Damozel: Versus.

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:28:21 GMT

I am relocating my blog to the following address:

http://theflatlandalmanack.typepad.com/ (THE FLATLAND ALMANACK)

I will continue to maintain this site and everything posted here but will do all my further posting there!

Do stop by for a visit!

Embryo Huggers v. PETA---Round 2

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:37:56 GMT

HI! I've moved to a new address. TO JUMP TO THE UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POSTING IN MY NEW WEBLOG, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.

Embryo Huggers v. PETA (Round 2): PETA responds with the facts.

Also: The self-defeating conservative tactic of "undermine the 'liberals', one liberal idea at a time."

In an earlier posting, I quoted from a column/article from Mr. Steven Milloy at Fox asserting, based on various examples, that the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demonstrably care more for animal than human life. Fox has posted a response from PETA by its director of medical research, entitled "PETA Responds: Animal Testing Yields Junk Science."

In my posting, I attacked the logic of his argument. The PETA letter attacks his premises and corrects all of the factual errors, of which there were an astonishing number.

I am assuming that Mr. Milloy won't mind being caught out in a few trivial errors of fact. Among those pushing any Right-wing agendum, "MADE YOU LOOK!" is the name of the game. If you don't care whether you're right, as long as you're Right, a few teensy factual errors don't matter.

And---who knows?---perhaps Mr. Milloy really does know more about PETA' s policies and practices than PETA's Medical Director of Animal Testing Issues. But in the interest of fairness, and keeping things balanced, here is a pertinent portion of PETA's response at Foxnews.com.

The response, by Sadhana Dhuvrakar, begins: "In his July 20, 2006, column for Foxnews.com, ("PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research"), Stephen Milloy blatantly misconstrued and misrepresented PETA's position on embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Milloy attributed positions to PETA that we do not hold and that he did not, in any way, verify with PETA; he then proceeded to point out supposed inconsistencies and contradictions in these fictional positions."

The letter further states in pertinent park:

[quote from Foxnew.com article, "Animal Testing Yields Junk Science" begins]

[T]he bulk of Milloy's article focused on embryonic stem cell research rather than on the issue of animal evacuations. I am a Harvard- and Cambridge-educated scientist, but it doesn't take an Ivy League degree to understand that Milloy's article was based on neither science nor facts.

The only source that Milloy used was a factsheet about stem cells that is available on PETA's Web site. The topic of this factsheet is stem cell use, not embryonic stem cell use, and this is an extremely important distinction.

Stem cells can come from adult tissues as well as from umbilical cords and placentas--in fact, most of PETA's factsheet focuses on stem cell research involving adult tissues and not on the controversial issue of using stem cells from human embryos.

Mr. Milloy characterizes our comments on stem cell research as an endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, which is inaccurate. PETA has no official position regarding this type of research.

Thus, the main thrust of Mr. Milloy's tirade, that "PETA supports ESC research as a way to end animal research," is 100 percent wrong.

Mr. Milloy also falsely asserts that PETA endorses the use of animals in stem cell research as a "compromise" in an effort to end animal testing in the future. While PETA's factsheet acknowledges that "unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals," this certainly does not constitute an endorsement of the use of animals in such research. PETA advocates the use of human stem cells harvested from donated human tissue in this research....

[quote from Foxnews.com ends; link in original]

To read the rest of a good, satisfying smackback, I urge you to read the rest of the article. It demonstrates the value of a measured and temperate response to this sort of attack

Mr. Milloy is not the only person who is confused about the distinction between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, of course.

The problem with this sort of fomenting---based on insufficient data--- is that it gets a lot of people worked up about non-issues. Instead of trying to find out what PETA is really about, such people will simply indignantly include that this long-suffering animal protection organization really does value animal life over "human life" (a concept stretched in the original article to include human embryos). That in fact PETA has not in fact taken a an official stand on the embryonic stem cell issue is treated as beside the point.

It's the sort of give-a-dog-a-bad-name-and-hang-him method of attack which our learned friends on the right have been working to perfect since the days of Bill Clinton and Whitewater. In fact, the self-appointed spokespeople for the Right do this all the time: they pick on some organization or person that espouses what they consider to be "liberal' causes and go on the attack without caring whether or not they understand the organization or person's actual mission. The purpose of this ploy is to discredit liberal philosophy in general and to put liberals on the defensive.

Of course the person/organization then has to issue a correction, which is only going to work if the reader is interested in the facts. The reader for whom articles such as the one to which PETA is responding doesn't say, "Man, this guy needs to check his facts before he spouts off," but instead turns to his or her spouse and grunts, "I reckon this guy told PETA! He's got 'em on the run now, yessiree!"

In other words, the whole point of the original article was to make people who aren't capable of parsing through its logic hate and despise PETA using the same arguments put forward to make them hate and despise other organizations with little in common with PETA. The purpose of such bloviations is to undermine what the Right appear to view as "liberal agenda." Another "liberal" cause is going down---damn the facts and full speed ahead! This really shouldn't trouble liberals as much as it does, because the only people who are likely to be swayed by it are people who are unlikely to qualify for the noble and beautiful label of "liberal" in any case.

In fact, the seek-them-out-wherever-they-are-and-destroy-them school of Right-wing warfare against those they please to designate "the Left" is just one more thing about them for us to mock. Intelligent people aren't going to be fooled more than once or twice before they start to feel disgust at these schoolyard tactics. Indeed, this is already happening.

Republicans capable of understanding the real arguments in favor of conservatism, and who are conservative for the right reasons, are becoming disgusted and embarrassed by being tarred with the same brush as the likes of Ann Coulter, Melanie Morgan, and the other junkyard dogs the extreme wing of their party has unleashed. Many lifelong Republicans---e.g., my very own mom----are sympathetic to PETA and are not sympathetic at all to the rights of stem cells. "That's the silliest thing I ever heard," she said, of the whole embryonic stem cell flap. "It's too stupid to talk about."

I know of quite a few lifelong but centrist Republicans who are beginning to rethink their loyalties and am hearing more and more of others. Most of them are Republicans of the sort I used to be (yes! my first vote ever was cast for Gerald Ford and against Jimmy Carter). In other words, Republicans who want to be free to live their lives with minimum interference from the government and with the right to decide for themselves how to dispose of their money. They are often religious, but abhor the very notion of imposing their beliefs on others. They still adhere to the values expressed by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton and feel apprehensiveness as deep as mine when they hear the words "unitary executive power"; like me, they fear the religious agenda of the Right, even if they agree with the underlying principles. They are fully capable of seeing and despising error and hyperbole and distinguishing it from fact.

For liberals, the correct response to articles which miscast or reframe the beliefs and objectives of liberals is either a calm and measured rebutttal such as PETA's or---which is more fun if less useful in elevating public discourse----pointing and laughing.

Which is what I'm all about.

Mel Gibson's remarks

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:31:43 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address. To jump there, click on this link.

Plenty of condemnation left over for Mel, as well.

Mel Gibson. If the remarks attributed to him are true, and it appears they are, ugh, ugh, ugh. I was never a fan---he's not the sort of guy I'd ever find attractive; he looks like an old frat boy---but I didn't put him down for this sort of game.

Plenty of people have already expressed disgust and outrage more eloquently than I could ever do, so I'm keeping it short. Here are some samples:

Ari Emanuel: The Bottom Line on Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitic Remarks.

Patt Morrison: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Secretary of State -- Mel Gibson.

Martin Lewis: Letter to "Braveheart" Mel Gibson.

Since there isn't enough alcohol on the planet to make me or anyone I know make the sort of anti-Semitic remarks attributed to Gibson, the only possible inference is that he is indeed deeply anti-Semitic and that alcohol just loosened his tongue. Being drunk is no excuse. As Nick said, alcohol can't make an anti-Semite.

I didn't see his hideous exploitation of the death of Jesus, and I tried hard not to judge him for failing to study history sufficiently to put the events (and especially the anti-semitism in the Gospel of John) in context. A lot of Christians are equally willfully ignorant.

This isn't the sort of behavior I can mock. It's not an error in judgment or reasoning; it's a fundamental failure of understanding. What if he apologizes? I honestly don't see how it could possibly help the fact that he's revealed himself as an anti-semite, until such time as he proves that he no longer is---if that's even possible.

You can apologize for saying something offensive---as indeed he absolutely must--- but how can you expect people to accept an apology for the belief that made you say the offensive thing in the first place. He could say, "I'm so sorry I made an anti-Semitic remark," and he had certainly better say it over and over again. But what's left is that he is a person who (obviously) is anti-Semitic. What can anyone say about that?

Damn, Mel, I'm sorry too. (What do these anti-semitic "Christians" think Jesus was, or was doing at the Last Supper, I wonder?)

POSTED IN CATEGORY: VERSUS

Drawn by Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Chronicles for July 30

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:11:18 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses! Please jump to the new version of this blog here.

Condemnation: The Easy Bit.

Note: since yesterday, I've rethought this emotionally violent reaction.

Permanent Solutions?

According to the New York Times, Khofi Anan is calling for the world to condemn the killings in Lebanon.

[quote begins]

Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council today to “condemn in the strongest possible terms” the killing of Lebanese civilians in the bombing of Qana, and he reiterated his call for an immediate halt in the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia.

In an emergency meeting of the Security Council requested by the Lebanese government, Mr. Annan said, “We meet at a moment of extreme gravity, first and foremost for the people of the Middle East, but also for the authority of this organization, especially this council.”....“No one disputes Israel’s right to defend itself,” Mr. Annan said. “But by its manner of doing so, it has caused and is causing death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale.”

[quote ends (links in original)]

I am fully prepared to join with him in that. But then there's this:

[quote from NY Times Article begins]

The United States has refused to back Mr. Annan’s call for a cessation of hostilities, saying that any halt must be one that removes the threat to Israel from Hezbollah.

John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, said, “Our view for quite some time has been and remains that we need to work toward a permanent solution for the problems of the region.”

[quote from The NY Times article ends (links in original)]

Am I the only person who shivers reflexively at the words "permanent solution"? Not just because of their bad associations, but because I know and you know, though apparently Bolton doesn't know, that there will be a permanent solution to the Mideast when pigs fly. Any peace they attain is going to have to be a step-by-step one-day-at-a-time daily reaffirmation and it can't be constructed out of rubble. (Barring, of course, the event anxiously awaited by certain fellow Christians of mine. Is that the final solution we are waiting for? Because I don't think, you know, that it's a legitimate basis for diplomacy.)

I see the headlines and I think, No, go away, this is wrong; this is awful. But of course they've been coming at me all day, all week. This is another tragic mistake.

"Fresh pain; old wounds."

Earlier in The New York Times:

Airstrike brings fresh pain to town with old wounds.

[quote begins]

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — It was pitch black when the missiles came to this small mountain village. The children were asleep. Suddenly, a roof and a second floor were punched in on top of them. Dirt was forced into mouths. Bodies were broken.

The bombing continued through the night, and it was not until this morning that neighbors and emergency workers were able to reach those buried inside. Digging under the rubble, they pulled out 28 bodies. Twenty of them were children. The youngest was 10 months....

And then there was the risk of the road. Dozens, including 21 refugees in the back of a pickup truck on July 15, have been killed on roads in Israeli strikes since the war began.

“We heard on the news they were bombing the Red Cross,” said Zaineb Shalhoub, a 22-year-old who survived the bombing and was lying quietly in a hospital bed in Tyre.

“There was just no way to go.”

[quote ends]

When are the friends of embryonic stem cells going to become equally irate over the death of Lebanese children in the current doomed and therefore pointless conflict?

From Fox.news ["Fair and Balanced"]: Bush Expresses sorrow at Lebanese Loss of Life.

It's something, I suppose.

[quote begins]

"Our hope for peace for boys and girls everywhere extends across the world, especially in the Middle East," the president said before the start of a T-ball game at the White House.

"Today's actions in the Middle East remind us that friends and allies must work together for a sustainable peace particularly for the sake of children," Bush told the teams of youngsters and visitors."

[quote ends]

It reminds me that war never works out the way people intend. You don't put an end to attacks on your own citizens by killing children. No, I'd say that killing children is practically a foolproof way to ensure that a feud will be perpetuated for at least another couple of generations.

You would think I'd be used to this, growing up as I did in the Vietnam Era and living through so much violence in the Middle East. But as I get older, I find that I'm less able to tolerate it. It's always the many who pay the price for the violent.

You think I'd be used to it, having grown up in the Vietnam era during a war when everyone was apparently presumptively guilty, including the people on our side. I have never been able to get out of my head the image of that little girl (not much older than I was) screaming her way down the street, burning from the napalm---or from photographs of melted limbs and useless, horrific suffering by very young people who had got in the way of the warring armies. I can't believe that this is ever right or excusable or a good solution.

Done listening to rationalizations.

I'm so done with the rationalizing of the Israelis and of my Jewish friends, however beloved, who support them (sorry guys...). When the oppressed become the oppressors, they are no longer entitled to the support and sympathy of people like me---in other words, the significant portion of the population who believe that other people, even those who hate you, must be treated at all times as ends and not means.

What are the Israelis telling themselves, I wonder? "Now they know how it feels"? But the they who are being punished are not the they who are responsible for the original harm.

If there were a way to wipe out hatred by killing people indiscriminately---as if discriminate killing has any sort of meaning or would be okay---their actions would be understandable if not morally justifiable, but surely the Israelis of all people know that this is not the way to wipe out hatred.

Arianna Huffington---whom I normally love for various reasons----explains all this in a lengthy blog, but of course the people who need to hear it aren't listening. And such explanations are pointless anyway because they've heard it all before and they either don't believe it or they don't care about the consequences. For this reason, I find the Sunday-school-lady tones of this posting really irksome. It's as if she and the liberals at HuffPost really believe that the problem is lack of understanding. It isn't. People bent on inflicting punishment can know that it's just going to make things worse and not care. That's a hard reality for liberals to accept, it seems. So, Arianna, they know. They know.

What are you going to say to them, knowing that? That is the question!

Hard to take the moral high ground.

Unfortunately, it's a little hard for Americans to take the moral high ground here. We set a precedent for preemptive war; and that was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore---and I remind myself of this whenever I read the outcries of the dear people at Huffpost whose blogs I so much enjoy---this war is not the Administration's War; no, it was endorsed by the people's representatives on both sides.

Nor does the "we were lied to!" excuse cut the least ice with me. A preemptive war is a preemptive war. If Congress, meaning most of Congress, had not authorized it, it would not now be taking place. If Bush got it wrong, so did the people's representatives. Until the Democrats fully own it, they will never really regain their credibility or the confidence of voters like me.

Anyway, I'm at least grateful to see this: Israel OKs Suspension of Aerial Activity, though the article itself is heart-breaking and the response (read on) infuriating.

[quote begins]

Israel has agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity in south Lebanon while it investigates an attack on a Lebanese village that killed a number of children, U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Sunday.

The airstrike killed at least 56 Lebanese, mostly women and children, when it leveled a building where they had taken shelter. The deadliest attack in nearly three weeks of warfare forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cut short a Mideast mission and increased world pressure on the United States to back an end to the fighting....

The attack in the village of Qana brought Lebanon's confirmed death toll to more than 510. Throughout the day, workers pulled dirt-covered bodies of young boys and girls dressed in the shorts and T-shirts they had been sleeping in out of the rubble of the three-story building.

Two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, had gathered for shelter from another night of Israeli bombardment in the border area when the 1 a.m. strike brought the building down.

"I was so afraid. There was dirt and rocks and I couldn't see. Everything was black," said Noor Hashem, 13, whose five siblings were killed.

Noor was pulled out of the ruins by her uncle, whose wife and five children also died.

[quote ends]

The pay-off:

[quote begins]

Israel apologized for the deaths but blamed Hezbollah guerrillas, saying they had fired rockets into northern Israel from near the building. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the campaign to crush Hezbollah would continue, telling Rice it could last another two weeks.

"We will not stop this battle, despite the difficult incidents this morning," he told his Cabinet after the strike, according to a participant. "If necessary, it will be broadened without hesitation."

[quote ends]

There are no words, except for ones I would not like my friends and my family (particularly those sympathetic to Israel) to read.

"End Times" Christians: Inducing Rapture?

In the meantime, the 'end times' Christians apparently see this as the chance to drag Jesus back into history, whether he likes it or not. While I doubt that statistically there are a large number of Christians who believe this nonsense, some of the ones who do are in Congress; and I have a problem with the thought that there are people content to let this go on because it is predestined or because Jesus wants it; or whatever. It just adds to my distress to imagine all those people sitting around their living rooms waiting for "The Rapture" and---of course--fulfillment of the further prophecy: conversion of the Jews. If innocent blood is spilled, what does it matter to them? They're certain that Jesus will redeem the blood of the innocent---after, of course, all the true believers are "taken up."

Flip-flopping: when it's the right thing to do

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:30:57 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To jump to an updated version of this article, please click on this link.

Flip-flopping: It's never the Right thing to do (though sometimes, it's the right thing to do).

Certain Republicans managed to convince people a long time ago that revising an opinion---which they call "flip-flopping"---is invariably a sign either of weakness or of a politician's willingness to say anything to get votes . I remember a North Carolina campaign where the Democratic candidate was labelled "Senator Flip-Flop" and somehow managed to convince people that this was a sign of "pandering." Kerry spent so much time backpedalling about his initial support for the war in Iraq that he didn't really talk about the things that really matter.

So it's a relief to hear a politician---and a Republican!---say straight out that he has changed his mind about the appropriate policy, based on his subsequent experience. Everyone---even politicians---ought to be able to make adjustments to a position if the evidence requires it.

[quote from Associated Press article by Allison Hoffman begins]

Immigration is shaping up as a major campaign issue this fall, just as it was in the 1994 gubernatorial race.

Republican Pete Wilson won that race after embracing Proposition 187, which called for denying illegal immigrants many government services. The initiative passed handily but later was tossed out by the courts. It also moved many Hispanic voters to the Democratic camp.

Schwarzenegger has acknowledged supporting Proposition 187 and suggested he came to regret that vote after working with the children of illegal immigrants in after-school programs before being elected governor.

"I could be criticized for flip-flopping, but better to say I was wrong than to hold onto something that isn't my view," Schwarzenegger told reporters on his campaign bus.

The governor addressed the issue a day after he told La Opinion, a Los Angeles-based Spanish language newspaper, that "looking back, it was the wrong decision" to support the ballot measure.

Angelides, the state treasurer, seized on the governor's comments, accusing Schwarzenegger of pandering to Hispanics.

"He will do anything and say anything to get re-elected," Angelides charged.

Congress is wrestling with immigration reform and Schwarzenegger has split with many in the Republican Party - particularly in the House of Representatives - who favor a get-tough approach to illegal immigrants. His thinking is closer to that of President Bush, who has called for better border security, a guest worker program to ensure businesses have the workers they need and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for a significant period and not broken the law.

Schwarzenegger has long faulted the federal government for lax border security and praised efforts by the Minutemen to fill the gap. California has more illegal immigrants than any other state - an estimated 2.4 million.

[quote from Associated Press article by Allison Hoffman ends]

I certainly agree with Schwarzeneggar that you can't deny services to people who are living here. They are people who are here. They include children and the elderly. Whatever you mistakenly think the deterrent effect of such a denial will be, the position is morally rephrehensible. I don't think that anyone doubts that illegal immigration is a problem; but a resolution that denies basic services isn't a good solution (or one that will prevent desperate people from coming here anyway).

But even if I didn't agree more with Schwarzeneggar's current position than with his previous one, I have to give some [Ali G voice/] Respect! [/Ali G voice] to any politician who will stand up and say, "Based on further evidence, I have concluded that my previous position was erroneous."

I am giving Schwarzeneggar the benefit of the doubt here, of course. It's possible, I suppose, that he is trying as alleged to garner a few votes, but on balance it seems sort of unlikely. Isn't it just as likely to alienate voters who support the proposition?

I wonder if voters in general are as stupid as politicians believe? History suggests that a label like 'flip-flopping' can stop people from thinking; instead of asking why the person changed position, voters just accept the "Liar/Panderer" label and go with the other person who is so consistent that he---or she---would never change position no matter how much evidence that it is wrong has accumulated since the position was first announced.

At any rate, I'm 100% behind this:

"I could be criticized for flip-flopping, but better to say I was wrong than to hold onto something that isn't my view," Schwarzenegger told reporters on his campaign bus."

More homage to Governor Schwarzeneggar for once again doing the right thing rather than pandering to the most extreme voters in his party...

Myths About Stem Cell Research

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:59:52 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address. To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Things Your Representatives Don't Know About Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This posting at Wired.com (by Steven Edwards) is essential reading for those of us who want to jump into the stem cell debate. There is a lot of long information out there, it appears. Entitled "Congress' Top 10 Stem Cell Flubs," it identified 10 examples of wrong information that various members of Congress have cited in support of their various positions.

According to this article, it is not IN FACT the case that embryos are either used in research or thrown away, as both Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pennsylvania) and Senator Christopher Dodd (R-Connecticut) have stated. According to this article, these statements are misleading. [quote begins] "A 2002 study found at the time that 88 percent of the 400,000 embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics across the country were on hold for families who might want to have another baby. Only 11,000 embryos were specifically donated to research." [quote ends; link in original]

Like the senators, I overstated the case in my recent posting---I assumed that MOST embryos are either going to be used for research or thrown out, and it turns out that only about 11,000 are actually allocated for research purposes. This information doesn't change my conclusions since the 11,000 donated embryos WILL be either used for research or thrown away. The others aren't in danger of being used for research anyway.

For those who want to get it right, here is a 'cheat sheet' published at Wired.Com that gives information about stem cells, what they are, how they are currently being used, and what the real issue really is.

Good News from Senator Inhofe

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:27:07 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To see an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Good News on Global Warming: Inhofe alleges Gore "Full of Crap;" Climate change a hoax!

Phew, that's a relief. As we're shufflling toward the Apocalypse, at least I don't have to worry about the pesky problem of climate change. For a sea-level dwelling Floridian in particular, this announcement is most welcome. According to this posting from Think Progress, Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) debunks the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Check out the link; you'll enjoy it.

As Senator Inhofe modestly states, "It turns out that I was right all along." Whereas you and I might have had the impression that the IPCC relied on the reports of thousands of scientists, Inhofe has learned that they relied on only one.

[quote from transcript portion included at Think Progress]

[T]he more I checked into it, the things started with the United Nations, the International Panel on Climate Control, and they used one scientist. And his name was Michael Mann, the famous hockey stick — remember that — where he plotted the temperatures that went all the way across on a horizontal line, then you got to the 20th century and it started going up.
Well, one thing they forgot to do is put in the medieval warming period, which was from about 900 to 1400 A.D., when it was warmer then than it is now.... So in all of the recent science, as I`ve mentioned on your radio show, it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.

[quote from transcript portion included at Think Progress ends]

Before reading this article, I had only Lord Wakeham's assurance that a little global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing to console me, particularly after Al Gore's cruel film (in which the homeless, drowning polar bears desperately seeking a piece of ice to rest upon were a particularly nasty twist of the knife).

So thanks, Senator, for setting the record straight! Now assure me that the victims of last year's hurricanes are housed and safe, that there will be no further hurricanes this summer, and that things are going to work out fine in the Middle East, and I can rest easy once more.

A Slam from the Right

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:47:44 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Pat Buchanan slams Bush for Israel policy; asks "Where are the Christians?" Let's ask them!

As I write, I am watching the mass burials in Lebanon on BBC World. The damage to civilians is heart-breaking. In the meantime, Israel is warning Lebanese citizens to flee for their lives. And they blame America.

I haven't exactly chosen sides in the Mideast. Jewish friends of mine have sat me down and tried to explain to me why what Israel is doing is the right thing; Muslim friends have given me the other side.

I am not going to argue that point with representatives of either side. I don't know whether what Israel is doing is the right thing for Israel, but that's a separate issue from whether it's right for the U.S. to support or condone it through inaction. I can't condone it.

To me, this is starting to look frighteningly like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in July 1914 in Sarajevo. And that was just one shot.

I can't understand what the Administration is thinking. Is this some sort of neocon "Slouching Toward Armageddon" tactic? I have never taken completely seriously the argument that the Extreme Right WANT war in the Mideast because, you know, "Come, Lord Jesus." Ready or not!

People from other parts of the country might be surprised by the strong pro-Israel feeling in certain parts of the country. In the Bible Belt where I grew up, people were the REVERSE of anti-Semitic. Protestants were generally pro-Israeli. As the article linked below reflects, they believe that God gave Israel as a gift to the Hebrews and that they are thereby entitled. But there's more to it.

On the one hand, this (from BBC.co.uk): Evangelical Christians plead for Israel

[quote begins here]

More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel. ....Pastor Hagee, the main organiser, said the event was the first of its kind. The thousands of Christians in Washington - who came and are staying at their own expense - will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah", he said.
"We want our Congress to make sure that not one dime of American money goes to support Hamas and Hezbollah or the enemies of Israel." John Hagee is the pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and a long-time fervent supporter of Israel. ...In common with many American evangelicals, he believes that God gave the land to the Jewish people and that Christians have a Biblical duty to support it and the Jews.
His latest book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, interprets the Bible to predict that Russian and Arab armies will invade Israel and be destroyed by God.
This will set up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West, led by the anti-Christ, who will be the head of the European Union, Pastor Hagee writes.
That final battle between East and West - at Armageddon, an actual place in Israel - will precipitate the second coming of Christ, he concludes.
It is not clear how many evangelicals believe literally in those type of prophecies.....
Two in three evangelicals believe that the establishment of the state of Israel fulfils Biblical prophecy, the survey found. And what they see in the news only reinforces their faith, according to Timothy Shah, a scholar at the Pew Forum. "When they see what's going on in the Middle East, a whole range of enemies arrayed against God's people, they see God's word being played out on their television sets," he said.
"They see Israel triumphing over its enemies as proof that God's promises remain."
[quote ends here]

Gaaaaaah! Do these lunatics really believe that God wants us to allow the maximum amount of suffering? The promise they want God to keep is the second coming of Christ. Like Christians in eras past, they don't want to wait for it; unlike them, they live in a time when there is technology to create the circumstances which they believe (based on the book of Revelations) will yank Christ back into history.

If I were an Israeli or a pro-Israel Jewish American, these people are the LAST supporters I would want. They envision a kingdom of heaven founded on Israel's blood (at the end of which, of course, comes 'the conversion of the [remaining] Jews.') They are TRYING to make Revelations a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "kingdom of heaven" that they envision (and which is nothing at all like the one Christ seems to have had in mind) will then displace Israel.

Pat Buchanan disagrees with them. He has, of course, been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration's Mideast Policy. On MSNBC, he and Chris Matthews slammed "war-mongering' Republicans." The story by Dave Edwards and the transacript are here at here at The Raw Story. Here's the part that some of these people who are enabling the Administration's current policies in the name of Christianity should read.

[quote from transcript begins]
MATTHEWS: Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder.

When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?

BUCHANAN: Well, the president, he fell for it after 9/11 when they put that little pre-cooked meal in front of him, after they knocked down Afghanistan. And so they said, "Let's do Iraq now." And Wolfowitz and all the rest of them.

But let me say this, Chris. I think the president realizes now, that we went into Iraq to pursue weapons that did not exist, a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, and now we have created a great base camp for terrorism in the Anbar providence that did not exist. In response to Mr Shrum, you attack Iran, Hezbollah will retaliate against the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. You will have massive hostage taking and killings. Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.

[quote from transcript ends]

And before leaping on the Evangelical bandwagon, the so-called 'Christians' who are giving unstinting support to the invasion of Lebanon might want to reflect on Buchanan's position in this column from World Net Daily, entitled "Where are the Christians?"

[quote from column begins]
The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights....

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.
But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.
But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?...
Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?
Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
How much must America pay for the education of this man?

[quote from column ends]

I'm a bit surprised to find myself quoting Buchanan with [heavily qualified] approval. That in itself may be a sign of the Apocalypse. The thing is, it's a foregone conclusion that the Evangelicals who are up in Washington advocating no restraints for "the Lord's first love" aren't going to listen to the likes of me. Maybe their own will be able to persuade them that they shouldn't mix up religion and politics or confuse Revelations with the requirements of a Christian life.

RELATED POSTINGS

“Christianity” v. Christianity [Christianity v. Christianism]

Condemnation: The Easy Bit

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Schwarzeneggar Steps Up

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:25:40 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To see an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Schwarzeneggar Steps Up

I am heartened by this:

Schwarzeneggar Gives $150 million stem cell loan.

He said:

[quote from article begins]

"I remain committed to advancing stem cell research in California, in the promise it holds for millions of our citizens who suffer from chronic diseases and injuries that could be helped as a result of stem cell research," Schwarzenegger said in a letter to his finance director.

[quote from article ends]

It's a reminder that there is still plenty that can be done at the state level. According to the same article the governor of Illinois has diverted $5 million from the state budget for stem cell research.

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack: Embryonic Stem Cell Huggers

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:35:04 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses! To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click this link.

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack Part 1:

The Embryo Huggers vs. PETA

PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research. PETA's support for embryonic stem cell research shows that the organization values animal life over human life. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com]

It's so sweet when they try to support this position by recourse to reasoning. Well, reason of a certain sort. But when you start from your conclusion and work backwards, the process always requires some awkward sidewise leaps and painful twists and turns.

This article ought to make me furious or very sad or something, but instead it made me laugh out loud.

The argument goes (roughly) this way.

PETA overvalues animal life at the expense of human life.

PETA say that animals are entitled to the same consideration as people. Stem cells are people (assumed, not stated).

If an action constitutes cruelty to a live animal, it follows that the same act constitutes cruelty if performed on a nonsentient clump of cells.

PETA opposes animal research.

Some of the people who oppose animal research are the same people who support stem cell research and some of those might be in PETA.

PETA is therefore saying that people aren't even as important as animals and that it's okay to be cruel to people but not to animals.

CODA: Gloria Steinem should support animal research if she's so damn concerned about women's health issues.

Hee! Of course, the whole argument is premised on the notion that an embryo arising from the fusion of a human ovum and a human sperm is a human child. If I actually believed that, I would have to oppose the cultivation of embryos in the first place because it would be really mean to put a bunch of children in cold storage, but, you know, EMBRYOS ARE NOT PEOPLE. And the difference between embryos and even a baby animal is that the baby animal is designed by nature to feel pain. Pain is nature's signal to animals, including us, that we need to change our circumstances, and I could certainly make an argument that some of the methods used in research may inflict pointless suffering.

I'm not going to make the argument, though. It's something I try very hard not to think about (the harm we do to the innocent). But I don't have any trouble at all thinking about things that could be done to embryos.

Note that PETA can tell the difference, as the author acknowledges:

[quote from Fox Online article by Steven Milloy begins]

As it turns out, PETA supports ESC research as a way to end animal research.

While PETA acknowledges that “unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals,” PETA sees the research as having “the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing.”

[quote from Fox Online article by Steven Milloy ends]

Um, and....? I could quarrel with the 'unfortunately' if I really understood what PETA means here, but a clump of cells is a clump of cells. It can't feel in the sense in which a human child or a baby animal can; the receptors haven't developed. It's the nature of life to resist death (otherwise, no entity forced to endure stress would put up with it long enough to carry on the species) but a rudimentary aversive response isn't pain as we understand it. We use living tissue all the time in many medical procedures; the fact that it's the product of meiosis rather than mitosis surely shouldn't make that much difference.

The whole "reasoning" process on the stem cell issue is one big slippery slope that starts with the notion that a fetus at any stage is the same as a baby. And I guess if you think that a human fetus that is too undifferentiated to be distinguishable from a horse or cat fetus has a human soul, then you have to think that the fertilized embryo is as well. What about the sperm and ovum? Do they have souls or does the soul only happen when they fuse or when the first division takes place?

I don't know what has happened to people. None of this is a political issue; it's philosophical, religious, ethical, and reasonable people differ. It's not something that we should be making laws about at this stage of civilization under a government that isn't meant to be a theocracy.

It's not the business of the government to punish sinners for sins or to prohibit sins not traditionally recognized as crimes. Nor is it the business of the Executive branch to resolve disputes between science and faith.

If the protectors of stem cells are the only Christians among us who are going to Heaven, here's hoping for their sakes and God's that God either has a sense of humor or that he isn't much brighter than the people who presume to speak on his behalf. Otherwise, God is going to get really bored and fed up with them. As for Christ, I have a feeling that some of the people who are most vehement in his name wouldn't actually like him very much. His priorities seemed to be somewhat different from theirs.

Since I am so certain that God has a fantastic sense of humor and is way brighter than these people seem to be giving him credit for, I feel free to shake my head and laugh over the ways his followers find to waste time and resources in his name. Did Christ go through all that he went through so that those who call themselves Christians can ignore the poor, starving, homeless and hopeless to fight over the civil rights of fertilized eggs?