Drinking the Kool Aid

In an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1970, now

Senator John Kerry questioned the committee on how you ask a soldier to be the last one

to die for a mistake. That was about Vietnam. Fast forward to today. Kerry, just back from

Afghanistan and Pakistan, has had an obvious change of heart. He now appears willing to

ask our latest generation of soldiers to die for the same mistake again. An adamant opponent

of the War in Vietnam, Kerry has somehow come to feel Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

Afghanistan is the good war. This is the war that's OK to fight. Somehow the cause in

Afghanistan is just, even as it was unjust and a mistake in Iraq and Vietnam. Will we never

learn?

Recently, the New York Times had an article explaining how the Taliban of

Afghanistan is very different from the Taliban of Pakistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan is

led by Mullah Omar. They are a nationalist movement whose goal is to once again control

Afghanistan as they did prior to 2001. They are a group composed mainly of Pashtuns,

the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, and they defeated a Northern Alliance of warlords

mainly composed of Tajiks. They have a shadow government already in place in the parts

of Afghanistan they control. They collect taxes, provide some social services, and even have

a court system based on "Sharia law". The Taliban of Afghanistan were created with the help

of the Pakistani intelligence service in order to counter the influence of India in Afghanistan.

According to the Times, they do not share the global jihad sentiments of the Pakistani

Taliban or al Qaeda.

Despite Senator Kerry's assurances, Afghanistan resembles Vietnam in any number

of ways. First, it is a civil war as was Vietnam. Just as it was North Vietnam vs. South

Vietnam, Afghanistan pits the forces of the Northern Alliance and President Hamid Karzai

from the North/West against the Taliban in the South/East. Second, like South Vietnam,

the government is corrupt and losing support among the people. According to the Times,

warlords who used to fight the Taliban have joined them to fight Karzai because of the

corruption. There is no way to defeat the Taliban without an honest government that enjoys

popular support. This is true in Afghanistan just as it was in Vietnam. In Vietnam, President

Kennedy approved the assassination of the South Vietnamese President in order to replace

him with someone the people might support (a puppet government approved by the U.S.).

It didn't work. The U.S. recently pressured Karzai to call a new election because the previous

one was proven corrupt. If he is re-elected there will still be no guarantee of popular support.

Third, as in Vietnam, we face an enemy on their home turf who are battle-hardened with

lessons learned in their war against Soviet occupation and techniques taught to them by

those currently fighting us in Iraq. They are comfortable waiting us out and inflicting

unacceptable levels of casualties, elementary tactics of guerilla warfare. Finally, as in

Vietnam, no one can define what victory would look like in Afghanistan. No one can lay out

an exit strategy nor can they say how long our troops would have to fight in country.

General McChrystal says counter-insurgency takes at least ten years. Is Senator Kerry

saying we will commit American blood and treasure for at least ten more years? And then

what, ten more years after that?

Senator Kerry says Afghanistan is the "good" war because they committed mass

murder on September 11th. The reality is the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to have a safe haven

and operate training camps (as Pakistan does now). However, the Taliban played no role

in the September 11th attacks; just as Saddam Hussein played no role in them either. Yet

now Senator Kerry wishes to use September 11th as a justification for increasing American

military forces and America's commitment. He hasn't yet endorsed 40,000 more troops,

but he is not articulating a policy which Americans can judge and decide whether the effort

is worthwhile or not.

There is no government in Afghanistan with popular support. There is no infrastructure

of police, courts, local government, or even decent roads in much of the country. People

do not feel safe and don't like the large number of NATO troops currently occupying their

country without producing what was promised, better security and better political progress.

For eight years, Afghanistan was ignored by the Bush Administration. Bush, as

Commander in Chief, allowed Mullah Omar and bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora and then

stripped the country of equipment and personnel. That's history. President Obama recently

sent an additional 20,000 troops and according to General McChrystal things have gotten

worse. Once again, we have a direct parallel to Vietnam. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson,

and Nixon sent more and more troops at the same time as the situation was deteriorating.

North Vietnam was willing to sacrifice one million men and women in order to win. Winning

was easily defined for them. If America leaves, Vietnam wins. No definition of victory

existed for America then as now. American soldiers are once again being asked to go tens

of thousands of miles away from home. They will be fighting on the enemy's home field.

They will be facing a battle-hardened enemy willing to die in order to win, an enemy fighting

for their own land and families and future.

We need to end this pattern of starting and sustaining wars which have no chance

of victory because our leaders have no idea what victory would mean. If the Taliban in

Afghanistan agreed to keep al Qaeda out, restrict or reduce the opium trade, and not allow

their country to be used to destabilize Pakistan; would we accept this?

It is being reported President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senators Kerry and

Levin and others want to send more troops, but just not as many as General McChrystal

asked for or says he needs. This is just creeping incrementalism and also parallels the

experience of Vietnam. We cannot ask another soldier to die or a family to lose a child

for a cause which is as clear as mud. Bring them home. Are we ever going to learn the

lesson that repeating the same action over and over again while expecting different results

is truly the definition of insanity? What do you think? I welcome your comments and

rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

I'm Hen-er-y the Eighth I Am

There may not be anyone burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, or water-boarded

anymore (water-boarding was used extensively during the Inquisition), but the war between

Catholics and Protestants still goes on and the Catholics just fired the latest salvo. The

Vatican announced if you are a disgruntled member of the Anglican Church (Church of England

AKA Episcopalian in the U.S.), you are welcome to join the ranks of the Roman Catholics.

You remember the Catholic Church, don't you? In 2000 years of history, the Church has

instigated wars, tortured dissidents, sold passes to get into heaven, locked up Galileo,

helped Nazis escape to South America, stopped scientific inquiry into everything from

mathematics to biology, and supported dictators and tyrants across the globe. The Protestants

also tortured and killed, fought wars and crushed dissidents, denied scientific theory, and

brought to America a kind of Calvinism giving them the right to wipe out native peoples

and take their land all in the name of a religious belief called "manifest destiny". These

two groups have been at each others throats since the day Martin Luther nailed his 99

Theses to the cathedral door in Wittenberg. The Vatican saw a chance to gain the upper hand

on the Church started by Henry VIII and they seized it with great delight.

Some members of the worldwide Anglican community are unhappy with recent

decisions by their Church. The Church has voted to ordain women and allow openly gay

members to be priests and bishops in the Church. The Church has vocally opposed wars

from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. The Episcopal Church in America has been a strong

advocate for the poor and disadvantaged. Church leaders have been at the forefront of

equal rights for women and openly welcoming members who were gay, lesbian, or

transgendered. Regressive factions within the Church objected to many of these positions

and many have broken away to form their own associations. These associates oppose the

ordination of women to be either priests or bishops and oppose the ordaining of gay men

to similar positions. Ironically, they find themselves on the same page as Regressives in

the Catholic Church; and now the Church, led by a Pope who has dreamed of bringing the

heretic protesters back into the fold, is taking this opportunity to offer unhappy Anglicans

a new home.

I hope this irony is not lost on anyone that the main reason the Anglicans broke

with Rome was over the primacy and authority of the Pope. Now it is that very same

authoritarian occupant of Peter's chair who is offering them a home. It is the same Vicar

of Christ who continues the prejudices and bigotry of sexism and anti-gay rhetoric they

find so appealing and so lacking in their own church. The very evolution of morality and

understanding allowed by the Anglican structure is impossible in the Roman Church and

the Pope is hoping opposition to women's rights and continued bigotry towards gays will

be a reason for Anglicans to jump ship and come back to the bosom of Mother Church.

Progressive Catholics have to be embarrassed by such a naked appeal to prejudice

and bigotry. The message from the Pope "...come join us, we still keep women in their

place and will never recognize homosexuals as God's creation" is a message which takes

the Papacy back to the wonderful days of the Borgia's and Medici's. Benedict XVI sees

himself in the footsteps of Popes who led the Crusades, the Inquisition, and welcomed

Hitler into Austria.

The one Pope Benedict will never be mistaken for is John XXIII. Upon election,

John announced an Ecumenical Council to be held in Rome. This council was to bring

"Aggiorniamento" (openness) to the Church. John invited representatives of all the worlds

religions to come to Rome and begin a dialogue aimed at finding common ground and ending

the hostility which existed between Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and

others. John wanted a church which models the principles of Jesus. He wanted more

collegiality between the Vatican and bishops and priests throughout the world. He defined

the Church as "...the people of God" and every Catholic was a part of the "priesthood of

believers" by virtue of their baptism. John took a church frozen in place for over 400 years,

since the Reformation, and opened it's windows and doors to let fresh air and fresh

perspective blow through. With the latest Vatican announcement, Benedict signals a desire

to continue the counter-reformation reuniting errant Protestants back under the banner

of Rome. He senses a way to drive a wedge between Anglicans and he seized the opportunity.

Perhaps this completes the efforts by Church regressives to reverse the gains and influence

of John and Vatican II and return the Church to earlier, more doctrinally comfortable times.

Reaction from Anglicans is mixed. In the U.S., dissident Anglican communities

rejected the idea of converting to Catholicism. In Nigeria and parts of Africa, where the

Anglican Church is strong, reaction has also been cool. The Archbishop of Canterbury says

he does not see this as an attack on his church, but acknowledges the differences between

his Church and Rome are not minor disagreements.

The Roman Church inn America is in serious trouble. Studies show the Church

has lost 30% of it's members. The actual numbers would reflect that loss if not for the large

influx of Hispanic immigrants into this country. Roman Catholic priest's average age is now

over 60. New ordinations do not make up for the priests retiring and many parishes face

the prospect of one priest shared among many parishes. Rumors have been rampant about

priests from other nations, mainly Africa, being brought in to staff American parishes. The

Church is in danger of losing an entire generation of young people unable to relate or respond

to a geriatric clergy and a message of intolerance and bigotry. Rome has no answer for those

who ask how the Vatican can continue to prohibit priests from marrying and champion

celibacy while at the same time allowing Anglican priests to join the Church and bring their

wives and families with them. Is celibacy integral to being a priest or not?

I am absolutely convinced of the existence of the Holy Spirit. The latest actions

by this Pope and his minions and a 2000 year history replete with every sinful action known

to man, convince me the spirit of God and a set of rituals and sacraments which touch us

at our deepest levels as humans, is what has kept this Church from imploding long ago.

The same spirit which brought us John, the same spirit which produced people like Floyd

Lotito, the Berrigan Brothers, Thomas Merten, Francis, Ignatius and Dominic, Dorothy Day,

Claire and so many others, is the Spirit which calls us to renounce prejudices and bigotry

and embrace all of God's creation.

I know the American Catholic hierarchy looks more and more like a wing of the

Republican Party; but when I go to St. Anthony's Dining Room in San Francisco, Sacred

Heart Community Services in San Jose, or St. Vincent de Paul in Oakland, when I see hospices

and housing programs run by Catholic Charities, when I listen to priests who inspire me

and call me to be a good and faithful servant; that Spirit is alive and well and despite the

actions of the current occupant of the throne of St. Peter, Her presence will ultimately

prevail. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them

to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Monster Inc.

In a recent column in Newsweek, Dr. Richard Dawkins, a scientist of great repute,

outspoken atheist, and author of a book on God spoke about scripture, Hebrew scripture.

He states that no one who reads Hebrew scripture can deny the God portrayed in these pages

is a monster. Dawkins speaks of a God who engages in murder, infanticide, jealousy, rage,

and who is petty and vindictive. He is not wrong. The God of Hebrew scriptures, what

Christians know as the Old Testament, is portrayed as all these things and more. If you

believe the account in Exodus, God is a terrorist who kills innocent children in order to

force Pharaoh to to release Her Chosen People. The same God is petty and spiteful when

Moses is not allowed into the Promised Land for having doubts. God punishes Sodom and

Gomorrah for immorality, but rewards Lot for offering his virgin daughters over to be

raped in order to save his house guests. There are numerous other examples from scripture

to support Dawkin's characterization of God as a monster. However, it is unfortunate

Dawkins chooses to rail against a God created in our own image and likeness. For a man

who accuses fundamentalists and creationists of ignorance and intellectual laziness, Dawkins

shows a surprising lack of understanding of both scripture and God.

Scripture is a chronicle of God revealing Herself to the world. More importantly,

scripture is an account of our slow epiphanies and realizations of God's presence in the

world. Most Americans are only familiar with the first eleven chapters of Genesis and not

much more. Adam and Eve, Creation, Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, The Tower of Babel; those

are the stories most Americans know. Unfortunately, these chapters are written as a pre-

history to explain the world as it is when we encounter Abraham in Chapter 12. What is

Abraham's insight? This God is knowable and relatable and wishes to have a relationship

with us.

Both Hebrew and Christian scriptures are stories about God's revelation and our

acknowledgement of it and the covenant we entered into with this God. Recorded are a series

of fits and starts and ups and downs. They are stories of our attempts to be faithful to that

covenant, and stories about our failures and fears. Since scripture is a product of human

work inspired by God, it reflects both the evolution of our species and our relationship

with God; and Dawkins clearly understands evolutionary theory.

I once took a class entitled "God". In his opening remarks, the professor expressed

how after a few weeks of study we would be able to write a book on God. In the ensuing

weeks we came to feel we might, just might, be able to write an article or column; but by

the time the class was over we understood there was nothing we could say about God

because anything we wrote or said is limited by our language and intellect, and God

transcends both.

I taught Hebrew and Christian scripture in high school, and one of the most

disquieting concepts for my students was the notion of God as "nothing". If God is the

creator of all "things", God cannot be a thing. God by definition must be a "no-thing".

The great mystic, St. John of the Cross, talks about ascending the mountain to discover

God and upon reaching the top we discover God is "nada", nothing. In the movie "Contact",

Jodie Foster's character, an atheist similar to Dawkins, encounters a new universe so

beautiful and powerful she says they should have sent a poet to describe what she was

seeing. Words eluded her.

All "God-talk" is by it's nature a metaphor. The experience of God is an experience

of transcendence. Whatever we say about God says as much about us as it does about God

and maybe more. Scripture is an attempt to put into words the experience Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob had of a transcendent God. All they had to use was their own words and

experiences. The God Dawkins is reacting to is the God simple words speak about in

scripture. This is similar to how fundamentalists read the same thing. The God I react to

in scripture is available to anyone. The God of scripture is far more faithful than we are.

The God of scripture promises never to abandon us even if we reject Her. The beauty of

the story, which Dawkins misses, is the spectacle of fits and starts, the journey of people

who occasionally get glimpses and insights about this God; and then try to translate these

experiences from the realm of poetry and prayer into human language and action.

Dawkins reacts to stories of people trying to implement what they thought or

felt were God's wishes. He makes the same mistake fundamentalists make by reading

scripture literally and ignoring the context. Because the Hebrews did not believe in an

afterlife, justice had to be served now; and because of this Israel's enemies were God's

enemies. Their punishment has to be sure and swift and now. This translates into battles

where God was said to command they kill every man, woman, and child in town. The story

of scripture is not a story of a God-like monster, but rather the story of sinful humans

trying to translate an experience of transcendence into one of imminence.

Dawkins, Christopher, Hitchens, and others have written books recently extolling

the virtues of atheism and attacking the God they encounter in scripture. Unfortunately,

the God they are reacting to is a fundamentalist, literalist God which ignores this incredible

story of discovery and an ongoing contest for understanding.

The story of Hebrew scripture is a journey of revelation and insight. Starting with

Genesis, God molds humans out of clay and breathes life into them. It is an earthy portrayal

of what primitive man thought about God. By the time of Jesus, we encounter people who

believe this God is so relatable, so intimate, so close that we can get as close as a father is

to his son (Jesus calls God Abba). Scripture is also a journey of human moral evolution.

The longer people engage with this God, the more their humanity is developed. The journey

culminates in a philosophy of life more radical than any expressed before or since. Love

God and your neighbor, forgive an infinite number of times, turn the other cheek, judge not,

and whatever you do for the least of your brothers and sisters you do for God.

Few people write about The Acts of the Apostles, a book describing an early Christian

community trying to implement their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures in light of

the Jesus event. No one writes about it because the reaction was so dramatic and radical.

This community lived in common. All possessions were community shared. You could not

be a soldier and be a part of this community. It is a vision which completely rejects the

Calvinistic capitalism of this nation and embraced loving and caring for each other. It is

not surprising this piece of scripture is so frequently ignored by Christians and atheists alike.

The story of scripture is the story of humans using limited language and symbols

to express the inexpressible. It is the story of a people more and more convinced God is

knowable. It is the story of discovery, of moments of transcendence, and the stories and

myths that surround these experiences. It culminates in the faith that God, through Jesus,

has always been joined with our humanity and journeys with us.

Dr. Dawkins is correct. The God of Hebrew scriptures is a monster if you believe

God causes all things to happen. Dr. Dawkins is correct if your God is a fundamentalist God.

He couldn't be more wrong, however, if the God of scripture is a creator who wishes to be

close to us, interact with us. God loves us by example, the example of Jesus Christ,

encourages us to love each other. Experiences of God have always been made real in the

love we share between us rather than in the myriad of ways we have used religion to separate

ourselves from each other. In the final analysis, Dawkins sees what he wants to see. We all do.

We can believe anything we wish. The proof of the pudding is in the kind of life you lead and

the ripples you leave behind. Dr. Dawkins would be better served talking about what

scripture calls us to be rather than how our ancient ancestors wrote about the story of that call.

It is a never-ending story that continues to be written in the ordinary lives of men and women

throughout the world. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please

send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

When Insurance Companies Compete...You Win

If you ever need ammunition to use against those who accuse corporate media of

being too liberal, the healthcare debate should provide enough to supply an army. Since

the town yells of the summer, media "headlines" have been asking the American public

"Is healthcare reform dead...on it's last legs...dying...dead on arrival...on life support?"

I lost count of how many news readers, re-anchors or pundits, declared healthcare reform

on it's last legs and pronounced a public option as dead and buried.

The Wall Street Journal, no bastion of progressive thought, declares the public

option is off life support and making a recovery in the Senate. (It is expected the House

version will contain a public option.) The Journal further reports that several versions of

a public plan are being discussed and prospects are hopeful that some blended version will

make it into the final Senate bill. The debate over a public option, and the healthcare bill

in general, is gaining so much momentum the Journal says Democrats "...feel a breeze at

their backs".

The "breeze" the Democrats feel is, in part, from a report the Congressional Budget

Office has issued which claims a Democratic healthcare bill (which contains a public option)

would reduce the deficit. This is the same CBO which scored the Senate finance bill and

concluded it would cost under $900 billion over ten years. This is crucial because the

President said he won't sign a bill which adds to the deficit or one that costs over $1 trillion

in ten years. It is even more important because one of the central factors in the nation's

rising budget deficit is the rapid increase in healthcare costs. Thus, the Democratic plan

would cover about 95% of Americans, eliminate prohibitions against pre-existing conditions,

create portable insurance not based on your job, drive premium prices down through the

good old capitalistic notion of competition, and reduce the deficit. So, here we stand,

facing the real chance that Washington might actually vote a change in which everyone,

except the insurance companies, wins. Who'da thunk it?

I know, I know, I'm counting my chickens before they hatch; but it is a reaction

to months and months of "liberal" news coverage in which we were told this couldn't happen.

We were told the American people were outraged and simply wouldn't stand for it. This was

despite every poll showing the American people support a public option and other provisions

by an overwhelming majority. We were fed stories about a new grassroots movement of

tea bag parties that was sure to derail healthcare, crush Obama, and guaranteed a Republican

resurgence in 2010. The "news reports" and the reality don't jive.

How do you explain corporate media declaring healthcare reform dead on arrival

and the conclusion by the Wall Street Journal that there is a good chance healthcare reform

will pass; reform which includes a public option! Remember how we were told Obama blew

it? He had been too hands off. He should have been more involved in setting the agenda.

He was too weak and not assertive enough. We were told each time a deadline was missed,

this meant the reform effort was over. We were told the town yells scared Congress and

members were afraid to vote for any change in healthcare rules. Hanbaugh, Beck, Faux News,

and the Regressive echo machine were given credit for stopping "Obamacare" in it's tracks.

Now, not only won't Rush get a football team to own, he will watch President Obama

sign the most important legislation since Social Security and Medicare even as the economy

rebounds from eight years of fiscal irresponsibility by his good friend George Bush.

The most interesting public option being considered is a proposal to create a

national health plan which allows individual states to opt in or opt out. Supporters envision

states like California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania opting in and states like Texas,

Mississippi, and Georgia opting out (blue states in and red states out). With the most

populated states "in" we will be able to have a real test to see if the public option works.

When it does, the people in red states will be seeking to join no matter what political party

is in control. Once again, good old American competition will settle the question. It's

brilliant.

It should be noted, Regressives are now attacking the Congressional Budget Office

numbers. These are the same folks who were thrilled with the CBO during the summer

when it's initial report concluded healthcare reform would cost $1 trillion over ten years

and not reduce the deficit. Republican leaders trumpeted the numbers and cited them as

proof the Democrats were trying to bankrupt the nation. Now, when the numbers don't

go their way, the CBO can't be trusted (CNN's Lou Dobbs declared CBO numbers are not

worth a damn). It's also worth noting the Democrats appear quite willing to go it alone

without a single Republican vote. What will be the reaction of voters in 2010 to a party

which tried to derail healthcare reform while offering no alternative of their own?

The war is not over yet. The fight is in the Democratic party. We have to let

the Democrats know they will pay a price if they don't push for reform; and to do this they

will have to face down a Republican filibuster. They must get an up or down vote. If the

Democrats succeed, I am convinced more than one Republican will vote yes rather than

incur the wrath of voters in 2010.

If you have written, write again. If you have called or e-mailed, do it again. Contact

your local Congressional offices. Keep the pressure on. Friends, healthcare reform is not

an option. Change is so, so long overdue. We've given Obama and his Democrats the

opportunity to hear our cries, and they've responded with a plan. Imagine a day when

a child born in this country never has to fear losing health coverage or being economically

crushed because he or she got sick or lost their job. We elected Obama to create change.

This would not be a bad start. Let's see this thing through! What do you think? I welcome

your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Put a "Rush" On That Order!

Investors putting a proposal together to buy the St. Louis Rams dropped Rush

Limbaugh from their group. It seems they did not want all the baggage Rush would bring

with him. They worried he could derail their bid.

The Regressive echo-machine went into full outrage mode and Dittoheads all over

the country started burning NFL paraphanalia (actually they only burnt Ram's jerseys, which

was fine since no one on the current team seems to need them on Sundays). Salamon bin

Rushdie took to the airwaves to denounce the forces of the left fighting desperately to

prevent the "mainstreaming" of a prominent conservative. Rush clearly sees himself the

victim of narrow-minded and bigoted liberals who refuse to allow him to associate with

America's game.

I am a little confused. For years, Rush and his ilk have pounded their listeners

with proclamations that they are the real Americans; not some lilly-livered, commie-loving,

Obamacare-spreading lefty liberal media-biased figures who want nothing but to bring

America down. To hear Hanbaugh et.al. tell it, they are preaching to real Americans every

day. Their philosophy is bedrock American. They hold up values which made America great.

Rush presents himself as hated precisely because he represents the true American patriot;

and because he has reclaimed America from weak-kneed, feminazi-loving sissified Hollywood

types who want to destroy this great nation and sell it out to the Euro-trash of the world.

Can you understand my confusion? Rushalito says lefties are preventing him

from being mainstreamed; but he claims to be the mainstream. I thought he commanded

armies of mainstream Americans ready to do battle against the hordes of the left who have

forced Obama, Pelosi, and a Democratic Congress on the American people. During the

eight years of the Clinton Administration, El Rushbo opened his program each day talking

about America being held hostage by the duly elected President. The implication was clear.

Rushabye represented mainstream America at a time when fringe elements had stolen the

legitimate government from them. Day after day, his legions of fans bask in their collective

belief that the mainstream values they hold have been perverted; and their savior Rush is

there to lead them back to the promised land. Only now, do we discover, the Rushmeister

has had his nose pushed up against the glass of mainstream America, desperate to be let in.

When he finally saw his chance to be a part of real America by owning a football team; his

dream was shattered by the nattering nabobs of negativity who couldn't wait to crush a

little boy's dream of owning and controlling lots of black men. Oh, the humanity of it all!!

Rushputin is finally discovering the power of words and that there are consequences

to holding and advocating racist, sexist, nationalist, fascist views. He is shocked, shocked

he wasn't warmly embraced into the bosom of the NFL! He is astonished to find that some

people have actually been listening to what he's been saying. When he extols the merits of

slavery, compares NFL players to Crips and Bloods, heaps scorn on the first African-American

President, and suggests the election of Obama means it is open season on white people; he

now seems amazed his views cause offense among a vast proportion of the American public.

Possibly he has been reading his own reviews too long; actually believing the people who

listen to him represent the great center of our nation rather than disaffected white males,

the majority of his audience. When you hope the President of the United States fails to

turn around the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when millions of

unemployed Americans hear you hoping they can't find jobs to feed their families, when

homeowners hear you praying for more foreclosures and economic devastation; is it any

wonder they don't want you anywhere near their favorite form of escapism?

The reality is Hanbaugh and the rest of the Regressives who have a monopoly on

the radio waves of this nation, don't represent the mainstream in any way, shape, or form.

They called upon their legions to drive back the godless forces of the Democrats in 2006

and 2008; and the result is a Congress and White House in Democratic control. They

screamed bloody murder in opposition to an economic stimulus package which passed

and is slowly turning the economy around. They have stamped their feet and held their

breath until blue in the face to stop a healthcare reform bill; yet President Obama will

have one to sign by the end of the year. On issues like abortion, gay rights, women's rights,

and the separation of church and state, Rush and his fellow travelers have come out on

the short end of the stick in poll after poll of "mainstream" Americans. When the Ayatollah

Limbaugh has been successful on policy quests, his "victories" translate into real life

disaster. From the war in Iraq to tax cuts for the rich, to the worst economic disaster in

modern history, a Rusha Rusha burnin' love and his friends have left America weaker,

more in debt, and playing economic second fiddle to the Chinese.

Far from being in the mainstream, there is a direct correlation to the rise of

Hanbaugh, Beck, and Faux News and the decline of the Republican brand in this country.

They got a party built in their own image; a party of disaffected Southern white men

unable to articulate a view of America appealing to more than 30% of everyday, sports-

loving American people.

The NFL will have to make due without the input of Boss Limbaugh; but we now

know even Rush understands he is on the outside of American sensibilities. We hear him

knocking, but no one wants to open the door to let him in. What do you think? I welcome

your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Newsweek made it their cover story and CNN did a series on it and now Americans

are discovering women are more successful, more powerful, more influential, but less happy

than they were forty to fifty years ago. Maria Shriver is about to launch a woman's project

in conjunction with the Center for American Progress, to discuss and showcase the evolution

of women in this country. This brings us to the big $64,000 question. Could it be that women

sacrificed happiness for power and success? Were they happier when they were barefoot,

pregnant, and in the kitchen?

I admit that for a person who can't seem to find the shallow water, this is a very

scary topic for me to wade in on. I am on thin ice and the sun is shining, shining. I have

taken a long time to overcome my prejudices and judgments about women and my education

was a struggle. I resisted for many years even the basic foundations of women's rights.

I was fortunate to have been taught by some very smart and powerful and patient women

the many errors of my ways. I don't know if there is the space or the time to chronicle all

the knuckle-dragging assumptions and posits I have held over the years. Suffice it to say

it can all be summed up by the fact that when I discovered my first-born child was going

to be a girl, my reaction was "...oh no, she won't be able to go to St. Ignatius and I have to

pay for the wedding". That reaction occurred in 1984; and I have come a long way baby

since then.

Women make up the majority of undergraduates in our nation's universities.

They also are the majority in both medical and law schools according to Newsweek. The

percentage of women who earn more money than their husbands or significant other is

growing. The percentage of married women who work is nearing 90%. More women are

not getting married at all; and many of these are choosing to be single parents. It is hard

to imagine there were laws in this country prohibiting women from having access to

contraception; and a woman had to get her husband's permission to get a credit card. In

many states, the concept of a husband raping his wife was not acknowledged by the courts.

As recently as the 1980's, female medical students were criticized for being too maternal

in their dealings with patients. It wasn't until 1976 that women were allowed to run a

marathon because it was thought running such a long distance would harm a woman's

ability to reproduce or she would be irreparably harmed by the physical exertion. Back

then women didn't sweat, they "glowed".

Yet the recent articles and publicity, while chronicling all the gains women have

made, struck me as carrying a warning notice. They seemed to be saying women should be

careful what they ask for, because success and achievement bring unhappiness and

dissatisfaction. The tenor seems to be "...we told you so".

In the Newsweek polling, women felt they had taken on more responsibilities and

obligations at work while the work load at home remained the same. The same women felt

their partners don't do as much at home as they should. Many women I have spoken with

tell me they need a wife. The poll does show men are more comfortable being domestic;

but there was a clear disconnect between how much men felt they were contributing and

how much women thought they were doing.

I don't think any of this is new. Women have long felt they were expected to earn

a living, keep a house, be romantic and sexy; while the expectations for men were much lower.

What seems to be new is this question about happiness. Is there anyone today who truly

believes a woman locked into a marriage because of an economic system prejudicial against

her, a society set up to denigrate her, and a legal system which left her few if any options

was "happy"?

Over the years there have been numerous articles and specials subtly suggesting

to women that they should have been more careful what they wished for. There is a subtle

"I told you so" tone to many of the studies and stories. "You wanted to be equal. OK baby,

you got it. How do you like it?" There have been articles about the new superwoman and

stories asking whether women have been sold a bill of goods promising them they can have

it all and then asking if it is true or not.

Women have made great strides towards equality of status with men. In the office,

the boardroom, the athletic field, academics, and many other places, women have made

tremendous gains. The stories and polls and specials seem to be asking what they sacrificed

for this progress; and is happiness a casualty of women's desire to be fully integrated into

society?

Women earn 76 cents for every dollar a male counterpart earns. While women

have cracked the corporate glass ceiling, they have yet to achieve positions of prominence

and rank commensurate with their number in society. Women's sports must struggle to

be seen as legitimate as major men's sports. Women are allowed to be sexy and pretty,

or powerful, but not both. A woman is forced to choose between those two options. Stop

and think if you can name a powerful female CEO, politician, or lawyer who is also sexy

and desirable. Why can't they be both? Young girls face unrealistic body obsessions which

result in eating disorders and self-image problems. Studies report girls as young as nine

talking about the need to diet.

As a father of two daughters and two sons, I dream of a day when women and men

can be truly happy living in society; a day when good jobs are available to either gender;

a day when men and women are full partners in the joy of raising a family while achieving

satisfaction in their careers. We need to evolve as a society; we need change in everything

from the way we understand religion to the way we entertain ourselves.

The article in Newsweek asks how could women have come this far, yet seem to be

less happy? But the question misses the point. Happiness is difficult to define. Happiness

is both how we see ourselves and how society sees us. Happiness thrives in an atmosphere

of pride and satisfaction only if nurtured in an environment free of fear and want. This

brings me to a question not asked by Newsweek; are any of us truly happy? And if not, why?

Perhaps the real question is not whether women have achieved enough to claim happiness

as a prize; but rather why the richest nation on earth has so few people willing to say with

a firm commitment, "I am happy and life is good!" Can you? What do you think? I welcome

your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Take Two Wars and Call Me in the Morning

Your car is making funny noises. You need to find out what is wrong. Do you

take it back to the dealer who charges more than twice what other shops charge and always

seem to find extra things wrong? Maybe you ask your brother-in-law who put your battery

in backwards and wrecked your entire electrical system. Of course, you could take it to the

local mechanic down the street; but he was just featured on a "60 Minutes" hidden camera

sting using fake parts and lying about what work was performed. Credibility is what you want.

You want an honest assessment of the problem and a realistic way to fix it. Bad advice will

cost you both time and money.

President Obama is reassessing his strategy in Afghanistan and is seeking advice.

This is good, but what I don't understand is why anyone connected with either Iraq or

Vietnam should be in the room when this advice is requested. The corporate media is

showcasing the very people responsible for the debacle in Iraq and seeking their input

on what the President should do. I have yet to see one interview in which a former architect

of our Iraq policy was asked how he could have been so wrong and why we should expect

his advice will be any better this time.

Senator John McCain is a frequent guest whose opinions are sought on Afghanistan.

McCain is quite loud about the need for the President to listen to his generals and send

more troops. No one has asked McCain why he didn't listen to the generals in Iraq when

they wanted more troops to start the war. No one asks him about his opinion that Iraq

would be a quick war or that American troops would be welcomed; or how about his grand

illusion that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. McCain has yet to be asked about the years

he praised President Bush's strategy until he didn't like it anymore. It would seem McCain

has yet to meet a war he doesn't like.

Hillary Clinton faces a similar dilemma. In her judgement, Iraq was a war worth

fighting. Iraq was a threat to American national security. Saddam Hussein was hiding

weapons of mass destruction and had to be removed. She did not raise an objection to the

Bush strategy; and to this day she still thinks her vote was correct.

The corporate punditocracy has no credibility on this subject at all. No one on

Faux News can be considered for a credible opinion based on their blind loyalty to the

Republican agenda. War to them means higher ratings. It means the same thing to CNN

and MSNBC, but for Faux it is the red meat they use to juice their audience. Barnes, Hume,

Krystal, Krauthammer, Aliason, and Williams all told us there would be a mushroom

cloud in Manhattan if we didn't invade Iraq. They were not alone. There were no voices

of opposition from CNN pundits and very little opposition from the talkers on MSNBC.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is a special case. Recently ranked

as number one by Washington insiders as a writer whose column they read and who

influences their thinking; Friedman's credibility on foreign affairs could not be worse.

He wrote column after column calling for an invasion of Iraq. He called on President Bush

to take out Saddam Hussein. He touted weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's

connections to terrorists. He was wrong on every aspect of that war and is directly

responsible for influencing members of Congress and the public that war was necessary.

Nothing he can write or say about Afghanistan should be given any credibility whatsoever.

Along this very same line, Condoleezza Rice recently gave a speech calling on

the President to increase troop strength in Afghanistan or face "losing" the war. Very few

people have less credibility on national security matters than Rice. As National Security

Advisor in 2001, she informed the President that Saddam Hussein was contained and not

on our radar. After September 11th, suddenly Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and

was a grave threat. Rice declared aluminum tubes Hussein was importing were for an

atomic weapons project. Despite her own scientists at Oak Ridge Lab in Tennessee saying

the tubes could not be used for a nuclear program, Rice went on national television to

declare Saddam was close to having a nuclear bomb which he could give to al Qaeda to use

against us. All this despite CIA director George Tenet testifying to Congress that Hussein

at no point had any ties to al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.

If Rice doesn't have any credibility left, where should the President turn? How

about former Vice President Dick Cheney? Maybe we should ask the opinion of the man

who flat out guaranteed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The man who wanted

Hussein taken out in 1992 during the first "gore in the Gulf" (only to have his boss George

H.W. Bush ask him who we would replace him with). Cheney had no answer. But if not

Cheney, who? How about Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gingrich, McConnell, Boehner or maybe

former President Bush himself?

President Obama is being told to listen to his generals. Maybe he should ask

former General Tommy Franks about strategy in Afghanistan. He could ask former

members of the Joint Chiefs under Bush or perhaps the retired generals who signed full

page advertisements and appeared on TV to advocate for war.

The advice the President is getting on Afghanistan, or rather those bringing

pressure on him to increase troop strength, are the same usual suspects who championed

a disastrous war in Iraq. You can't turn on the TV without seeing this same gang fomenting

fear, threatening defeat, spinning out end of the world scenarios if Afghanistan were to

fall. At no time, during any of their appearances, are they ever asked how they could have

been so wrong about Iraq; and yet somehow, have this absolute confidence in being right

about something equally critical as Afghanistan.

Anyone (talk show host, pundit, member of Congress, military officer, etc.) who

advocated for the disaster that is Iraq should have no place in this debate unless they are

forced to defend their previous catastrophic errors in judgement and explain why they

are right this time or why they deserve a second chance with our trust. No one should

be able to opine on national security who cost the lives of almost 5,000 American soldiers,

one million Iraqis, and spent over one trillion dollars on a continuing disaster which hasn't

contributed to increased national security in any way.

When you watch this debate unfolding in the media, ask yourself a simple question.

What was their position on Iraq? If they were in favor of that war, I suggest you treat them

like your know-it-all brother-in-law and ignore them. If you hear someone spouting about

the need for more troops, but they can't define victory or say how long the troops would

stay in Afghanistan, I say write them off! Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are ghosts of wars

past, present, and future. There was no "winner" in Vietnam; we simply walked away leaving

the nightmare behind us. At present, we're trying desperately to walk away from Iraq; but

no matter how hard we try, we can't. So now we stand at the crossroads with Afghanistan.

Are we so blind as a nation that we are beyond the lessons history and war teach?

Afghanistan is not a special case with it's own unique key for foreign occupation; it's a

country of people, determined people, who do not want us there! This is not a time for

politics as usual in America. We need new opinions and NEW creative options. There is

one thing, however, that we should by now be convinced of; the President needs to avoid

advice from anyone with a track record on Iraq. Will he do that? The American taxpayer

and especially American parents hope he takes his job seriously enough to do so.

What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them

to lionoftheleft@gmail.com