Friday, November 10, 2006

Irony is . . .

Irony is, sometimes, a humongous case of what goes around comes around . . . at the hands of the recipient of Goes Around.

In this case, it is well possible that don't-let-the-Pentagon-door-hit-you-in-the-arse, soon-to-be-ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be facing war-crimes charges in . . . the German courts.

And Rumsfeld is far from the only one.

Time magazine has the exclusive:

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are
General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case.

The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue
the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Radio, it's a sound salvation

Late in September, Baton Rouge Magnet High School's two student-run radio stations earned some well-merited attention from Louisiana Public Broadcasting. Here's the story. (Note: Large download; QuickTime needed for playback.)

It was cool to watch the kids having so much fun committing radio. I know the feeling, having been in their shoes at WBRH almost three decades ago.

I well remember what one girl described -- the joy of discovering that what you previously had derided as "old people's music" was pretty good after all. For her, it was her parents' music.

For me, it was my parents' music, and I learned to appreciate it while doing the late-afternoon big-band shift at 'BRH. The only difference is her parents' music . . . would . . . be . . . my . . . music.

Rock, soul, R&B. Old people's music. Old . . . people.

NOW WHEN THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN!?!?

Seeing those kids, in those studios where I spent so much time back when it was just WBRH-FM, 20 blazing watts at 90.1 on your FM dial -- and when KBRH-AM was still WAIL, a commercial station spinning the rock 'n' roll hits at 1260 AM -- well, it just made me feel good.

And it made me so proud of them that they've achieved what they have at an old school that's been so neglected and is, in places, crumbling around them. Achievement in such a physical environment is no small feat. There really is such a thing as an environment conducive to learning (which Baton Rouge High no longer is), as evidenced by this excerpt from a five-part study released by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber of Commerce in August:

Another aspect of school climate—and a frequently cited determinant of student achievement—is the state of physical facilities. Research shows that higher achievement is associated with newer buildings and overall facility conditions, as is improved health and attendance. In particular, studies show a 5 to 17 percentile point difference between achievement of students in poor buildings and those students in “standard” buildings, even when the socioeconomic status of students is controlled. Quality of facilities has also been linked with improved student behavior, fewer discipline problems, and more positive attitudes and relationships among teachers and students in general. In fact, research has linked the quality of facilities to the ability to retain teachers; in one study, this factor was even more important than teacher compen-sation to their decision to remain in a given school or district.

Of the seven in-school factors reviewed in our research, the quality of physical facilities was the only one where the Baton Rouge area apparently trails its peer regions by a substantial degree. Low investment in facilities appears to be a statewide trend. In fact, the Baton Rouge area fares relatively well when compared to the Louisiana average. For facility maintenance and repair, Louisiana schools spent approximately $133 per student per year, while districts in the Baton Rouge area spent an average of nearly $350. The average in our area is bolstered by high expenditures for facility repairs and maintenance in EBR ($578 per student), compared to only $160 in Livingston and $93 in Ascension. Nevertheless, the average age of facilities in EBR is greater than 40 years, and many lack adequate electrical systems, roofing, HVAC systems, and learning equipment/materials. Even after the most critical facility needs are addressed by ongoing capital improvement programs, approximately $600 million in additional identified needs in EBR must be addressed for facilities to meet official specifications.

The cost of maintenance, repair, and construction for schools throughout the country is rising annually due to higher enrollment, increased technology demands, and aging facilities. Construction and repair is primarily a local responsibility, which can lead to wide variations in funding and costs across school districts. Experts note that districts with low property wealth, numerous competing needs, and debt limitations face particular constraints in raising the necessary resources for improving school facilities.

You can read the whole thing here.

Now, as I've said before, if only WBRH/KBRH would put up a decent website and streaming audio so I could listen . . . .

Bono, call your lawyer. Please?



one bank on Vimeo

It's almost enough to make you pull for al Qaida -- almost, I said -- being that Western hypermaterialism has just completed its merger with modern unseriousness . . . nay, modern rank idiocy.

Corporate America, however, eats this Dumb and Dumber crap up with a straight face. It's Screwtape's oldest and best trick -- get idiot humans to debase what is beautiful (in this case, U2's "One") and worship what is ugly . . . or at least what is really, really stupid.

This level of mammon worship and corporate moronity is definitely enough to make you understand why there are Marxists in the world. Not that the Marxists have the answer to anything, but you can understand the "why" of it all.

All I can say is if you must do business with a global banking conglomerate, go with Chase.


(Hat tip: Mark Shea)

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Why doesn't God just kill the Devil?

I couldn't tell you exactly, but it probably has something to do with God loving the Devil, despite everything. At any rate, things will all work out in The End.

Nevertheless, Christians -- particularly pro-lifers -- keep acting like they don't have a clue about why God doesn't just kill the Devil, as they keep trying to outlaw sin.

And yet again, it didn't exactly work out, what with the South Dakota abortion-ban referendum going down in Hellfire.

Here's an excerpt from today's article in the Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus-Leader:
South Dakota voters on Tuesday firmly rejected a law banning nearly all abortions, but supporters of the measure vowed to continue pushing to further restrict abortion in the state.
With 91 percent of the state's precincts reporting, 55 percent opposed the abortion ban while 45 percent supported it.
Tuesday's vote ended a heated campaign that had drawn extensive national attention while dividing the state's medical and religious communities. Campaign spending trying to sway voters totaled nearly $4 million.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the group that forced the measure onto the ballot, called the bill's defeat a victory for reproductive rights.

"I think most importantly it sends a strong message to our Legislature," said Kate Looby, South Dakota state director of Planned Parenthood. "South Dakotans have had enough abortion legislation."

Earlier this year, the Legislature overwhelmingly approved the ban. A court battle would have been inevitable had the ban passed, as it was designed to pose a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

As the votes stacked up against the ban Tuesday, abortion opponents vowed not to stop their battle to end abortions.

Republican state Rep. Roger Hunt said it's too early to predict the next steps for the anti-abortion movement in South Dakota but said more restrictions could be proposed.

"We're going to take it a day at a time," Hunt said. "There are a number of things that can be looked at."Hunt said the state's health department is now considering placing
specific regulations on abortion clinics in South Dakota. The state's only clinic is Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls.

"I saw a copy of that a few weeks ago," Hunt said of the potential regulations.Campaign manager Leslee Unruh said the Vote Yes for Life on Six campaign succeeded in changing the rhetoric in the anti-abortion movement by emphasizing that "abortion hurts women." She said she expects similar campaigns against abortion to take place in states including West Virginia and Texas.

"They're never going to win, and we're never going to quit," Unruh said. "Women are being heard all over this nation and it started here in South Dakota."

Now, all of you Christian political activists out there, tell me again how America is really pro-life, and how it's just them mean old nasty Democrat judges that's holding back all us sanctified folk from saving every endangered child in the womb?

Listen, y'all. You couldn't even outlaw abortion in SOUTH DAKOTA, for Norma McCorvey's sake. What, pray tell, does that tell you about how "pro-life" the rest of the country is?

Of course, some sin -- like intentionally killing children in the womb, for example -- ought to be against the law. Unfortunately, abortion isn't against the law because, under our small-R republican system, Americans are OK with a woman having the right to decide her child must die.

I know you've had delusions this is not the case. But it is, and I hope South Dakotans have disabused you of that fatuous notion.

So, in selling your souls to the political right -- a bunch whose true passion is Mammon, not maternity -- so "we can get the judges," so "we can outlaw partial-birth abortion," so "we can get that Human Life Amendment passed" . . . well, haven't you just been putting the cart jes' a little in front of the horse?

Or elephant, as the case may be.

See, in a democracy, the majority -- more or less -- rules. And you ain't in it.

The Republicans, who aren't totally stupid, well know you ain't in the majority. Now, they want you as part of their majority, so they've been blowing smoke up your collective wazoo. That, however, does not change the fact that they KNOW -- even if you don't -- that you ain't in the majority.

Ergo, they haven't exactly been going all out to rid these United States of the scourge of in utero child homicide. Fetuses don't vote, and I don't know of any politician who relishes being the target of the absolute s***storm that would arise from taking away "a woman's right to choose . . ."

. . . to kill her baby.

Folks, you were at the dead end of the political road the minute you started down it.

To paraphrase fellow Louisiana native James Carville, "It's the culture, stupid!"

Be salt. Be light. Be teachers. Be servants.

Take all the money you otherwise would be flushing down the political crapper and build more crisis-pregnancy centers. Set up social-welfare societies for poor mothers and poor children.

Infiltrate the Eeeeeeeevil Democrats (TM) and be vocally pro-life in that context. And be nice to those who aren't.

Even if they're not nice to you.

See, you waged political warfare over a dubiously popular proposition, and you've gotten nothing but your asses handed to you. And the more you get your asses handed to you, the more you keep marching -- in perfect formation, I might add -- right into the Culture of Death's line of fire.

It's like the British in 1916. Or like Rumsfeld in Iraq. You know, the whole "Definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results this time" thing.

There's a difference between being "fools on Christ's account" and being Christian fools. Learn it.

It's about time (Or, 'One down and . . .' )


The good -- but years late -- news is on MSNBC today:

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The three were expected to appear in the Oval Office at 3:30 p.m. ET, according to NBC News.

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Military officials and politicians dissatisfied with the course of the war had called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in the months leading up to the election. Last week, as Bush campaigned to save the Republican majority, he declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.

Source: Cheney stuck by Rumsfeld

But sources told NBC News’ military analyst Bill Arkin that prior to the election, Vice President Dick Cheney argued with other politicians over whether Rumsfeld should stay. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and others said Rumsfeld should be removed, the source said. Both sides agreed the decision would be made after the election, when Bush would make the final call based on how Republicans did.

According to the source, Bush agreed Rumsfeld should be removed after seeing election results favoring Democrats. Cheney then lost another argument, protesting Gates’ nomination as Rumsfeld’s replacement.

Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Why we fight . . . this week

Lt. Col. Paul Finken died because we went to war because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and were going to use them against the United States and its allies

because Iraq had close ties with al Qaida and the 9/11 attack on America

to establish a liberal Western democracy where once there was tyranny

to stop the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites

to stop the slaughter of Sunnis

because we had to whack somebody?


For oil. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Lt. Col. Paul Finken died so you can fill up your effing SUV with under-$3-a-gallon gasoline. Hey, the president said it.

In Lt. Col. Paul Finken's home state, no less. From George Bush's campaign rally remarks in LeMars, Iowa:

Imagine a Middle East where the radicals and extremists were able to use oil to say to America, we're going to run your price of oil up unless you abandon your allies such as Israel, or we're going to run your price of oil up unless you just totally withdraw and let us be. And you couple all that with a country which doesn't like us having a nuclear weapon, and 30 years from now, people are going to look back and say, what happened to them in 2006? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What clouded their vision?
But I thought we didn't go to war for oil. Either now or back in 1991.

I can't even begin to imagine what the lieutenant colonel's wife and three daughters are thinking right now. God bless them all. And God rest Lt. Col. Finken.

A memorial fund has been set up here.

Eat Mor Chikin

The BBC says:

UK scientists have applied for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs.

Researchers from Newcastle University and Kings College, London, have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a three-year licence.

The hybrid human-bovine embryos would be used for stem cell research and would not be allowed to develop for more than a few days.

But critics say it is unethical and potentially dangerous.

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris -- a member of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee -- said: "If human benefit can be derived by perfecting therapeutic cloning techniques or from research into subsequently-derived stem cells, then it would actually be immoral to prevent it just because of a 'yuck' factor."

Stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical science.

Stem cells are the body's master cells and five-day-old embryos are packed with them -- each with the potential to turn into any tissue in the body.

It is this ability which scientists want to harness to treat diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, strokes and Alzheimer's Disease.

To do that, they need to have access to thousands of embryos for research.

Short supply

The problem is that human eggs for research are in short supply and to obtain them women have to undergo surgery.

That is why scientists want to use cows' eggs as a substitute.

They would insert human DNA into a cow's egg which has had its genetic material removed, and then create an embryo by the same technique that produced Dolly the Sheep.

The resulting embryo would be 99.9% human; the only bovine element would be DNA outside the nucleus of the cell.

It would, though, technically be a chimera -- part-human, part-animal.

The aim would be to extract stem cells from the embryo when it is six days old, before destroying it.

Ironic, isn't it, that when we banish all thought of God -- or the traditional humility granted to us through the notion of The Fall -- it is at that moment, in an intoxicating fit of rebellion in the name of "science," in the names of "reason," "freedom" and "breaking the shackles of oppressive constructs," that we render ourselves implausible and inevitably predestine our upcoming prominence on the Endangered Species List.

I don't know about you, but I've just become a devoted Chick-Fil-A man.

Monday, November 06, 2006

So much that's so creepy that's so stupid

Some semi-random thoughts about the Fall of Ted Haggard, and Christians, politics and idolatry. But let me give you a proper setup from The Associated Press:

The Rev. Ted Haggard has been fired amid allegations of gay sex and drug use, but the evangelical leader can still be seen at the height of his powers _ preaching to thousands and condemning homosexuality _ in the documentary "Jesus Camp."

In one scene of the film, which follows a group of children as they develop evangelical Christian beliefs, directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady visit Haggard's 14,000-member New Life Church in
Colorado Springs, Colo. He tells the vast audience, "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible."


Then Haggard looks into the camera and says kiddingly: "I think I know what you did last night," drawing laughs from the crowd. "If you send me a thousand dollars, I won't tell your wife." Later, another joke for the filmmakers: "If you use any of this, I'll sue you."

(snip)

"Jesus Camp" is playing in several cities and expands to more on Friday and throughout the year. Ewing and Grady said that when they shot footage for the film at the New Life Church in October 2005, they were struck by how enraptured Haggard's followers looked.

"Pastor Ted, they were so proud of him. They thought he was hip, young, he didn't have that stodgy James Dobson feel," Ewing said Monday, referring to the Focus on the Family founder. "They all really adored him, that's the first thing I thought -- those people, those faces, they hung and took notes on every word he said -- I can't imagine
what those people must be feeling."
Pastor Ted was pretty damn full of himself, wasn't he? Unfortunately for Pastor Ted's career -- but fortunately for his eternal salvation, perhaps -- Jesus Christ absolutely knew what "Art from Kansas City" did last night or, more appropriately, a few months ago.

OK, first things first.

BEWARE personality cults. DO NOT attend a church just because "Pastor So-and-So" or "Father Great Guy" is, well, such a seemingly great guy. (Another description to beware of: "Dynamic.") And FLEE any church or parish where "Pastor So-and-So" of "Father Good Guy" has his smiling mug plastered on every document, web page, publication and wall capable of holding a picture frame.

Anyone with an ego that big does not see himself as unfit to even untie Christ's sandals (Luke 3:1-17). And he, in his heart of hearts, probably thinks that foot-washing thing is bass-ackwards (John 13:1-17).

So, pastors, it's not about you. And, people in the pews: It's not about him; it's about Him.

And if you see your Mighty Favog's ugly-ass picture all over the Revolution 21 website, etc., stop listening. It will have all gone south. Anyone in the media who fancies himself a public servant ought to strictly limit how much they put their smiling "glamour shot" out there. Because, after all -- once again -- its not all about me. Or you.

Just like in church, where I am more inclined to trust Father "Oh Crap, They Want a Picture and All I Have Is My Driver's License" over Father Dash Riprock any day of the week. Besides, though a great and Mighty Favog, your humble potentate is a pretty big bastard much of the time. He's about as good idol material as Ted Haggard was.

Which leads me (there's gotta be a link here somewhere) to this whole "Religious Right" thing with the Republicans. I don't get it.

I mean, it's starting to look more like a postmodern Nuremburg rally than it does "bringing Christian values" into politics. Particularly this election cycle, and particularly with some "religious leaders'" unwavering support of getting American soldiers and Iraqi civilians blowed up good for . . . excuse me, Mr. President, but what were this week's reasons for being in Iraq again?

I'll know it absolutely HAS become a postmodern Nuremburg stiff-arm party if some brother or sister in Christ sees this and yells "He's a Jew!"

Or "terrorist supporter" . . . I forget.

Is it really because they have nowhere else to go politically that so-many Christians buy the GOP/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld line, or would they still be spouting the corporatist, pro-torture, "Cheap labor! More cheap labor!" party line even if abortion, the Supreme Court and gay marriage were political non-issues?

Is it REALLY because they have nowhere else to go politically that so many Christians feel they have to buy into so much that's so un-Christian because the Democrats are so "ungodly"?

Frankly, that's nuts. You don't fight Moloch by selling your soul to Mammon. Or to Militarism Without a Clue.

But there we are. There far too many professing Christians are.

Maybe it's just a Power Thang (Wall Street Journal article excerpted on TedHaggard.com):

The weekly conference call with the White House lets Mr. Haggard, 48, give the administration "the pulse of the evangelical world," he says. One recent Monday, he says, the discussion centered on Sen. Kerry's post-convention polling (participants were delighted there was no large "bump"). "It's useful to communicate," he says.

Mr. Haggard is also trying to boost evangelical voter participation. On Sept. 19, he will co-host a two-hour broadcast encouraging viewers to make it to the polls and to call their congressional representatives in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriages. The show will be carried on three Christian television networks and as many as 1,500 Christian radio stations.

Meanwhile, Mr. Haggard makes no secret of his support of President Bush. Of the three framed pictures hanging outside his office, two are of himself and the president. (The other is of himself and Mel Gibson, who pre-screened "The Passion of Christ" at a conference organized by Mr. Haggard.)

Hell, I'll bet that if some political candidate took every Red Letter out of the New Testament and turned them into policy papers, God Is a Republican, Inc. (TM) would call him a commie and ship him off to a Blue State.

And that's the truth.

Friday, November 03, 2006

We will raise our standards high, till known
from shore to shore . . . unfortunately

For all y'all dropping in because of tonight's Revolution21 podcast, welcome! And click on the poster to read all about what so vexes your Mighty Favog .

Time for Remedial Jesus Camp?

Well, well, well . . . .

Here's something from KMGH television in Denver:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The Rev. Ted Haggard admitted Friday that he bought methamphetamine from a male prostitute but said he never used it.

The admission came as the self-professed prostitute flunked a lie detector test about having sex with Haggard. Haggard stopped his pickup to talk to reporters camped outside his Colorado Springs home Friday and confirmed allegations that he bought meth from a Denver man but says he never had sex with him.

"I called him to buy some meth, but I threw it away. I was buying it for me but I never used it," he told reporters. "I was tempted. I bought it. But I never used it."

Haggard, 50, said he never had sex with Mike Jones, a 49-year-old Denver man who raised the allegations this week. Haggard said he received a massage from Jones after being referred to him by a Denver hotel.

Haggard, who was leaving his home with his wife and three of his five children, said he bought the meth because he was curious. He was heading to meeting of outside church leaders who wanted to discuss the scandal with him.

On Thursday, Haggard resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals association. The executive committee of the association's board scheduled a conference call Friday and planned to release a statement, the association said. Haggard had been president since 2003.

Haggard initially denied the allegations, which included claims that he used methamphetamines during the sex, but a church spokesman later said Haggard admitted to some of the allegations. Haggard -- an outspoken opponent of the drive for gay marriage -- also stepped down as senior pastor at his 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation by a church panel, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

And this, from The Rocky Mountain News:

Haggard said he was referred to Jones for a massage by a hotel in Denver. The minister said he travels to Denver to write books.

Haggard drew a silent stare from his wife when he told the gathered reporters that he received a massage from Jones.

Jones, who describes himself as a former prostitute failed a polygraph test administered Friday morning in Denver, when questioned about sex with Haggard.

The polygrapher, John Kresnik, said the results "indicated deception" but he also believed the results may have been skewed because Jones, was suffering from a migraine and didn’t get much sleep.

"I’m disappointed with myself," Jones said on Peter Boyles’ morning talk show on KHOW radio after taking the 90-minute polygraph. "I feel like I’ve disappointed a lot of people. I initiated it and I’m willing to accept the consequences of it."

However, Jones said he "would not back down" from his original accusations. He also said — at the prompting of Kresnik — to take two more lie detector tests after he got some sleep. Jones said he only got two hours of sleep.

The reason for the two tests, Kresnik said, was because there are two separate accusations being made — that Haggard sought gay sex from Jones and also asked Jones to be the middle man in an attempt to get methamphetamines.

Jones said he never got drugs for Haggard, but said he knew people who could get drugs. Jones said Haggard liked the drug because it "enhanced" the sexual experience.

Sitting in the radio station studio, Jones looked weary and his lips drew tight when Boyles played tape snippets of Haggard denying the allegations.

Kresnik said he asked six questions on the polygraph test and there were two relevant questions — both involving sexual contact with Haggard. Kresnik said those were the ones Jones failed.

"All I can do is call them as I see them," Kresnik said.

KUSA-TV reported Thursday night that a voice analysis expert compared a voice mail
recording provided by Jones to a recording of Haggard's speech and that they matched.

Jones said he felt sorry for Haggard, who stepped down from his position as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and took leave from his post as pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that "I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife."

Who knows, apart from Haggard and Jones, whether they did the big nasty? But you have to work hard not to laugh bitterly when the guy says he's been faithful to his wife and never had gay sex with Jones, but that he did get a massage from the ex-male prostiture and, yes, he did BUY METH but never used it.

And, according to the phone message, wanted to buy more after -- says Haggard -- not doing the first batch of meth he got.

Uh huh.

I guess Pastor Ted really does "luuuuuuv Catholics." He's -- allegedly . . . seemingly -- trying to be just like some of the worst, and most notorious, clergy that we've got.

God rest them, every one

From NBC News' Blogging Baghdad: The Untold Story:

I know that if Will had worn his uniform and walked into almost any bar in New York City, where I live, he would have been surrounded by people buying him drinks.

I believe that most Americans support the troops, even if they don’t support this war. It’s just that a lot of Americans don’t know any of the troops. And because so many of them don’t know a single person in the military, it’s really easy to go through the day at home without a single thing to remind you that there is a war going on.

A friend in New York -- an Army colonel -- described standing in his dress uniform in the
lobby of the Waldorf Astoria hotel. He said four people, all Americans, came up to him to ask for directions or help with their bags, thinking he was a porter.

When he suggested to a woman whose son was interested in the military that she send him to West Point, she was horrified. "But I’m glad we have you people to do that," she said.

Are memorials too sensitive for Americans to see? Deaths too sensitive to talk about? The war too sensitive to be covering?

You tell me.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Look what they've done to my school, Ma

Forgive me, please, for a point of personal privilege.

On Oct. 9, I wrote fondly of my alma mater, Baton Rouge (La.) Magnet High School, here. I loved Baton Rouge High then, and I love it still. I owe more than I can repay to my teachers there -- and to the school's very existence.


For all I know, I might owe Baton Rouge High my life.

When I walked through the doors of that grand old school as a sophomore in 1976 -- its first year as a magnet school -- it was the first time I didn't have to worry about being looked on as a freak for doing well academically. For the first time, school was a place to be cherished instead of endured.

And, for the first time, I was among classmates who all wanted to be there.


For me, Baton Rouge High will always be the anteroom for a world of wonder and opportunity. I wonder for how many kids 30 years ago -- and for how many kids today -- 2825 Government Street has been the portal to an alternate universe completely beyond their experience and largely beyond their dreams.

That is, largely beyond their dreams until they got there.

Eureka! Life beyond learning a trade or hiring on at the Exxon refinery or Exxon Chemicals!

For me, Baton Rouge High was a Eureka! three years. Just like, some years before, popular TV shows like Room 222 had brought this child of the segregated South his first Eureka! glimpses of an exotic and largely tolerant society.

Speaking of tolerance and the segregated South, Baton Rouge High was the first opportunity I ever had to attend a school where racial integration was anything beyond token. And where friendships were routinely and easily formed across racial divides.

At Baton Rouge High, I got a first-rate college-prep education.

At Baton Rouge High, love of learning was the norm. Hiding one's light under a bushel basket for fear of an assaultive redneck culture was not.

I am Catholic, and I believe in grace -- defined as "a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures for their eternal salvation." You want to know what grace looks like?

For me, it looked a lot like Baton Rouge Magnet High School.

From what I understand, Baton Rouge Magnet High still is a great school. From what I read nowadays, kids there still love to learn, and teachers there still work their magic.

How, I do not know, given official neglect such as this:


And this (note the gym floor and the bucket to catch leaking rainwater):


And this (remember, this is where somebody's children EAT):


And this (See the puke-green paint -- the bottom layer of the peeling globs? It predates my arrival at BRHS in 1976. That, I'm fairly sure, would make it globs of peeling LEAD-BASED PAINT. In the lunchroom. Niiiiice . . .):


And this, the boys locker room (Don't worry about athlete's foot; worry more about tetanus.):


And this, the girls locker room (Want your daughter dressing in there?):



And this . . . need water? Oh, wait, it doesn't work:



And this . . . (At least the kids still can do some weightlifting. Then again, maybe not.):



This is what East Baton Rouge Parish school administrators apparently think of the best high school they have -- perhaps the best the state of Louisiana has. Given that Louisiana languishes on the bottom of all the good rankings and at the top of all the bad ones, perhaps what has become of my school is just a big, fat metaphor for the whole damned state.


Not to mention a big, fat warning sign for any company stupid enough to consider locating in a city -- in a state -- where this is how much the civic culture supports public education. Remember, this is the creme de la creme in the Bayou State, and it looks like a Third World s***hole.


Kind of makes one wonder what the humdrum, run-of-the-mill schools look like in Baton Rouge, doesn't it?


Have you no shame, Baton Rouge? Have you no shame, Louisiana?


At long last, have you no shame?



(Visit the BRHS Alumni Association here.)

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Smart Catholic at LSU. Silly secularist at LSU.

Go read this great column by Emily Byers in Louisiana State University's Daily Reveille. Here's the clincher:

If you advocate abortion, you must be willing to admit that your mother had the right to "terminate" your life should she have chosen to do so. You must be willing to admit that your mother had the right to take a drug to expel your tiny body from her womb or to ask an abortionist to poison you, dismember you or by some other device end your life before you were born.

You're free of course to stand with the nihilists and cynics to say your mother could have aborted you, but it doesn't matter. You're free to cite reasons why "abortion should be legal but rare," such as pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or pregnancies which endanger the life of the mother.

On the other hand, you might acknowledge that abortion always means ending the life of a child in the womb and is therefore neither acceptable nor justifiable. This is why abortion is especially tragic for us: at least one-fifth of our generation was denied the right to life thanks to the "safe and legal medical procedure" of abortion.

We have no way of knowing what those killed in the womb could have
contributed to society. What if abortion murdered someone who could have
discovered the cure for AIDS? Or the next great saint of our times, the next
John Paul II or Mother Teresa? Or a future president of the United States?
Abortion has sent millions of our generation to an untimely death. Should your
mother or mine have chosen to "terminate" us, we would be victims not survivors
of the American holocaust.

Here's the exceedingly lame response, also in The Daily Reveille:

American statesman and reformer Carl Schurz said, "If you are to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors, there is no other.

"This month's back and forth dialogue about women's reproductive rights has taken a repulsive turn for the worse. For some, our arguments have become irrational and unsubstantiated and for others we have not made clear the exact implication of our line of reasoning. Regardless, we cannot explicitly make evaluations impertinent and offensive and expect to be respected or even taken seriously.

It is my belief that college is a place to unearth your identity; a cultured encounter of how to deal with others' convictions that may vary from your own, a chance to teach and be taught and an opportunity to holistically become a well-rounded individual who is willing to compromise and sacrifice even if it is just a small piece of ourselves for the
betterment of humanity.

Have we become so meddling and uncompromising that we think it's our responsibility to interfere in other people's private matters and condemn them according to our limited knowledge of their way of life? We can voice our opinions generously, giving out as much advice as is welcomed or not welcomed in some cases, but we cannot forget that ultimately it is the entitlement of a single person to choose what is best for their lives. No matter what amount of philosophy, ethics or logic we doctor our opinions up with it is merely a judgment, it does not suffice to merit complete certainty, nor does it make us experts on any matter vital or dismissive.

Here's my first impression: ??????????????????????

ALL RIGHT, here's my second take: As a former Reveille reporter, editor and columnist, I am -- to say the least -- disappointed not only with Shanelle Matthews' fatuous reasoning but also with her slipshod execution (pun unintended). Even wrongheaded opinions deserve a better airing than this, so that they might be more clearly understood . . . and clearly rejected.

Here is my brief response to the central premise of "none of your business." I respond as a Catholic, and as someone who sees radical individualism as a dead end . . . and a lonely one at that.

If you seek to kill your child in the womb, it IS my business -- as an American concerned for the impact your individual choice has on our collective existence, and as a human being grieved that you want to kill my brother or sister. A fellow child of God.

That. Makes. It. My. Business.

Not only is that baby's life not yours to take, your life is not yours to use or misuse as you please. You see, Christ bought and paid for it at Calvary almost 2,000 years ago.


Now, let's look at Ms. Matthews' lede:

American statesman and reformer Carl Schurz said, "If you are to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors, there is no other.

And if you are to be free, there is but one starting point; it is to have the inalienable right to exist. If the smallest, and weakest, members of the human race -- and biology tells us those would be children in their mothers' wombs -- haven't the liberty to even be born, we are utterly incapable of guaranteeing any measure of liberty to any of our other neighbors.

So . . . let's talk about neighbors for a second. From Mark, Chapter 12:

28
5 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"
29
Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
30
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
31
The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

And, for a pregnant woman, who is her neighbor? Without a doubt, her closest and most intimate neighbor is her unborn child.

Burning your neighbor to death with saline solution; dislodging him with RU-486; dismembering him and then vacuuming him up with a suction tube; or partially delivering him breech then puncturing his skull and sucking his brains out is not love. No matter how one tries to obscure the truth inside a semantic fog.

One does not free people by killing them. And one does not guarantee basic human rights through extermination . . . either in gas chambers or in millions of individual wombs.

Furthermore, if I have the fundamental "right" to kill my closest neighbor, by what twisted logic may society or its governors prevent me from killing whomever else I damn well please?

Which leaves the rest of Ms. Matthews' whining rant rather superfluous, doesn't it? I sincerely hope, during her LSU experience, she "unearths" an "identity" that does not confuse "individual freedom" with a license to kill.

The questions, my friend, are Blowin' in the Wind

It's been 43 years since Bob Dylan made this, his first national TV appearance on Westinghouse Broadcasting's Folk Songs, and More Folk Songs in May 1963.

The program -- videotaped in New York for Westinghouse's owned-and-operated stations across the country -- was hosted by humorist and radio personality John Henry Faulk, who was emerging from his "Red Scare" blacklisting. And on that program, we see Dylan performing -- perhaps for the first time in public -- "Blowin' in the Wind."

Funny, isn't it, that the questions Dylan asked of us at the beginning of his decades-long career are just as pertinent (maybe even more so) nearly four-and-a-half decades down the road.

How will we answer, then?

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Copyright © 1962;
renewed 1990 Special Rider Music

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Selective outrage, Senator. Selective outrage.

John Kerry is horrified, horrified at Dick Cheney's inadvertant honesty about being a torture lover. From AP via MSNBC:

“Is the White House that was for torture
before it was against it, now for torture again?” tweaked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Kerry, in his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency, had been skewered by Bush for saying he had voted for war funds before he voted against them.

The Mighty Favog -- and a lot of people like the Mighty Favog -- would feel a lot better if "Democrats for Human Rights" actually shed as many tears over innocent children murdered in their mothers' wombs (killing sanctioned by American law and revered as a secular sacrament by the Democratic Party leadership, I might add) as they do over alleged terrorists tortured by American goons.

Face it, a country that has no problem offing its own future looks just a bit silly getting its knickers in a twist over poor Mohammed getting waterboarded by the CIA.

I have a radical proposal: How about we get our knickers in a twist about BOTH? How about we outlaw the torture of Mohammed and the premeditated murder of defenseless American babies in utero.

Until you can manage to do that, Sen. Kerry, don't expect Catholics like me to look at you as anything more than possibly -- and I stress "possibly" -- a potential lesser of two evils (and a VERY MARGINAL one at that, even considering the full-blown catastrophe that is the Bush Administration).

A little moral seriousness, people.

Please?

1971: It was a different world then


OK, I admit it. The Carpenters are a guilty pleasure of mine. So sue me.

But you have to admit -- Karen Carpenter could sing like an angel. As demonstrated by this clip, from the Carpenters' 1971 network summer series.

That's right boys and girls . . . the networks used to have new series that ran during the summer, when the regular shows' seasons had finished. And then, with much fanfare and plenty of buildup, the new TV season would begin in the middle of September.

Why is it that some days I have trouble remembering my name, age and phone number, but I can come up with much of the 1971 ABC promotional jingle? Thanks to TV Party.com for filling in the gaps in my aging memory.


And here's another memorable TV ditty, back from the days waaaaay before AIDS. I remembered this public-service spot clearly but, alas, Mrs. Favog was convinced your fearless potentate merely had had a bad reaction to penicillin.

HA!!!!!!!!!!! There you go, dear!!!!! The proof!!! I will graciously accept your apology now.

The Mighty Favog is a merciful and benevolent Favog.

Friday, October 27, 2006

The miracles of modern medicine



Isn't it amazing how just three years of reconstructive surgery can completely transform one's identity? You'd never guess that the guy above (now known as "Tony Snow" in his White House flack job) used to be Baghdad Bob, pictured beneath.

Good on the former Iraqi information minister for getting a whole new start in life (and a much higher paying job). Ah, the miracles of modern medicine!

Hello! Nothing for to see at here. Moving along, please!

You know Mr. Conservative Local Radio Dude was talking about waterboarding. I know Mr. Conservative Local Radio Dude was talking about waterboarding. Dick Cheney knew Mr. Conservative Local Radio Dude was talking about waterboarding.

So whom do these people think they are fooling? How stupid do they think we are?

OK, stupid enough to elect Bush/Cheney twice, but that's beside the point. Anyway, a two-election run of stupid is one thing (and, hey, the Mighty Favog is calling himself stupid here) but buying this load is entirely another. From The Associated Press via MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer."

Human rights groups said Cheney's comments amounted to an endorsement of water boarding, in which the victim believes he is about to drown.

"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

And my children, once again we learn the truth of that wisdom from the ages: "There's liars, damn liars . . . and then you have politicians."

Y'all have heard about "yelling Uncle," right? I don't know about you, but I'm almost ready to yell "NIXON!"

I passed the stage of yelling "CLINTON!" a while back.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Tojo hearts Cheney

For those with lingering questions about whether our government has gone all Mussolini and Tojo on us, here's the latest from Vice-President Dick Cheney, courtesy of MSNBC and the Financial Times:

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney, US vice-president, has endorsed the use of "water boarding" for terror suspects and confirmed that the controversial interrogation technique was used on Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior al-Qaeda operative now being held at Guantánamo Bay.

Cheney was responding to a radio interviewer from North Dakota station WDAY who asked whether water boarding, which involves simulated drowning, was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney replied.

The comments by the vice-president, who has been one of the leading advocates of reducing limitations on what interrogation techniques can be used in the war on terror, are the first public confirmation that water boarding has been used on suspects held in US custody.

"For a while there, I was criticized as being the 'vice-president for torture'," Cheney added. "We don't torture ... We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth.

"But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture and we need to be able to do that."

Cheney said recent legislation passed by Congress allowed the White House to continue its aggressive interrogation program.

But his remarks appear to stand at odds with the views of three key Republican senators who helped draft the recently passed Military Commission Act, and who argue that water boarding is not permitted according to that law.
"SO," YOU SAY, "Cheney approves of waterboarding terrorist scumbags. So what?"

This what (from The Washington Post):

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,"
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

BUT WHY TAKE TED KENNEDY'S WORD FOR IT? OK, there is more detail and documentation in this column by Robyn Blumner:

Bush was strident in asserting that the CIA chamber of horrors or ''program'' could be open for business again. But at the same time, the president gravely assured us: ''The United States does not torture.''

Interestingly, we weren't nearly as blithe to water-boarding when it happened to our own guys during World War II. Then, we considered it a war crime and a form of torture.

In Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts, Judge Evan Wallach of the U.S. Court of International Trade, has documented the trials in which the United States used evidence of water-boarding as a basis for prosecutions. The article, still in draft form, will be published soon by the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

Among the numerous examples, Wallach cites one involving four Japanese defendants who were tried before a U.S. military commission at Yokohama, Japan, in 1947 for their treatment of American and Allied prisoners. Wallach writes, in the case of United States of America vs. Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita, ''water torture was among the acts alleged in the specifications . . . and it loomed large in the
evidence presented against them.''


Hata, the camp doctor, was charged with war crimes stemming from the brutal mistreatment and torture of Morris Killough, ''by beating and kicking him (and) by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.'' Other American prisoners, including Thomas Armitage, received similar treatment, according to the allegations.

Armitage described his ordeal: ''They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.''

Hata was sentenced to 25 years at hard labor and the other defendants were convicted and given long stints at hard labor as well.

Wallach also found a 1983 case out of San Jacinto County, Texas, in which James Parker, the county sheriff, and three deputies were criminally charged for handcuffing suspects to chairs, draping towels over their faces and pouring water over the towel until a confession was elicited.

One victim described the experience this way: ''I thought I was going to be strangled to death. . . . I couldn't breathe.''

The sheriff pleaded guilty and his deputies went to trial where they were convicted of civil rights violations. All received long prison sentences. U.S. District Judge James DeAnda told the former sheriff at sentencing, ''The operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country.''

But, obviously, not Dick Cheney . . . or George Bush.

It is not my place, on this non-partisan blog, to proclaim that we have voted ourselves over to a fascist -- or neofascist, as it were -- regime. It may or may not be the case and, at any rate, we shall have our answer soon enough.

That determination lies with you, dear reader. Listen to what the administration says, then look at what it is doing in our name and, finally, look at how we have dealt with enemies who have done the same.

Look at how torture is defined. Here's a definition.

And here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about torture:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. 90

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

What you, as a Christian and an American, are willing to tolerate is up to you. Free will and all that, don't you know?

Christ will judge George Bush and Dick Cheney, whether or not the American people get to them first. As He will judge us all.

Just remember that we all are accountable to God for what we do, what we fail to do, and for what we put up with. Lord, have mercy.