The White House and Congress have been heavily lobbied by evangelical Christians seeking Armageddon. They know the (temporarily) all-powerful George Bush will help. He wants nuclear war with Iran as much as they do. He likes their vocabulary (though maybe not Stephen Colbert’s). He likes their pro-Zionist stance, and he loves anyone who will continue to attack Jimmy Carter for speaking truth to lobby.

I don’t want to participate in empty fear mongering that plays into the hands of the Armageddonites. Still, when the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists is concerned enough to move the Doomsday clock to five minutes to midnight, I am concerned. I want to stop them.

We have to believe that the Democratic Congress can stop the madman willing to jump into another war. We have to tell our Senators and Representatives that we do not want to see war with Iran, that we want to see diplomacy —as well as investigation of why previous opportunities for diplomacy were ignored. Use our democratic tools to push the Christofascists back. We need to expose these people for the baseless frauds they are.

read comments (0)

Before Chris Buttars is able to push a new bill through the Utah State Legislature, you need to read it, consider the implications, and call your Utah state Senators and Representatives.

Yesterday (Friday, January 19, 2007), Chris Buttars was able to push through the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee with a favorable recommendation Senate Bill SB-111, “Free Exercise of Religion without Government Interference.” The bill “proposes to protect the free exercise of religion. It requires the state to demonstrate a compelling government interest by clear and convincing evidence to justify substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.” Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Well, maybe it does as he tries to make fuzzy the line separating church and state. It’s what is buried in the bill that is a problem.

• Bill Documents
• Bill Text
• Audio from the Committee Meeting (about minutes 8:57 - 1:02:09–listening to these people talk is just frightening, and you can hear Scott McCoy say he agrees with Gayle Ruzicka.)

He says the bill is about exercise of religion through T-shirts. “He said he is confident his bill would withstand any legal challenge because it was drafted by constitutional experts he declined to identify.” An attorney in the State Office of Education says the bill is unnecessary. She said it’s a training issue rather than a legislative issue. Her office already deals with this issue in professional workshops.

Committee discussion brought up Supreme Court decisions that contradict this. Senator Scott McCoy tried to make it clear to Buttars that he can’t make a law that will supercede federal law, that this is a broad standard he is trying to set. Can’t it be dealt with in the schools rather than to “open up a can of worms.” Why don’t more people question this man? Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says this will certainly mean challenges in state courts (rather than federal courts).

Dave Beuhler, Associate Commissioner of Higher Education had a number of concerns. Why not just take care of this through policy rather than legislation? He and his attorney see greater liability. The attorney says this erodes the protections of government immunity, he points out the application of 11th Amendment immunity would be lost, and “this does open up a real Pandora’s box.” He gets closer to the point: when students are taught evolution, they can claim this puts excessive burden on their religion. The bill puts a “huge evidentiary burden” on the educational institutions. Buttars doesn’t see any of this as a problem, not surprisingly. McCoy points out that this puts the burden not of “fair” reason but of “compelling” reason on the government representatives and institutions.

I would so like these people to be required to undergo diversity training before the attempt to create laws. Over and over they show by their language and their choice of examples that they really haven’t a clue about other peoples and cultures than their own and what they wanted to call “normal” (but were encouraged to call “mainstream”). Their pathetic attempts to “lighten things up” are just embarrassingly unprofessional. And by “they” I mean, primarily, Chris Buttars.

So, if the so-called problem already has many ways to be dealt with through existing policy and administration, why does Buttars want to legislate it? For reasons beyond those he’s listed, undoubtedly. He mentioned in the meeting that it could be used to justify something “a little wild and crazy.” He plans to address whatever comes up in future legislation. It appears that this bill could force his dear Creationism into classrooms. That’s not so wild, but it is crazy.

read comments (1)

For the first time in my life, I watched The O’Reilly Factor last night. I guess Fox people did a decent job of selling the confrontation love fest between O’Reilly and Steven Colbert. I knew Colbert could play it any direction. I watch him do it (nearly) every night.

There has been great anticipation this week. The key is, of course, the promotional opportunity of both shows to reach audiences they have never reached before–people like me who get somewhat nauseous at the idea of watching Fox. I knew I could just watch on YouTube the next day, but there I was and there the tv was.

I wanted it to be funny. It wasn’t. Just weak. You know, that’s what I often think watching Colbert. Is it just me?

O’Reilly’s talking heads discussed why Colbert is so popular. Why does the press love them? Because they “make fun of the news.” Female talking head says O’Reilly is “generous to fraternize with the enemy.” I think male talking head called himself a dufus. I agree. He’s definitely a dufus (as is his so-called book–I’m not going to name it because I wouldn’t want you to bother reading it). Commentary also weak.

Then, O’Reilly moves on to The Colbert Report. Peak moment: Colbert shows O’Reilly’s book, WITH the 30% off sticker from Barnes and Noble. Seriously, that was the peak. See for yourself.

When O’Reilly told Colbert, “I’m just an act,” Colbert asked the most important question of all: “If you’re an act, then what am I?”

Well, I don’t know what he is, but I do know that whatever he is remains the reason I prefer to watch The Daily Show.

read comments (0)

Last week on NPR’s All Things Considered, a conservative commentator said some amazing things. Listening to his commentary, I was surprised how easily he had simply swallowed the prevailing conservative stories of his (and my) youth. If you doubt the power of our narratives about ourselves, consider that it took this man 27 years to question his approach–the even question his approach.

He was embarrassed by Jimmy Carter’s words during the Iran hostage crisis. He was soothed by Ronald Reagan’s victory speech. He accepted the simplistic notions of weak Democrats and strong Republicans. It took years after 9/11 for him to see George Bush as shameful, weak, and incompetant.

Rather than saying, “No kidding, dumbass,” I offer his astonishing turnaround as an example of what might happen if we take a nonviolent approach to telling conservatives why we make the choices we do.

As President Bush marched the country toward war with Iraq, even some voices on the Right warned that this was a fool’s errand. I dismissed them angrily. I thought them unpatriotic.

But almost four years later, I see that I was the fool.

In Iraq, this Republican President, for whom I voted twice, has shamed our country with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far worse than anything Carter did.

The fraud, the mendacity, the utter haplessness of our government’s conduct of the Iraq war have been shattering to me.

It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this, not under a Republican President. Not after Reagan.

I turn 40 next month. Middle age at last. A time of discovering limits, finitude. I expected that. What I did not expect was to live to see the limits and finitude of American power revealed so painfully. I did not expect Vietnam.

As I sat in my office last night watching President Bush deliver his big speech, I seethed over the waste, the folly, the stupidity of this war.

I had a heretical thought for a conservative: that I have got to teach my kids that they must never, ever take Presidents and Generals at their word; that their government will send them to kill and die for noble-sounding rot; that they have to question authority.

On the walk to the parking garage, it hit me. Hadn’t the hippies tried to tell my generation that? Why had we scorned them so blithely?

read comments (0)

What is the real reason the federal government denies support for science?

It would be simplistic to say the budget crisis currently experienced by so many federal research agencies is a matter of funds being diverted to war. Congress failed to approve the budgets while there was a Republican majority in both houses in a matched set with the executive branch (and, I would argue, the judicial branch–but that’s a non-budgetary matter). It isn’t that they didn’t have the power to approve budgets if they had shown the will.

Just don’t find science important?

Just don’t think the world will be around long enough to justify the investment?

Can’t see how the research will benefit shareholders? (”What? No shareholders in Congress? My mistake. I must have confused it with something else.”)

I suspect many of the people who have the power to set the overall agenda aren’t seeking truths. I suspect they already have in hand as many truths as they can believe. What, then, could scientific research do to enrich their lives? On the contrary, scientific research has the potential to upset their lives by contradicting their truths about the age of the Earth, the origins of life, the sources of human sexuality, and–I think the most important point lately–how they expect the Earth to end. Gay evolutionary scientists who are concerned about climate change just don’t fit their worldview. They are not seeking to find out about the world, which is what one would expect from a scientist. They are seeking to tell the world about itself, which is what one would expect from preacher.

So? Preach, of course. And deny. That’s the answer. That’s what the Decider does. Also he ignores, as well as sending Tony Snow out to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about everything not on the Decider’s daily agenda. Fear Uncertainty Doubt. That’s FUD for short–a marketing strategy at work on many levels in the government. At the same time as denying, it appears to be important to place science denial experts in charge of government science, particularly environmental science. Preach, deny, ignore, and switch.

In the meantime, do they expect the world to end before we hold them accountable? I know I say this over and over. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. The new Congress seems to be heading in that direction. Congratulations on the first 100 hours. Now, could you approve those spending bills rather than extending the stopgap resolution until September 30?

“Except for the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, the government is being financed under a stopgap resolution. It expires Feb. 15, and Democrats said they planned to extend a similar resolution through Sept. 30.” William J. Broad, “Congressional Budget Delay Stymies Scientific Research,” New York Times, January 7, 2007.

UPDATE: I caught the replay of Science Friday with Ira Flatow (NPR) from Jan 12.  Science funding.  Great interview.

read comments (0)