BBC Schtuff

I was listening to the BBC World Today as I normally do at midnight (it’s my lullaby since white noise helps me sleep) and the following headlines jumped out at me:

Vanunu prepared for jail release. Apparently, he enlightened the world to the fact that Israel had nuclear weapons. (“Nuclear”, by the way, is pronounced “new-clear”, not “nuke-you-ler” the way some unnamed world leaders pronounce it. My O-Chem professor threatened to fail us if we mispronounced it.)

Grameen Foundation allows loans to beggars. I couldn’t find a link for this but I thought it was interesting news. Apparently, the poor are much better about paying back the loans and the Grameen bank hasn’t lost a dime on the loans.

UN Darfur mission ‘within days’. This is good news as I had a Sudanese classmate at the seminary and since he went home, I’ve been doubly concerned about violence in Sudan. (I wonder how Ruben is doing…)

I actually like the BBC better than any US news source because their news actually tells me something about what is happening in the world. There’s always a story about something in the US, but I hear about Africa, Asia, and other interesting places that the American media tends to skip. One could say that their news is indeed “fair and balanced”.

Dru Sjodin

GrandForks.Com: Sheriff says Sjodin’s body found

Dru Sjodin was kidnapped outside the mall where she worked and killed. A Minnesota sex offender was arrested months ago in connection with her kidnapping and death but he refused to tell where the body was. This is not the outcome that everybody wanted but at least her family and boyfriend can have some closure in this case.

GOP Foolishness

GOP challenges anti-Bush ads

This shows the GOP’s ignorance about what these groups actually are. They are groups that try to raise advocacy for issues that aren’t on Bush’s agenda. I have not had one mailing from MoveOn ask me to donate money to the Democrats. It’s usually something along the lines of “sign this petition to raise mercury poisoning awareness” or “censure Bush for lying about WMD’s”. The one time they did ask for money to be raised, it was for an ad during the SuperBowl campaign criticizing Bush’s tax cuts. It wasn’t a tacit approval for any party (since a lot of MoveOn members are third party voters) — it was a complaint against a move that they thought was unwise and was going to be harmful for future generations.

RightMarch.Com, the Republican answer to MoveOn.Org, *IS* collecting money for campaigns. Ironic that the GOP attacks the groups who criticize Bush and wrongfully accuse them of illegal fund collection when their PAC is engaging in the practices they are complaining about.

The GOP is even trying to cheat using the FEC. They want the FEC to quickly consider their complaint and then dismiss it so that they can proceed in federal court. Uh yeah… if you’re going to involve the FEC, you need to go through ALL the protocols and not go for quickie justice. What’s the point of going to them if you aren’t committing to a full investigation?

I’m thinking the GOP is getting real scared by groups that have a whole lot less money than they do…

9/11 Commission and Its Theoretical Prevention

Every time I’ve posted on 9/11 and Bush and anything complaining about the executive branch, Mike leaves me a comment alleging that Clinton did squat to protect against Al Qaeda or that we couldn’t have guarded against what happened on 9/11. Well Mike… I guess you weren’t in a position to be reading a lot on all this stuff for the last 5 years because you’ve missed the boat on this. Here are the answers to the many comments you’ve left me. 🙂 Oh yes, if you want sources, do a search at your local library on Muslim terrorists, Al Qaeda, bin Laden, and anti-U.S. propaganda. Much of this prior to December 2000 was in my Sociology 188 reader which I shredded when I graduated. (My professor was a jerk and I didn’t want anything having to do with him. They were all TIME, Newsweek, and U.S. News articles.) The rest were on CNN.Com and various other news sources that I kept tabs on for my Modern Middle East class.

What Clinton Did
-Bomb Afghanistan and Sudan after the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya to try and root out bin Laden and destroy his weapons-making capabilities. (Republicans criticized him saying that he went too far. Now who’s laughing?)
-Developed ties with countries where a lot of chatter related to Al Qaeda had been picked up. (Example: Jordan, the Phillipines, Indonesia)
-Attempted to expand authority of the intelligence agencies’ wiretap authority. (Republicans shot him down on that.)
-Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines in case of a biological attack.
-Fought to get more counterterrorism funding. (Again, Republicans shot him down.)
-Issued a directive to have Osama bin Laden assassinated. (Unfortunately, it was limited by Reagan’s Executive Order 12333.)
-Developed strategic plan and position paper on how to destroy Al Qaeda. (Too bad he was a lame duck president at the time.)

What We Knew That Could Have Been Useful in Preventing 9/11
-Al Qaeda had plans to blow up planes over the Pacific as early as 1995. (In other words, airplanes were a viable weapon.)
-Security at airports was more lax than it was in Europe. (Gore tried upping it but got shot down.)
-There was an elevated level of chatter that nobody bothered decoding.
-The FBI in Minneapolis knew of some suspicious circumstances at flight schools. (That agent was punished for whistleblowing. Ironic, no?)
-Bush and Co. dragged their heels on meeting to discuss all of Clinton’s plans to destroy Al Qaeda until September 4th. (He had ranch duties to attend to.)
-There were people on a watch list in the country and the proper agency did not bother notifying anyone about it.
-There was a report on August 6th that bin Laden was planning a strike on the U.S.

In other words, this could have been prevented if the various agencies had actually been talking and if Bush and Co. had actually met to discuss the Clinton plans in February as had first been planned. You’d think that our government could have seen this coming if a 21 year old Religious Studies student could figure out that something was going down in August from the news stories she was reading. I even remarked to my parents while walking through San Jose International in June 2001 that it was ironic that they let me take my pocket knife on the plane with me — I cut part of my knuckle off with that sucker and it could be used as a weapon.

It’s also been pointed out by many people that Bush had been focused on Iraq since the campaign trail and that was what he focused on instead of Al Qaeda. Guess what? Saddam wasn’t the one sending those planes and none of the hijackers were Iraqi. In other words, Bush screwed up.

We can’t take back everything that happened on 9/11 — it’s in the past and all we can do is learn from the mistakes that were made. The reason I want Condi (and would prefer that Dubya and Cheney went in front of the panel as none of what they would say would impair any current stings or hunts for terrorists) in front of the panel is that someone needs to admit to dropping the ball and I know that it wasn’t Clarke. This guy was with Clinton when all this was drafted — he KNEW there was a problem and tried to do something about it.

And for the record Mike, I wouldn’t have been opposed to the U.S. going in and removing Saddam if we had been able to prove the WMD existence post-1998. We could have easily gone in for human rights reasons (and I would have backed that 100%) but I guess that wasn’t important enough to justify going in for. And for the record, the Iraqi response was basically “you got rid of our leader — booyah! Now go away!”

A Letter to Dr. Michael Newdow

I wrote this as a sermonette for blogs4God. (It will be posted tomorrow morning.) For those of you who aren’t members of the portal or read the site frequently, feel free to let me know your thoughts here.

=================
Dr. Newdow:

I have read your website, heard all your arguments, and read quite a bit on your drive to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Having grown up as a northern Californian in an atmosphere that was much more progressive than other parts of the country, I knew from an early age that I had the right not to recite the pledge — I could even name the Supreme Court ruling that gave me that right. I knew that I had the right to not say the words “under God” if I didn’t happen to believe it; but that didn’t stop me from saying it, even in the days before I actually believed in God. Even as an elementary school student, I understood that my saying of the words “under God” was not a tacit endorsement for any specific deity or even that one existed. Becoming a Christian in my teen years did not add or subtract from any feeling I had about those words in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was something con safos that we just didn’t question because we knew that we could just not say it if we had a problem with it.

As I learned more about my First Amendment right to freedom of religion, I started seeing why a lot of Christians were up in arms with the ACLU. Other faiths had the right to practice and have their symbols displayed, but my Christian holidays and symbols were banned. Prayer was not allowed in school because it might offend someone (something I did understand because I had friends of different faiths) but most people who prayer was supposed to offend were very gracious about those times when it did exist because they understood that it really meant something to some of us. I had teachers who decried the teaching of creationism in school and voraciously pursued the teaching of the theory of evolution instead. They still respected my right to believe in Genesis as long as I could understand their viewpoint and repeat it back to them on a test. In my government class, I sought to understand how the Bill of Rights affected me and how it could be used in legal decisions. I pondered a career in law but decided in favor of medicine with another switch to religious studies two years later. In Religious Studies, I looked at how religion is something that is intertwined in every aspect of our lives from our language to the way we interpret the world. One cannot merely separate themselves from religion — it is a part of our every day lives.

Having studied religion as it relates to politics and ideology, I cringed when I heard about the lunacy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they sided 2-1 in your favor. It wasn’t surprising that they decided in your favor — they are overturned more frequently than any appeals court in the nation, but the decision sparked a debate over the place of those words in the Pledge of Allegiance. Democrats and Republicans were tripping over themselves to be the first to denounce the decision in a show of unity only seen before after the 9/11 attacks. That alone should have shown you the power of the change you wanted to make. Most thought that your case wouldn’t make it to the Supreme Court and would simply be overturned. I guess we underestimated your tenacity.

You have stated that “[you] have the right to be able to have my child in public school without her being indoctrinated with religious belief” and “this is supposed to be a public school and supposed to be religion-free.” I ask you then how you will handle your daughter reading the following works in her English classes:

East of Eden by John Steinbeck
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
Billy Budd by Herman Melville
The Chronicles of Narina by C.S. Lewis (the series)
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The Charge of the Light Brigade by Lord Alfred Tennyson
the poetry of Anne Bradstreet and Emily Dickinson

All of the above works of literature contain allusions to religion in some way/shape/form.

How will you handle your daughter’s world history classes as they discuss medieval Europe, a period heavily influenced by Catholicism? What about any Asian history which would cover Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese religions? Are you going to request that she be excused from class as they discuss the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment? What about her government class as they discuss the bases for our laws: the Ten Commandments, Englightenment and Deist principles (as these Framers you so adore quoting were Deists)?

You seem to be fond of science. What do you plan to do when discussing the origins of the world and she asks what came before the Big Bang (if you subscribe to the theory)? How will you handle it when she asks about the naming of the planets and moons as those come from various ancient mythologies? As I stated earlier, religion is entwined in everything we do. The words “good bye” are an abbreviated form of “God be with you”. Our days of the week are named for Norse gods. There is nothing you can do to escape mention of religion or some type of deity.

Another issue that has arisen from your lawsuit is the demand that “[you] want [your] belief system to be given the same weight” as other belief systems that profess faith in a deity. Did you ever consider that doing so would limit the belief systems of others? I’m not going to claim that atheism isn’t a belief system because it is: you have to be resolute in the belief that there is no deity and no higher power, making it a religion of sorts. You believe that all references to God should be removed because you do not happen to believe in one. What about the other 265 million of us who do? Do we not have a right to include words regarding our deity in our public expressions of patriotism? You can exercise your freedom of religion by not saying the Pledge and by not participating in civic events where prayers are said. You have filed lawsuits alleging that the government will not hire atheist chaplains, but you have not managed to prove that such people could exist, let alone serve the needs of the other 90% of our population who are not atheists like yourself.

You have stated with a smug and arrogant certainty that this will be a 8-0 decision in your favor. Given the statements of the judges regarding the frivolty of your claim, I wouldn’t put money on you having a victory in this case. You might think the Bill of Rights grants you freedom from religion, but you obviously mixed up your prepositions there because your freedom of religion is guaranteed for all of us.

Above all Mr. Newdow, you have failed to see that our government’s non-endorsement of a religion is the only reason you can practice yours. If we had a state church as some would like, you would likely not be allowed to profess your atheist beliefs and would likely be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the added words. If you want to keep your right to your beliefs, please refrain from abusing the legal system to infringe on my right to my beliefs.

C/S

The Best Move Ireland Has Ever Made

CNN.Com: Ireland bans smoking in workplaces

I think part of the reason I ended up with double-lung walking pneumonia when I was there 6 years ago is that I was forced to breathe all the cigarette smoke. It was so bad that there were times I couldn’t be in a place for more than 5 minutes before starting to smoke.

After living in California (which has very restrictive laws), it was strange to move to the Midwest where there are smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants. The local places don’t really separate them well and I’m usually gasping for my inhaler after going out to dinner. There’s talk of a ban on smoking in public places in Minnesota and I am overwhelmingly for it. People can go outside if they want to smoke. The ventilation is better then anyway.

And yes, I do believe that “smoker’s rights” is an oxymoron. I’m asthmatic. Your filthy habit has the potential to send me to the E.R., so of course I’m going to support any ban of your habit in public places and throw overwhelming support behind any taxes on tobacco. Deal with it.

Oy Vey…

CNN.Com: Thousands mourn Hamas founder

“There will never be any kind of peace or stability. This crime this early morning in Gaza is a dangerous sign for everybody, and we urge the American administration to interfere immediately to stop this escalation because no one is going to win.”
–Nabil Abu Rudeneh, Arafat spokesman and adviser

“The way [Yassin] was assassinated by the Israeli Apache helicopters and while he was in the early morning praying, without even respect to any of the villagers and to the beliefs of the Palestinian people. This was condemned strongly in the [cabinet] meeting, and it’s been decided that we will go to the Security Council, the United Nations.”
–Ahmed Qorei, Palestinian prime minister

“It is absolutely ridiculous to allege that the man who cannot see, cannot hear and who is on a wheelchair can constitute a threat to the biggest military power in the Middle East and one of the biggest in the world. That’s absolutely nonsense.”
–Hasan Rahman, chief Palestinian representative to the United States

“I do condemn the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin. Such actions are not only contrary to international law, they do not do anything to help search for a peaceful solution. I appeal to all in the region to remain calm and avoid escalation in tensions.”
–Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary general

“The position of the European Union has been consistently a condemnation of … killings. In this particular case, I think a condemnation ought to be stronger. These types of actions do not contribute at all to create the conditions of peace, the conditions of dialogue, which are necessary at this moment.”
–Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief

“We understand Israel’s paramount needs to defend itself, but we also say for Israel to carry the full support of the international community it needs to do so within the boundaries set by international law. It’s been the long-standing position of the British government that such targeted killings, assassinations, are out with international law.”
–Jack Straw, British foreign secretary

And the statement from our [sic] fearless leader [/sic] is?