Memorial Day

Speaking of dead Israelis and Palestinians, from DailyKos:

"We are still trying to count, and to remember them as individuals, but with so many dead, it's hard to keep track. But we're making an effort, because to lose count is to lose one's humanity."
- Yossi Sarid

Faces of the Fallen

Stem cell letter to my Senators (Frist and Alexander)

Dear Senator,

I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of S.471. The same version of the legislation has already passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representative. This bill will allow for the federal funding of stem cell research. Given the medical and financial windfall that could arise from this research, I hope you will vote in favor of it.

This bill will help the citizens of Tennessee. The stem cells derived from human embryos will have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, which were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Prior to consideration of embryo donation through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment is required.

It will be determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

As you can see, the "embryos" would be destroyed anyways. You have the chance to help medical research find cures for a wide variety of medical ailments. There should be no opposition based on the rulings of Roe vs Wade. This legislation will help to promote a culture of life from material that is to be thrown away. I hope you will vote in favor of S. 471.

Craziness

"Although seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, and G.O.P. appointees account for the majority of judges on 10 of the 13 federal appeals courts, Republicans and others believe the bench is the last bastion of liberalism."

- TIME Magazine

Liberal media bias?

Michael Isikoff, the reporter who broke the alleged story about the Quran being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo, is in prime position to be demonized. He is a perfect example of the liberal bias that is so pervasive in our media. He wants nothing to do except to bring down the Bush administration and preach his views through his reporting. Right?

Isikoff can't be a right-wing reporter, could he?

Isikoff, according to his own biography was one of the reporters responsible for bringing Monica Lewinsky to light, interviewing Donna Tripp, and in the end, impeaching Bill Clinton.

Liberal media bias by the man who helped bring down Bill Clinton? Or an un-biased reporter looking for a story?

Definition

*pa·tri·ot: One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests. (Merriam-Webster)

What do you want?

From DailyKos.com:

What the right-wing nutjobs want to do:

1). Overturn Roe v. Wade, destroying a women's right to choose. To be followed by a federal law banning all abortions.

2). Eviscerate the separation of church and state. To be followed by continued attacks on science and the imposition of the teaching of one belief system in the classroom. Creationism as science.

3). Strip existing legal protections of the environment through judicially activist interpretations of federal law.

4). Eliminate workers and union rights.

5). Weaken civil rights protections through outlandish and unfounded readings of the Constitution and federal civil rights laws. End affirmative action, shred employment discrimination laws. Legalize discrimination against gays.

Word association

The word "Aryan" is commonly associated with fascism, racism, and Nazis. It is sad that a particularly divisive branch of government is the first thing that comes to mind when defining a fairly large and inclusive group of people.
In 1938, just before the World War II broke out, a German publisher sent a letter to J.R.R. Tolkien (the author of The Lord of the Rings) inquiring about translating his work The Hobbit into German. In the request, the publisher had asked if Tolkien was arisch, which was their way of finding out if he was a member of the "pure race." Particularly aware of the fascist government and his own German heritage, in his reply, Tolkien wrote:

25 July 1938
To Rutten & Loening Verlag
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter ... I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware noone of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject - which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.

I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and remain yours faithfully

J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien, among other things, was a linguist, having invented more than one language used in his books. He was aware that the word "Aryan" and it's derivative "arisch" were being used out of context. In Sanskrit, the Latin equivalent of India, the word "arya" was the word for noblemen. Plural became "aryan." This linguistic trait arose after the invasions of the "Aryans" from Persia. The modern Islamic Republic of Iran changed its name from Persia in 1935. The suffix "-an" is from Arabic and refers to a locale, similar to Pakistan or Afghanistan. The similarities between "Iran" and "Ayran" are obvious.

It's ironic that blond-haired, blue-eyed, nordic Europeans adopted the word "Aryan" because of its connotation with "master race." The influence of the Aryan culture did stretch over much of the known world at one point. The actual connotation of the word "Aryan" is far from what Nazis and white supremacists would like to believe. That white supremacists choose to associate with the traditionally browner, not to mention Islamic people, is very deserving.

Treason

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (who was a Republican)

1954

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954

No use

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
- John F. Kennedy

Obligation

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. "
- Galileo Galilei

Too big

"Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians."
- Chester Bowles

Civil War

A comment on Daily Kos alluded to a coming fight that right-wing religious extremism presents. The poster hinted that the next Civil War in the United States could be whether the guiding document of governance be the Constitution or the Holy Bible. And that there would be no compromise on either side. The idea of there not being compromise is what ultimately led to the last Civil War. Slave owners not only wanted slavery to be legal, they were opposed to anyone else saying the opposite.

Right-wing Christians believe they are being oppressed and picked on. They want to worship God in the way that is right and protect their ability to do so. The Constitution protects this right. It also protects people who don't want to do this. Going to church will soon be equated with conservatism, evangelicism, and support of a theocracy. Heck, even going to church and voting differently will result in excommunication.

Evils

"...the evils of mankind are caused, not by the primary aggressiveness of individuals, but by their self-transcending identification with groups whose common denominator is low intelligence and high emotionality. "
- Arthur Koestler

Filibuster History

From FactCheck.org

"The historical reality is that the filibuster was the means by which the segregationist South blocked federal civil rights legislation for many decades after a majority favored it."

"Filibusters continued to block serious civil rights legislation right up until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to muster the two-thirds majority that was then required to end debate."

Abraham Lincoln - Cooper Union Speech

Copied and pasted from Daily Kos. Definitely worth reading.
==========================================

And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. . . . Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . . Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

. . . When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor.

. . . Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. . . . When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? . . .

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" . . .

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . . Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

. . . Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Trouble

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
- Groucho Marx

No one

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Pastor Martin Niemoller

Interpreter

We went to see the movie The Interpreter last night. Overall, I give it 3 stars out of 5. Nicole Kidman plays a white African working as an interpreter for the U.N. She relates a, I assume, fictional story about tribal justice in Africa. I felt the corollary was to the attitudes toward capital punishment here.

When a killer is found, there is a year waiting period for justice. He is bound and taken out into the middle of a river. Then he is then thrown overboard. The family of the victim has a choice of letting him drown, or swimming out to save him. They can let him drown, and will be in mourning for the rest of their lives, or save him and move on. Hard to imagine. But almost seems like a good idea. Sean Penn's character says he would hold the killer's head under (for his wife who had just recently been killed in an auto accident)

Her quote is:

"Vengeance is the laziest form of grief."

Coal

"Like it or not, we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal's what we got."

- The West Wing

Conservative pundits

A quote from Steve Gilliard's blog:

"One of the great tricks of conservative pundits was to talk about ANY topic. No matter what it was, they had an opinion, got face time and then book deals. They saw this as fertile ground to extend the debate. We have to engage these issues and bring new perspectives on them."

This reminded me that yesterday, in the car with a friend, I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a bit mock the New York Times and attack the "liberal media bias" for a story about ugly children being less loved. His conclusions was that respectable media outlets shouldn't be running garbage news items like that. Since he himself, as a respectable commentator wouldn't comment on it. All the while commenting on it.
Respectable news outlets should be running more newsworthy items such as Limbaugh's denied appeal in Florida.

Who would you believe?

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, says that current military operations could "hamstring" any future actions. President Bush says, no, that isn't the case. So between the choice of the highest ranking, lifelong military man and the draft-dodger who went looking for WMD...I go with the military man.

Only one left...

Since when did Andy Card become the trigger man for the WH? Possibly because nobody knows him, and has a level of respectability that comes from anonymity.

Social Security

Means-testing for Social Security is a good idea. Bill Gates should not be drawing Social Security checks. The savings from limiting payments to the uber-wealthy should help keep the system solvent. However, 45 years from now, the politicians of the day will be faced with a new welfare system. The criticism then will be that the poor people are getting money that is a hand-out. And most people's reaction will be to end it. Fixing it is necessary 45 years from now. Understand how and what people will think then is just as important.