics trying to kill us. What does that mean?

Cutter: Oh I think he believes that there are lunitics trying to kill us, but he also believes that over the course of the last six years this administration has reduced it to a bumper sticker slogan, not done anything about it, and that’s the problem. This has been a White House that has campaigned since day one and not governed. That’s the point that Sen. Edwards is trying to get across.

Pataki: I don’t think that’s the point at all. I think the point he was trying to make is lets look at domestic issues and forget for the moment the fact that thousands of people died on September 11^th, and I think that’s wrong.

Did former Sen. John Edwards really make that point that we should look at domestic issues and forget about September 11th?

Of course not.

Based on such a faulty premise, it is remarkable that Carlson and Pataki were able to sweep up (seemingly intelligent) Stephanine Cutter into a conversation on how there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 911.

While it is easy to disagree with Tucker Carlson and former Gov. George Pataki, they appear to honestly believe what they are saying. If we are to take them at their word, both Carlson and Pataki show a shallow depth of thought on what a rejection of the global war on terror really means.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616724,00.html

>Update: Add former Gov. Mitt Romney to the Simpletons list as well.

More on Tucker Carlson, John Edwards, Politics

Carla Marinucci Threatens to Obliterate Edwards’ Campaign Theme

http://www.sfgate.com

Sigh, and I was about to let it go.

In her latest unnecessary article on former Sen. John Edwards making money, San Francisco Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci includes her own blog post as the latest in a “pileup of headlines” supposedly undercutting the Edwards’ campaign theme:

“The problem now facing the Democratic presidential candidate is whether the pileup of headlines, including the latest regarding hefty fees from university speeches reported Monday by The Chronicle, threatens to obliterate Edwards‘ dominant campaign theme.”

Marinucci fails to mention that she wrote that latest headline, attributing it to The Chronicle instead.

If former Sen. John Edwards’ campaign theme deals with combating poverty as a moral issue and providing every American the opportunity he had, where is the contradiction in Edwards’ continual pursuit of the American Dream? At what dollar amount do you have to stop talking about poverty?

Carla Marinucci’s incorrigible fixation with quasi-dichotomous comparisons between lifestyle and rhetoric is stretching at best. Do we expect those in financial straits to lead the charge in curing poverty in this country? Who else but those with wealth, power, or the media spotlight can punctuate the need for addressing this issue?

This sets a troubling precedent for those candidates spotlighting their views on the issues most important to us. Will poorly premised articles like these expand to disregard presidential candidates’ views on the military if they have not served in uniform? Or perhaps the candidates’ ideas on helping the middle class should be shunned if they fall out of a certain tax bracket.

Of all the presidential candidates, it should be noted that former Sen. Edwards is the only presidential candidate highlighting poverty as a top issue (check the candidates’ websites), though Rep. Duncan Hunter does list the alleviation of poverty at the bottom of his online issues list, as the 25th most important to him.

Carla Marinucci’s fruitcake post has now drifted into small potatoes - the food pyramid continues.

In keeping with the posting-about-your-own-post spirit, here is a link to my previous post commenting on her previous post which she highlights in her latest article. Whew!

Tag! Carla, you’re It.

*

More on John Edwards

Paula Abdul + Loving Otters Brings Balance to the Universe

Paula in pain & otters in love

Paula Abdul has broken her nose while stepping over a Chihuahua. At almost the exact moment in time a video of otters holding hands was released on YouTube.

How do these two diverse events balance the universe?

I have no idea, but somehow it does.

And I thought everything was going downhill. Phew, thank you Paula, thank you otters, the world is in balance after all.

Otters holding hands

*

Carla Marinucci vs. Robin Hood

SFGate writer Carla Marinucci helps keep poverty taboo

Oh it is going to be a long campaign…

As if an immigration debate, a battle in Lebanon, and Bill Richardson announcing his Presidential run wasn’t enough for the day, San Francisco Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci had to bring fruitcake to the party.

In her SFGate.com blog, Marinucci highlights that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was paid $55,000 to speak at the University of California last year on the topic of, yes, you guessed it, poverty.

The irony!

Pointing out that former Sen. Edwards was paid “money” to speak about “poverty” must have made her toes tingle in excitement.

What this really does is help shun the subject of poverty off the presidential candidates’ speaking engagements. What millionaire under a microscope wants to talk about poverty when it becomes a negative story? And who better to express concern about poverty in this country than those running for President? (It doesn’t matter if former Sen. John Edwards hadn’t announced his candidacy yet, he never stopped running).

By using his affluent position to run a presidential campaign spearheading the issue of poverty, former Sen. John Edwards has donned his green tights, hoping to use the compassion and wealth of our country to help those most in need.

We need more candidates talking about poverty, not less.

The “irony” bit in Reality Bites must have been an outtake from Carla Marinucci’s interview at the Chronicle.

*

• Article quoting this one: Media Distortions of John Edwards
• More on John Edwards

—-

http://keithpr.com/2007/05/media-distortions-of-john-edwards.html
http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/safe_in_the_fire_swamp/2007/may/22/edwards/

Eschewing the Anti-Ostrich

Rep. Ron Paul: Snubbed for saying it like it is

In analyzing the so called ’second-tier’ Republican candidates, Jonathan Martin’s Blog on the Politico.com mentions Ron Paul last, with a single, dismissive sentence:

“Anybody who thinks Paul would be allowed in the building, let alone on stage, with the other candidates were it not for the fact that he has a “Rep” in front of his name, raise your hand.”

Why the shun the only candidate with anything interesting to say?

At the second Republican Debate, Rep. Ron Paul was truly the most articulate and interesting of all candidates on the stage.

Impressions left by the other ’second tier’ candidates:

• Rep. Tom Tancredo bit it much harder than Gov. Tommy Thompson did, even if Thompson looked like a Mr. Potato Head. Rep. Tancredo was literally unwatchable with his stuttered speech pattern and desperate sounding statements - The television seemed to turn the channel by itself whenever he began talking.

• Former Gov. Mike Huckabee needs to portray strength and vision, he already has the charisma.

• Sen. Sam Brownback looks too much like the father of “Archie” Andrews and is a bland as conservatives get.

• Rep. Duncan Hunter needs to talk about something other than the military, perhaps something uplifting?

• Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, unmemorable, except that he could lose a little weight

Not surprising, Sean Hannity seemed shocked by the FOX poll taken after the debate with strong numbers for Rep. Paul. The Anti-Ostrich continues to make waves on the internet and blogs. Whether or not this buzz will expand beyond the blogosphere is anyone’s guess, but for now, it is Republican eschewal that has become the new story.

The question is: What are Conservatives afraid of?

The answer, deep down, is embarrassment.

Campaigns and debates highlight the future - of a political party, and the possible future of the nation. Rep. Paul spun the debate on its heels, forcing viewers to look back at the role our (mostly Republican) government played leading to our current fear of terrorism.

Rep. Paul took us out of our comfort zone.

The soothing voice of former Gov. Romney, the belittling of Democratic candidate John Edwards by former Gov. Huckabee, the revered Reagan reminiscing, even the relaxed flow of questions had lulled the viewers’ collective consciousness into their daydream of America. Rep. Ron Paul slapped them out of it with sobering reality.

While other Republican Presidential candidates stick their heads in the hot sands of Iraq, cooing at the electorate, Rep. Ron Paul sticks his neck out.

*

See also: Ron Paul Driving Sean Hannity Crazy