Signature stamp

Imagine that your son or daughter was recently killed during one of the many battles in Iraq. While overwhelmed with grief and a flood of memories from their life, you receive a letter from the U.S. Military. In opening the letter and reading the condolences, when you arrive at
the signature of Sec. of Defense Rumsfield, you are shocked to see that he didn't have the decency to sign his own letter! Preposterous? Read on!

Two colonels in the Pentagon, under the cover of anonymity (in the Bush Admin., you comment anonymously if you want to keep your job and honor the truth) stated that Sec of Def Rummy has relinquished the time consuming task of signing KIA letters to a machine in order to maintain his tight schedule (including his regular squash game).

Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: “My son wasn’t a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren’t interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature – it’s a slap in the face, don’t you think?”

This administration continues to outdo itself in its insensitivity to people asked to make the supreme sacrifice. Despite the rhetoric and propaganda, it's fairly obvious that those in charge care little if any for the young men and women paying dearly for whatever our reason is for being in Iraq. When you can't even sign the letter to parents notifying them of their child's death, you aren't much of a leader at all.

Run Howard, run

With the Democratic Party failing to provide much of any opposition to the Bush administration, Progressives, Liberals and other folks committed to systemic change have little to be optimistic about in the short term. Short of creating a viable third party, it looks like we are in for right-wing ideology and demagoguary for at least the next four years and possibly longer.

The DLC, which has been as responsible for the party's shift rightward as any culprit, needs to be unseated if Democrats are going to be Democrats again. Once again being the party of the working-class, rather than the ruling class.

There is a movement afloat to draft Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I think Dean is one guy who could set the party back on its moorings. Not only that, I believe he could attract the kind of support among the grass-roots that the party has been lacking. Driving Votes is another "draft" Dean site, with a petition to sign encouraging the good doctor to take up the mantle of party housecleaning and reform.

If the Democratic Party has any hopes for mid-year success in 2006, let alone the Presidency in 2008, it needs to find someone to chair the Party that understands how to attract new blood--that man is Howard Dean!

Native shakedown

There are a number of blogs that I go to regularly. I've become a fan of their abilities to ferret out news and information. Many of them are the "new journalists" and reading them is similar to reading a favorite columnist or reporter if operating in a print media context.

One such writer/blogger is David Neiwert of the blog, Orcinus. Neiwert also guest blogs over at The American Street. His most recent article has to do with our old friend Ahnuld.

Apparently, The Governator has set his sights on Native peoples and has become sort of the spokesperson for the campaign to end tribal sovereignty. (link)

Neiwert references an article by Alan Murray of CNBC in which Murray champions Schwarzeneggar's attempts to "shake down the tribes for all they are worth". According to the article by Murray, “the anti-Indian movement is shopping for a national voice and face,” and seems to conclude that the leading candidate so far is Schwarzenegger.

Prayer for presidents

Tony Campolo proudly calls himself an evangelical, yet there are serious differences from the manner he practices his version of the term than many so-called evangelicals that voted for President Bush’s re-election.

Campolo, a Baptist and self-described bible-believing xian has been criticized by many who resent his more broadminded approach to the teachings of Christ. Interestingly, Campolo’s fiery benediction at the opening of the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library raised some eyebrows, particularly those of George and Barbara Bush and their son, the president.

Watching a rebroadcast of the event today on C-Span, the camera caught Campolo’s fiery prayer in which he asked God to bless Clinton and specifically prayed for the current leadership. His prayer spoke about tolerance towards gays and lesbians, for our country to embrace peace over war, to care for the impoverished and for our leaders to hear the voices of their prophets.

The cameras caught the lack of respect that the Bush family had for Rev. Campolo. While the Clintons and Carters had heads bowed in reverence for the prayer and the preacher. It was a moment that spoke volumes for the differences between those gathered on the podium. Son George had the same look of condescension on his face that he wore during the first debate with Kerry, when the Senator upbraided him on his policies, particularly in Iraq.

Interestingly, Google searches and other means have yielded nothing about this. It amazes me how the right can continually bitch about the liberal bias of the media, while basking in its adulation and free pass given to them.

There is an interview worth reading with Campolo at BeliefNet about the hijacking of evangelical xianity by the left.

Progressive Values

Whenever a new topic is seized upon by the media, the ensuing fallout can be mind-numbing, as well as stifling to critical thought. The current hysterical bleating about “morality” and “moral values” illustrate the phenomenon.

If you’ve been living anywhere other than a cave, it’s been hard to insulate yourself from the barrage of commentary regarding this subject matter.

Personally, I resent having morality or moral values defined for me. I am confident at my advancing age, that I’m capable of determining what is moral and right for me. I am particularly galled when others, lacking an ethical and moral core themselves, preach that my morality is somehow foreign, or “un-American”.

George Lakoff has an excellent article in The Nation about the differences in values between people like myself—considered progressive—and those morals championed on the right—considered traditional, American, or family in nature.

In his article, Lakoff clearly contrasts two sets of values, delineating the differences between them. (link)

He uses the labels, “moral values” to speak to common values that all of us hold; care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness.

He contrasts these with “idealized family values” held by many who voted for President Bush and who might be characterized as right-of-center; he characterizes these as being part of a “strict-father family model” that determines what’s “right” from a values set.

I encourage you to read Lakoff’s article as it thoughtfully looks at the issue in a less shrill, histrionic way than much of the current commentary about important differences in our country.