Worst President Ever Watch

The War-of-Choice in Iraq has now lasted longer than America's military involvement in World War II.

Hypocrisy Is A Family Value

A Baptist minister, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, has written an op-ed for USA Today that points out the hypocrisy of "christians" attacking homosexuality as an "abomination" while ignoring all of the other "abominations" listed in the same pages of Leviticus. Things like eating catfish, touching pigskin (football, anyone?) and talking back to your parents. All punishable by death according to Leviticus:

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

It would seem that Rev. Thomas will have his hands full convincing outgoing Massachusetts Governor, and republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Hypocrit-in-chief Romney came up with a new anti-gay stunt in the form of a rally against gay marriage on the steps of the state capitol. In case you might have missed the point that all "true" patriots oppose gay civil rights, Romney campaigned in front of a giant American flag while speakers blared out Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever."


Yet as Rev. Thomas wrote in his article:

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

Damn liberal Baptists. Next thing they'll be telling us to worry more about our eternal souls than about taxes. In any event, don't count on any republican candidates for president to hold any rallies on government property with "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Judge Not" as the themes.

Made-to-order Donuts

Will wonders never cease? There is now a donut shop in Boulder, Colorado where you can buy "fresh, warm donuts made to order with any of your favorite toppings."


Tastefully Toasted Donuts is a great idea. Learn more at this video from the Food Network's "Unwrapped."

Bomb Bomb Iran

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons (India's first bomb was named "the Smiling Buddha"). And India and Pakistan are in a state of constant war. North Korea has the bomb. Several former Soviet Republics have nuclear materials and/or scientists.

While South Africa developed nuclear weapons during the last years of apartheid, America was essentially silent. Yet it was widely believed that the racist bigots who ruled South Africa planned to use those weapons rather than surrender their sovereignty. The former Soviet Union and America came close to nuclear war on more than one occasion and somehow we managed to avoid direct atacks on one another. Ditto for China.

Yet Iran is the focus of an intense campaign to whip up political support for a US-led strike to destroy critical nuclear research facilities. Now, no one thinks Iran is led by well-behaved school girls. But Iran is by no means the only nation out there that, like, totally sucks. Is the only option to attack or be attacked?

So why the hysteria about Iran? Maybe it's driven by our irrational support for Israel. Maybe it's driven by the old hostage crisis. All of this conveniently ignores the long history of US interference in Iranian affairs (up to and including the overthrow of their government and the installing of the Shah).

Perhaps I'm being naive but I hope we can avoid bombing Iran. I don't recommend placing any major bets on the outcome. Anyway, this entire post is just an excuse to link to this song about America's foreign policy under Dubya: Bomb, bomb Iran.

Terrorist Recruitment Made Easy

According to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, the debate inside the White House is now between those who think America should briefly bomb Iran to make a point and those who believe America should strike until the Iranian government collapses. Oh, goody.

On the one hand are those comparative pacifists who want to attack Iran so that the Iranians will abandon their plans to build a nuclear bomb that could be used to deter future American attacks. Got it? And we get bonus points because once Iran realizes that building a bomb would only antagonize America and Israel they will also stop supporting guerrilla fighters in both Iraq and Lebanon. It's an easy two-fer.

“More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq.” The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, “the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran’s nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb.

Unfortunately, another argument is also coming from within the White House. This one assumes that the reason Iraq is a major fuck-up is because a handful of radicals in Tehran continue to thwart American-style democracy in the Middle East. The obvious answer: take 'em out:

The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ... unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney’s office “want to end the regime,” the consultant said. “They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran.”

Perhaps the Republicans should reflect upon this fact: Even though they lost both houses of Congress they aren't going to change anything about their foreign policy. Much of their attitude is derived from the fact that America was attacked on 9/11. So why should attacking the Iranians produce a different result? Isn't it more likely that the Iranian leadership would use an American attack to motivate their people to support even more involvement in Iraq and Lebanon? Oops, there I go again -- foolishly assuming that Republicans actually want policies that accomplish good things.

With only two more years before the next presidential election, the White House is trying to come up with a plan and a timetable for forcing, or at least frightening, Americans into voting for Republicans. Everything else has become secondary. Bombs away.

Why I Support Stem Cell Research

As if we needed another reason to support stem cell research, now we learn that test-tube Koalas are being produced in Australia.

20-20 Foresight?

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it," he told the New York Times. "It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney -- 1991

The Terrorists Have Won

'"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,' Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans..."