Finding meaning: Tragedy and Hope

While covering the death of a Pope in Rome, my dear friend, and Newsweek Paris Bureau Chief, Chris Dickey, suffered a bizarre accident. He was blinded by a malfunctioning light while delivering a report on one the of television outlets. His account of what happened, and what he was thinking while not knowing how badly he was hurt, is his great writing at its best--highly worth reading! We can all find a hook with which to identify, and learn something new about ourselves.

Oh God! Politics and Religion!

A question I’ve been hearing recently—at least for the last twenty years—is put very well, and clearly, and hilariously, by Jesse Kornbluth in his Swami Uptown blog:

“Why would Jesus--who embodied Love--decide to die to save only those who believed in him? Why would He condemn the majority of the Earth's population to eternal damnation? That ain't love. At all.”

George Carlin famously put it this way:

“Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”

Before I give you my two cents, I must insert here what seems like a non-sequitor but is actually germane. I wanted to discuss a highly intelligent, thoroughly-researched essay about the germination and execution of the legislation known as the Patriot Act, which I have mentioned before. My nephew, who attends an Ivy League University, wrote this award-winning work when he was in high school. One of the most telling sections of this great piece describes the tearing down of legal mortar built since the beginning of our republic:

“Despite the last 200 years of case precedent which expanded the interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment, the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expands the power of law enforcement and encroaches on those precedents. The act was passed through Congress with extreme haste, and debates on the act, which normally take place on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives, proceeded behind closed doors and off the public record. The congressmen and senators were not even able to read
the text of the act before it was brought to a vote. The passage from conception to law for the USA PATRIOT act was one of the shortest ever in American history. The new powers granted by the act which violate the fourth amendment include: presidential power to confiscate any property under U.S. jurisdiction of a non-citizen who plans or carries out an attack against the U.S.; all judicial review of this evidence may be classified and be presented only to a secret
court; federal authorities may use, wire, oral, and electronic, taps and surveillance to produce evidence against those involved in plots with the threat of weapons of mass destruction or computer fraud; the government may direct or compel any person or institution to produce a person’s personal information who is subject to an investigation; greatly increased time periods on electronic
surveillance of any non-U.S. citizen; subpoenas for electronic information now include length, type, and duration of logon and service used, temporary internet connection number, and means and source of payment (credit card numbers and bank accounts); Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) can be forced to produce any information they have on a person if it is for the protection of life and limb;
the government can delay the notice to a person that they are the subject of a warranted search if disclosure of the search would have adverse effects on the investigation; the government can apply for a court order forcing businesses to produce records that are relevant to foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations; allows trap and trace devices, which track a persons electronic activity, to be used with a court order; trap and trace devices can trace all information pertaining to electronic communications except its content; all warrants issued for terrorism related activities extend nationwide; all warrants for electronic communication extend nationwide; U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction extend to any device outside the country owned or operated by a U.S. company which is used to harbor, transport, commit, or deliver a weapon that harms the U.S.; the attorney general can issue wiretaps without judicial consent; warrants, subpoenas, and court orders can be issued by a secret court which the public has no access to; the government can institute roving wiretaps where by anyone’s phone in the U.S. can be tapped.”

(Since there is no link available for this essay, anyone who would like a copy may email me and I will send it to them as an attachment.)

How this cogent argument is relevant to the ongoing questions of God and morality is, that after the argument presented above, my young relative concluded that the Patriot Act should be instituted by law, as it had been! He stated in the work that the law was temporary and up for renewal in three years—this year 2005—and, based on the need for some kind of additional protection following the terror of 9/11, he was in favor of trying it out. When I pressed personally for a further answer from his mother, my sister, she said my nephew just said one night at the dinner table, “I’d rather be bugged than bombed.” To which I refer you back to my prior discussion of the Patriot Act and my reference to what Benjamin Franklin said about a little liberty traded for a little safety: in that case you deserve neither.

Now about God. In the email I received from my nephew with his essay, which I so admire, he apologized for not writing “more I'm in the middle of a nasty complex paper on arguments for and against God's existence.” So there it is: God is directly involved in our deliberations once again. And I thought the argument over the Patriot Act was whether or not our form of government was going to continue to exist or not! I know well enough the academic brainy gesticulations college professors put on their students, so this “complex paper” of my nephew’s didn’t seem radial or out of the ordinary.
Pro and con discussions about religion are always interesting anyway, as long as they weigh more on the philosophical side than the “Jesus vs. Buddha vs. Muhammad” type of invidious assaults. Personally, I have been leaning toward a universal-tolerance vision which envelopes a single human race that is one with God. The Old Testament-New Testament ancient writings that come to us from out of the desert twenty-five hundred years ago are getting a little dusty. And that dust is piled on by the intervening meddlesome generations who have overlooked the spirit of the scripture in favor of analyzing the literalness of it.

So, to my nephew and anyone still reading, the Creator of the Universe, the definition of good, and love, would not punish, condemn, or even sit in judgment. My God would watch the children of God, and see what they were up to. Now just what are we up to if we’re going to live up to such an example of mercy and grace?

Delay and Clinton—Where are they now?

Several years ago: Congressman Tom Delay—wants Clinton convicted in his Presidential Impeachment trial. President Bill Clinton, impeached for lying under oath about having sex in his office.

Today: Congressman Tom Delay is a mess. Despite his being under fire for any number of breaches of ethics, if not the law, Congressman Tom, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, has called for a vote on the unbelievably unfriendly-to-us-citizens bankruptcy bill this Wednesday. It’s described in an email from Moveon.Org:

“…great majority of the families that declared bankruptcy last year did so because of a major life crisis—huge medical bills or layoffs—that threw them into a spiral of debt. Now, after a multi-year, multi-million dollar lobbying effort by credit card companies, Congress is poised Wednesday to approve a sweeping change in bankruptcy law that would make it impossible for folks who have been dealt a bad hand to get a clean start. The law actually gives credit card companies new ways to seize your home and car if you get into financial trouble. After accepting more than $620,000 from the lending industry to his various PACs, Republican Majority Leader Rep. Tom Delay has scheduled the vote for Wednesday.”

My point in bringing this to your attention is—Tom Delay was a major proponent and outspoken spokesman in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. So what are these two guys up to these days?
Delay is in trouble within his own party for skirting ethics rules and possibly worse. Today’s headlines say Clinton is funding ten million dollars to help AIDS victims in poor countries.

Salk Didn’t Get the Nobel Prize

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 marks the 50th anniversary of the Salk's Polio Vaccine announcement. For anyone associated with the heartbreak and tragedy of vaccine injury, this is not an occasion to celebrate. The widespread disagreements over the safety of this medical invention began with the confrontations between Salk, the promoter of the "dead virus" vaccine, and Sabin who developed a "live virus" version, and concerns over it's safety continue today. I even came across this dubious verbiage in an article in the Orange County Register, "Vaccines are believed to have eliminated polio in the United States in the 1980s." The statement didn't say "absolutely eliminated polio," because there has never been proof that vaccines actually work. Even more alarming, the only cases of polio in the US in the past 35 years have been from exposure to the live virus vaccine, not "wild polio."

I can remember the fear in the 1950's of contracting polio, of warnings not to lie on the ground, not to go swimming in public pools. I am aware of the awful malady of children in braces, or crippled and lying in iron lungs in order to breathe. I have learned that disease epidemics ebb and wane, and the decline of polio cases actually started prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the mid-1950's. Diagnoses from 50 to 75 years ago may have mistaken Polio for other diseases.

I also know how statistics can be skewed to show a decline in polio cases after the release of the vaccine. Statistics can be twisted to "prove" any argument. In particular is the testimony of experts that indicates a willful bending of the numbers in order to promote the usage of polio vaccine, a medical cash cow that the government could require be purchased for every child in America.

There are volumes written about the many possible awful effects of the polio vaccine, including the potential of causing cancer later in life, contracting aids, and on and on. While you may be confronted with editorials and articles this week expounding on the "great breakthrough in medical history," keep in mind the other possibilities--ever wonder why Salk didn't get the Nobel Prize? Were the Scandinavians not up to the controversy? Maybe they were better informed.

Reason #1: Why I Don’t Miss CT

After the ghost of the dead king appears, remember when an officer in the palace guard says, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” in Hamlet? I think something is rotten in the state of Congress’s relations with the Pharmaceutical lobby.

Sarah Lueck, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, writes April 1, 2005,
'Bioshield' Drug-Patent Plan Draws Fire: Generics Makers Fight Extending Exclusivity Protection to Areas Outside Biodefense
In case you don’t want to buy a subscription to WSJ in order to read this article, you can read about Senate bill S.3 here where Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center describes the issue and the conflicts.

The Wall Street Journal article depicts a proponent behind the bill:

“The most contentious idea, called wild-card exclusivity, is being pushed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. Under his plan, a drug maker that successfully develops a product to prevent or treat a bioterrorism illness or emerging infectious disease could get six months to two years of additional patent life for any product it chooses. As supporters explain it, if Pfizer Inc., for example, invented an effective new antibiotic or joined forces with a smaller biotechnology company to produce a new treatment for botulism, it could get more time to sell blockbuster drugs such as Viagra or cholesterol-lowering Lipitor without competition from cheaper generic rivals. Blockbuster drugs, which usually have numerous patents, can generate billions of dollars a year in sales.”

I wonder how this will help me. If a drug like Lipitor is allowed to remain under the patent protection, and not be available as a generic, if I were prescribed this drug I would have to spend around $100 per month instead of $10 co-pay under my medical insurance plan. Since Lipitor isn’t an anti-terrorist drug (it’s used to lower cholesterol), and the drug that Lipitor’s manufacturer, Pfizer, would have to make in order to gain this patent extension doesn’t have to be anti-nerve gas or some such “real” anti-terrorist thing, just new, this proposed legislation only serves to cost me money and keep the pharmaceutical companies from losing their patent rights on “blockbuster” money-making cash-cow drugs.

So if something is indeed “rotten,” my question is, what’s Senator Lieberman’s incentive to promote this rot?

Delay No More

Jonathan Chait writes in the Los Angeles Times a nice encapsulation of the history leading to Congressman Tom Delay's recent troubles, which I mentioned here April 2. Chait's summation is exactly right, considering Delay's claims of borderline legality in his shenanigans:

"DeLay has yet to be judged, but this much is clear: If you constantly violate the spirit of the rules, it will be hard to avoid the charge that you violated the letter."

Falwell Falters

Reverend Jerry Falwell has been in the hospital recently for severe pneumonia. As the world reflects on the life and death of Pope John Paul II, a man of religious conviction and authority, let’s look at some recent history of Falwell, an American icon of religious authority, also in failing health. As Orwell showed in 1984, mere words can have a power that lead to terrible actions. This excerpt from a book I have written which is not yet published, titled Pardon My Prejudice: America’s Excuse for Bigotry, presents an awful example of thoughtless ignorant talk leading to real bad deeds:

[begin book excerpt] "The fanning of the flames of bigotry against Muslims in America since the events of September 11, 2001, comes partly from the statements made by influential well-known leaders of conservative Christianity, also referred to as the “religious right,” as in “right wing.” Included in this group is the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Not a recognized expert on Islam, Falwell gave an interview for 60 Minutes in October, 2002, in which he stated,

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough…by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion…Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed set an opposite example."

Falwell is the founder of The Moral Majority, a membership of millions of Americans who follow his right-wing Christian point of view, which is practically a formal doctrine. This “doctrine” includes his outlook that Israel must be a Jewish state, because according to him, the second coming of Christ can only happen under this specific circumstance. His idea also stipulates the exclusion of Muslims being in control of any Israeli “biblical” territory. Then, after the ultimate war of Armageddon, he believes Christianity will rule at which time all remaining Jews will convert to Christianity.

The fact that this point of view is supported by millions of Christians means that it can not be eschewed as some strange claim of a fringe group. The views of Reverend Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other leaders of the right-wing Christian “Moral Majority,” are interpreted by them as mainstream biblical fact; they believe this is what makes an honest, moral American.

The truth is, Falwell, Robertson and others of the religious right, only represent a minority of Christian Americans. Just as the extreme point of view of the religious right does not represent the belief of a majority of Christians, the same can be said about those who follow Islam. Not everyone who is of the faith of Islam can be categorized as extremist as depicted by Falwell’s comments on the 60 Minutes broadcast.

Regardless of religious faith, it is the fanatics who are dangerous, not the religion. When asked about Falwell’s interview, Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relation in Washington, DC, said:

“Anybody is free to be a bigot if they want to. What really concerns us is the lack of reaction by mainstream religious and political leaders, who say nothing when these bigots voice these attacks.”

It is one thing for Falwell to have a platform to promote bigotry, it is another problem to have silence from the majority who could speak out against this bigotry. His comments only polarize the country, pandering to the simmering hate that he claims he wants to quell. Really his intent was to provoke a racist and blaming atmosphere.

In a Los Angeles Times article almost two weeks later, the Executive Board of the National Council of Churches finally said “Falwell’s remark…was uninformed and dangerous. This council called on President Bush to repudiate Falwell’s words.” [LA TIMES 10/12/02]

They wanted the President to speak out against Falwell and bigoted statements like these. In fact, Falwell’s Moral Majority is Bush’s political base. George W. Bush listens to, and believes in, the Christian right wing in this country, even though they are a minority as small as one-fifth of all Christians.

After the interview on 60 Minutes, the effects of Falwell’s words were put into action. Conflict arose, and killing was the outcome.
The headline read, “Nine people dead” [LA TIMES 10/13/02]
Muslims were angered around the world due to what Falwell said about their founder and prophet, Muhammad, being a terrorist, and Hindu-Muslim clashes in India resulted in death. This incident took place the next day after Falwell’s remarks.

It is hard to "unring" a bell. It is hard to take back words. These statements incited global anger that resulted in people killing one another. Under enormous pressure, Falwell apologized for his remarks. He stated he meant no disrespect to “any sincere, law-abiding Muslim.” Still, his intent to justify his words displayed a lack of integrity.

An editorial by Benjamin J. Hubbard, describes the ripple effect words have. Hubbard is professor and chair of the department of comparative religion at Cal State Fullerton. He wrote,

“Evil and ignorant words—whether directed against a religion, a racial group or a minority such as gays and lesbians—have the power to incite hatred and violence. Falwell and his anti-Muslim ilk, and the world’s anti-Semites, need to consider the spiritual pain and potential verbal and physical abuse their words can cause to Muslims or Jews. Correspondingly, the courageous words and deeds of good people, in opposing ignorance and hate, have the power to blunt bigotry and
mend the world.”[LA TIMES 10/13/02]

If anything good can come out of this it is the idea that we have the power through our words to build bridges rather than create divisions. If a platform can be provided for bigotry, why not create a bigger stage for tolerance and acceptance? If the news media want to give a balanced point of view, then when an interview with Falwell is aired, why not also put on a spokesperson who can educate and inform with the truth." [end book excerpt]

In honoring Pope John Paul II, we can recall his reaching out to all religions of the world, and to all people. That memory can “have the power to blunt bigotry and mend the world.”

Mandatory Schmandatory! Watch Your Ass!

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center, has a poignant and fact-filled warning for those of us at the mercy of the "mandatory" vaccine program. It comes in the form of an introductory email from NVIC regarding a "...vaccine...to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts."

"In the past 50 years, there hasn't been a vaccine developed and produced by drug companies for children and adolescents that hasn't eventually found its way into state mandatory vaccination laws. The STD (sexually transmitted disease) vaccines now being developed by drug companies and promoted by the CDC's behaviorists and social engineers will target adolescents. During the past decade, many state legislatures have been successfully lobbied by Pharma and government health officials to allow state health department officials to add new vaccines to the mandatory list under rule making authority instead of by a vote of the legislature. Unless the people take back the power to influence the public health laws which govern them through their elected representatives, they and their children will be forced to take vaccines that unelected government bureaucrats tell them they must take."

How much less in control can we be?

Could Stewart Spin O'Reilly?

Jesse Kornbluth (Swami Uptown) has some nice quotes from Bill O'Reilly about Pope John Paul II when Bush was getting ready to invade Iraq. Evidently His Holiness wasn't on Bill's "nice" list at that time. Makes me wonder if O'Reilly were to appear on the Jon Stewart Daily Show, would he finally enter the no spin zone? There's more real "Fair and Balanced" reporting at the Comedy Central emmy-winning Daily Show than there ever is on The O'Reilly Factor. It seems like O'Reilly is entertainment with some facts, while Stewart is news with a lot of comedy. I stopped watching O'Reilly, and even the air around me is cleaner. That The O'Reilly Factor is the number one rated cable news show means the rest of us have to work to maintain the balance.

Nazis Warned of the "Non-Aryan" Conspiracy

Just when I thought I knew about all the issues of the Holocaust, a documentary movie comes along with a stunning telling of how the American film and television industries handled the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust, aired on AMC last night (April 6, 2005), and a review by Kevin Crust can be found in the Los Angeles Times. The key to this film’s importance lies in the depiction of how much was known, and how little was done, by Americans, both to help the Jews in Europe and to stop the spread of Hitler’s occupation.

I was shocked to see a full page headline in the New York Daily News, from 1940—over a year before Pearl Harbor and US entry into the war—stating that Jews were being rounded up and taken to concentration camps. It may not have been widely known, or too unbelievable at the time, that with the round ups came the murder of these people. I remember my dad telling me that in the early 1940’s, when he was a teenager, he didn't think anyone was aware of the killing of civilians going on in Europe. Actually, until watching the documentary, I did not recall that 1 million Jews were executed by firing squad by 1940. I thought most died in the camps.

Germany was a great revenue source for foreign film distribution prior to World War II. Therefore, references in the documentary show the studio heads, most of whom were immigrant Jews, capitulating to the Nazi wish that Jewish workers in the distribution centers in Germany be fired; in an effort not to offend the Third Reich, the word “non-Aryan” was substituted for the word “Jew” in the 1940 film “Mortal Storm” so that the racism was watered down.

While these facts are interesting, why do we need to know these details in order to better understand the events in Europe and the domestic response to these events? Steven Spielberg speaks over the frightening images on the screen, from newsreels and Hollywood feature films of the era. Despite the views of fearful and despondent people, he says that only an actual Holocaust survivor could truly understand the real horror. This and other commentary gives substance to Crust’s conclusion about the documentary director’s point of view:

“Anker seems to suggest that while it is important ‘how you bear witness,’ it is equally valuable that the stories be told, period. In an environment in which the perceived faults of a film or series can be debated, as with ‘Holocaust’ and ‘Schindler's List,’ their flaws are outweighed by the fact that they bring the stories to a younger audience.”

I’ve Got a Really Bad Feeling About This

Two famous quotes come to mind immediately when the subject of the Patriot Act, legislation passed after 9/11/2001 to make it easier for law enforcement to detain suspected terrorists, comes up. One quote is from a Founding Father of the United States, and the other is from an opponent of Nazism and holocaust survivor.

During an argument in the American Continental Congress regarding the use of the term “Tyrant” to describe King George in the proposed Declaration of Independence, a proponent for the removal of the word asked why Jefferson thought the English Monarch was a “tyrant.” Jefferson responded that the invasion of homes without a warrant, people held without being charged, and more usurpations of British freedoms on the colonists, made King George a “tyrant.” The delegate who wanted “tyrant” deleted from the document, agreed that the acts against British citizens in the colonies were indeed troublesome, but he said, “These are dangerous times.” To this remark, Benjamin Franklin noted,

“Be careful—anyone willing to give up a few liberties for the sake of some temporary safety, deserves neither liberty, nor safety.”

Franklin culled from 7 decades of experience both abroad and in America to come up with this profound warning.

Martin Niemöller was a pastor in Berlin who opposed Hitler’s actions. As Niemöller spoke later in life about the events of the 1930’s and 1940’s, he often told the following story:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

In fact, in these “dangerous times” now, the Patriot Act has not been used to try a single terrorist since it was instituted by congress in 2001 in response to the events of 9/11. It has actually been used to go after any of several possible perpetrators of crimes other than terrorism, because of its all-encompassing and convenient lack of civil protections, formerly guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Today, FBI Director Robert Mueller asked not only for the temporary Patriot Act, which expires at the end of this year, to be renewed; he also asked that the bureau’s ability to obtain records without asking a judge be expanded. The more sinister element, beyond the loss of civil liberties, is that this is happening at the same time as Bush gets the lowest popularity rating of a second-term president in history at 45% approval, and a majority of Americans – 53% to 45% -- say the Iraq War was not worth fighting. Trouncing Constitutional liberties at home makes it easier to control the restless masses, who are either fearful of another possible terrorist attack and therefore willing to go along with the attitude they would “rather be bugged than bombed,” as I once heard it put, or they are fearful of the threat of the Patriot Act being used against them.

Let’s not be deceived by any political squabbling takes place over whether to renew this hastily-shoved-through legislation, which was hardly even read by those who voted for or against it. Let’s not be lulled by the excuse that only people doing the wrong thing in the wrong place are going to have the Patriot Act used against them anyway. I don’t want them to come for me, and have there be no one left to speak. What Franklin also knew, was that hard-won freedoms, easily given up, are harder to win back.

Not Your Father’s Minutemen

No matter how one views Pope John Paul II, the review of his life and accomplishments that comes with his death surely exemplifies a life well-lived. His acceptance of everyone, and of all religions, is a model of inspiration and humanity.

That’s why the story of the volunteer "Minutemen,” swarming on the US-Mexican border in Arizona, is more disgusting and downbeat than if it happened at another time.

200 people from around the country have arrived at this location in the Arizona desert to try to “spot” people attempting to enter the US from Mexico, and then report these immigrants people to the border police. The border patrol has stated that they don’t want the help, naturally, since these vigilante amateurs are carrying weapons, and anyone could get needlessly hurt.

Some of these “great Americans,” naming themselves after the Minutemen of the American Revolution, are of the deeply-held belief that incoming immigrants, who lack documentation, are ruining the good ole USA. They write and email President Bush and feel like they are not being listened to. So they've mustered a posse in order to prevent the destruction of life as we know it in this land of the free. I am not indebted to them for what they do or for what they stand.

In several studies done in the past decade on the effect of immigration, documented and without documentation, or what is notoriously referred to as “illegal,” the conclusion is that overall the influx of foreigners to this country has greatly benefited the economy, as well as the citizens of the United States. One such report is summarized:

“Immigration benefits the U.S. economy overall and has little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, says a new report* by a panel of the National Research Council. Only in areas with high concentrations of low-skilled, low-paid immigrants are state and local taxpayers paying more on average to support the publicly funded services that these immigrants use. "Immigrants may be adding as much as $10 billion to the economy each year," said panel chair James P. Smith, senior economist at RAND Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. …the vast majority of Americans are enjoying a healthier economy as the result of the increased supply of labor and lower prices that result from immigration… The panel's long-term estimates indicate that on a national level, the majority of new immigrants and their descendants
will add more to government coffers than they receive over their lifetimes."

Therefore, I can only conclude that the vigilantes in Arizona are motivated by things other than patriotism and duty-to-country. These things include primarily racism and xenophobia, two of the lesser admirable traits among us humans. One of the Minutemen says that illegal immigration is slowly eroding American society and another says that if this keeps up we’ll have a real national crisis. Their notions come from their hate, not from reality, and they’re right about a crisis, but for different reasons. We have a “national crisis” right now, because so many of these Minutemen’s fellow Americans go along with their ignorant ideas of fear and bigotry. The rest of us can only hope that no one gets hurt out in the desert of Naco, Arizona, in the next few weeks.

I’m Gonna Get you! Delay Tells Courts

Not about to let the flame of discontent and recrimination blow out, Congressman Tom Delay continues to exhort some sort of vague action against the judges who wouldn't go along with him in the Schiavo case. The criticism against his rhetoric grows hotter. Kennedy wants Delay to say he's not advocating the use of violence, thereby saying that violence was implicit in Delay's veiled threats against the courts.

The media report Delay's rants as if they deserve credence, even going so far as to claim in the Washington Post

"The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the areas of authority for federal courts, but it was unclear what could be done by the committee in response to the Schiavo case, in particular."

Everyone here needs to get a grip; Tom Delay trifles with reality and the wind he blows will soon pass. The democrat onslaught of justified criticism only serves to keep Delay on the rampage, instead of showing him up for what he is: a misdirected ambitious wannabe trying to appeal to the same right-wing minority he perceives put and kept George W and company in power, in order to avoid the wrath of troubles he's in right now.

Then again, the more Delay harangues, the more his devices and actions get exposed. In that case, OK then Tom, are you advocating violence against judges in your veiled threatening statements?

Pope John Paul II: The Good, The Bad, & The Divine

Members of the largest single religion in the world, Roman Catholicism, are waiting in a vigil for the Pope to die. That in itself is significant. That Pope John Paul II is controversial, loved, hated, and even feared, by many demonstrates one thing anyone can agree on about him--his influence.

I have found interesting his unlikely background prior to being made head of the Catholic Church. Karol Wojtyla grew up a few miles from the concentration camp Treblinka, in Poland, when the Nazis occupied the country during WWII. He lived among Jews, even had a crush on a young woman who was Jewish. Among his biggest accomplishments is considered to be the instigation and hastening of the downfall of Communism in Europe.

A review of the book His Holiness: John Paul II and the Hidden History of Our Time by Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, gives a multi-sided and detailed history of the Pope's life, which at this moment is coming to an end.

Dismay with Tom Delay

Long a thorn in the side of Clinton, liberals, and logic, Tom Delay has made an official statement regarding court action over the Terry Schiavo case that defies morality as well. Is this a threat or a promise?

"Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened
because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most,
and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to
answer for their behavior, but not today."

Does Congressman Delay really believe, based on his recent list of transgressions and accusations, that he is the one to sit in judgment of our court system, not to mention the travesty of crossing the separation-of-powers line?

"...a series of criminal investigations, court cases and ethical inquiries have turned what was once a potent collection of allies into potential liabilities. A half-dozen people connected to Mr. DeLay have come under official scrutiny. Others, like a group of Mr. DeLay's friends and advisers at Alexander Strategy Group, have drawn attention after a client financed an expensive South Korea trip, including Mr. DeLay, that has raised ethical questions. The problems of Mr. DeLay's associates have renewed criticism about his aggressive networking
and fund-raising, criticism that Mr. DeLay has long dismissed as partisan attacks."

Is anybody really paying attention to this man besides his decrying the issues of the politically opportune Schiavo case? Delay reprimanding the courts is like Jose Canseco telling a kid not to chew gum because it'll rot his teeth.