The Mix

Perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 17, 2006 at 4:47 AM.

Josh, you ignorant slut.

I've always wanted to use that old SNL point/counterpoint line. In reality I respectfully disagree with some of Josh's post: "If everyone agrees the religious right is 'nuts,' can liberals finally catch a break?"

Look at the title. Nobody agrees that the "religious right" is nuts; in fact, it's the same sloppy characterization that continues to haunt liberals in pursuit of their own ideals: namely, respecting that Truth is not the exclusive property of one world view or other.

This is not to outline some hippy-dippy, all-things-are-equal ideology. I don't agree with the way much of the religious right sees, and interacts with, the world -- in fact, I find some of it downright frightening and repugnant. But when we disrespect it as the "wrong" way to see the world, we do so at our ethical and political peril.

But Josh will say that this is a straw man and that the post focuses on the distinction between the hucksters at the head of the religious right and the rank and file at its heart.

To that I say...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 16, 2006 at 7:53 AM.

Democracy has long been derided by some of its most loyal adherents. Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others," while Woody Allen said something to the effect that "I believe in completely open and honest Democracy... but also think the American system can work."

Bush's Midas touch has turned Democracy into a sort of fundamentalism -- a stand-in for whatever is in the Bush admin's best interest.

So now that the Iraqi government is grower further and further from the Bush administration, in response to the needs of its actual constituency, it looks like the administration may be looking into changing the regime it installed to change the Saddam regime.

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview with USA TODAY that his government will not force militias to disarm until later this year or early next year, despite escalating violence in Baghdad fueled by death squads and religious warfare."

Al-Maliki, who depends on the support of some of these militias, has a different approach: "Terrorism and militias — especially militias — cannot be dealt with only by using tanks, guns and aircraft."

Nearly 80% of Iraqis believe that US presence fuels the insurgency and 60% support attacks on the troops.

So a reluctance to force militias to disarm at the behest of the U.S. government doesn't appear to be the democratic thing to do.

And lo, in the clip to the upper right, David Brooks seems to hear some interesting buzz from the White House about how to deal with Democracies that don't listen to it...

Religious right rally's first gaffe
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 16, 2006 at 6:26 AM.

Liberty Sunday, yesterday's conservative Christian gay-bashing rally, is barely 12 hours old and although no transcript or video is yet available, there's already a wee problem.

According to Rightwingwatch, the actual church used in the L.S. banner to promote "religious freedom" opposes the message of L.S.

Rev. Stephen R. Ayres of Old North Church in Boston calls out the Family Research Council for using an iconic image of two lanterns in its church steeple – made famous by "Paul Revere’s Ride"...

...

Rev. Ayres notes that the church, a "symbol of freedom for all Americans," is not partisan and does not support the premise of "Liberty Sunday" – i.e., that the "homosexual agenda" is putting "religious freedom on a course of extinction."

I won't allow Bush's crimes to disappear down the memory-hole ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on October 15, 2006 at 9:42 PM.

As I reviewed some of the reports that the UN weapons inspectors submitted to the Security Council in early 2003, my thoughts turned to the Johns Hopkins-MIT study estimating that as many as 950,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion for nothing at all.

Yes, I am "re-hashing" old events and "re-litigating" the debate over the war. I have to because there are, today, liberal hawks (and hawks-hawks, of course) running around defending their support for this insanity because of their deluded notion that everything would have gone swimmingly if not for the bunglers in the White House.

That facile evasion -- the "incompetence dodge" -- must not stand. So humor me for a moment while I recall the most crucial junction, in my view, in the lead-up to the war.

It was March 7, 2003, when Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, briefed the Security Council on the progress of the inspections regime:

In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republican Commission: Iraq War is Over
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 12, 2006 at 7:25 PM.

Okay, well, it doesn't say that America "lost." According to the conservative NY Sun, "A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America."

Right, "ruled out the prospect of victory," sorry -- don't want to open myself to charges of being anti-American like this commision.

Can Iraq become a stable democracy in the near term? No. Not according to the commission convened by Virginia Republican Frank Wolf and led by Bush 41's main man, James Baker. Unfortunately, the commission's official findings won't be released until after election day. You know, why have all the information if the information is liable to guide your vote?

The Sun's Eli Lake writes (emphasis mine):

"The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, 'Stability First,' argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped."

The second part, "Redeploy and Contain," is essentially a withdrawal plan.

From a Daily News article almost exactly a year ago:

In the long run, moreover, many Bush aides believe his legacy will rise or fall largely on how Iraq plays out.

"If a year from now they have a functional government with even a semblance of democracy and U.S. deaths are lower, that will give Bush a huge boost," said a senior Republican political strategist. "But if there's a civil war and Americans are still dying, Bush will end his term as one of the most unpopular Presidents in history."

Evangelical: Rove's office called evangelicals 'The Nuts' [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 12, 2006 at 6:46 PM.

According to Steve Benen, a damning new book by David Kuo -- former high-ranking official in Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives -- reveals that Bush's plan for social betterment through the religious community "was a charade," and "a political ploy."

Kuo appears to be one pissed off evangelical. And no wonder:

"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,'" Kuo wrote. He added that Karl Rove called some of the nation's most prominent evangelical leaders "the nuts."

Keith Olbermann got his hands on a copy of the book... watch his report above.

Hugo Chávez' opponent becomes a crazy, wild-eyed populist
Posted by Joshua Holland on October 12, 2006 at 6:19 PM.

Soon, after our mid-terms, we'll start seeing coverage of Venezuela's upcoming presidential election. There'll be a blur of corporatist propaganda, Jackson Diehl will start churning out Washington Post columns based on the press releases of Zulia State Governor Manuel Rosales, and I'll be rhythmically banging my head against a wall in frustration.

The incumbent , Hugo Chávez, will get the extra special Swiftboat treatment this time around after his recent claim that Bush is, in fact, the Devil (a charge that nobody has managed to definitively disprove).

The narrative will be simple: wacky, out-of-control populist versus responsible, pro-American "free-market" technocrat. We'll hear things like: 'Rosales is campaigning on a platform of economic stability, increasing foreign investment and keeping inflation in check.'

The WSJ is already on the case, taking note of Venezuela's fiscal deficit -- unlike the one we face courtesy of Bush and Co., which is entirely OK -- that's resulted "As Chávez's Spending Outpaces Oil Gains" ($$).

But now, it seems, that there are suddenly two wild-eyed populists in the race; Rosales is in fact campaigning on a platform that's much like that of another candidate we know.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Minuteman storms out of Democracy Now! interview [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 12, 2006 at 2:02 PM.

Ahh, the state of dialogue in the nation. To protest the colossal idiocy and bigotry of Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist (Jesus is coming back simply to reclaim his name from this pusbag), students at Columbia University rushed the stage on which he was speaking, unfurled a banner, and got all up in his grill.

Some violence broke out and each side claims it was the other. From the videos it's difficult to tell. The first video, from the university's TV station, documents the event. The second, from Democracy Now!, shows what happens when an informed and unafraid person goes toe to toe with a bigot in the ring of ideas. The bigots run, crying for their bankies.*

***

This is a tough one, but first things first: It's not a violation of Freedom of Speech as some are claiming. Freedom of Speech is a Constitutionally granted protection from government interference in some messages it disagrees with. It's not a right to say anything anywhere that must be granted. We may value the idea that people should be able to speak without being interrupted but, alas, it's not Constitutionally protected.

I won't waste much time on the racism of the Minutemen. The Southern Poverty Law Center's done a great job of noting the overlap of White Power...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Foley patted page's ass on House floor
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on October 12, 2006 at 1:29 PM.

Mark Foley patted a page's ass on the House floor, according to a former page who witnessed the incident.

Former page Richard Nguyen told the Michigan Daily that he saw Mark Foley patt the male page in 2001.

[Pandagon]

Iraq break-up resolution passes ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on October 12, 2006 at 9:46 AM.

From BBC:

The Iraqi parliament has approved a law allowing provinces to merge into regions which would enjoy a measure of autonomy.

The law is controversial as many Sunni Muslims and others fear it would lead to the country's partition.

The vote went through unanimously, but only 138 of the chamber's 275 members were present.

Absentees included the two biggest Sunni blocs and two of the factions that make up the big Shia alliance.

There were some confused scenes in parliament as the controversial bill was read through clause by clause.

There were many significant absentees. Two of the factions which make up the big Shia alliance - Moqtada Sadr's group and a smaller one called Al Fadhila - also boycotted the proceedings.

Spokesmen for these groups later said they were totally opposed to the federal region's law.

The Sunni group said they feared it heralded Iraq's fragmentation.

Some Shia spokesmen said they believed it would have a negative impact on the political process and on hopes for national reconciliation.

That's not really the whole story.

Yesterday I spoke with Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi analyst with Global Exchange, (you remember Raed -- he was the guy who was harassed trying to get on a plane in DC with a peace t-shirt that had Arabic lettering) and he predicted that this would lead to a whole new wave of violence and called the law's passage "shocking." Even the Speaker of the Parliament -- a Sunni -- had boycotted the meeting.

The law says that 18 months from now the country's 18 provinces can choose to form into between 3-18 federal regions (obviously the three Kurdish provinces would remain a block, so it's more like 3-16 regions).

Raed said that the danger is that it will set off a whole new round of violence -- "street fighting" -- between different groups vying to be in control of each provincial government in a year and a half when the decision is to be made. While we like to oversimplify the situation in Iraq -- imagining that there are nice, discrete sectarian groups -- that's not the case. There are factions and sub-factions and there might be bloodshed between, for example, different Shiite groups -- something we haven't yet seen.

Some additional context is that there's a sharp debate going on about Iraq's Constitution, with provinces heavy in oil interpreting a rather vague clause to mean that they can keep oil revenues in the local government instead of sending them to Baghdad. That means that having control over provinces with a lot of oil revenues is even more crucial and, given the level of corruption, a person in the right place in an autonomous province might end up as rich as Croesus.

The only potential winner is Iran, who, as Raed put it, "stand to get a government in Baghdad that's friendly to Tehran and a regional government that's extremely friendly.

BBC again:

But Abdulaziz Hakim, the leader of the biggest Shia faction, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, described it as a blessed day.

Raed wasn't sure, but believed SCIRI and some Sadrists sponsored the resolution. The measure passed by one vote.

God convinces Hastert to resign
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 11, 2006 at 3:45 PM.

Motherjones.com's Josh Harkinson gets the straight dope on Hastert. The straight dope from Hastert's soul to God through evangelical preacher K.A. Paul to Harkinson to me to you, that is.

Be that as it may, according to Harkinson, Paul claims "that he’d convinced the Speaker to resign."

The minister, who bears a striking resemblance to a tawnier and more earnest Ali G., told Harkinson that "God convinced him through me in prayer."

Perhaps.

But the shady and gleefully-partisan preacher may just be killing two birds with one stone here. On the one hand, he's riding the headlines for some publicity, while on the other, he's hoping to set the Speaker's resignation in motion through suggestion. For the good of the Party, of course. Er, for God. I meant God. (Motherjones.com)

Krauthammer calls 'foul" on Foley scandal
Posted by Joshua Holland on October 11, 2006 at 1:25 PM.

How debased is our political culture when the public is nonplussed by an illegal war that's taken a half-million lives, wages stagnating for six years, an imminent war with Iran, a housing bubble bursting around them, the fact that the country is in debt up to its eyeballs and lobbyists are running around writing legislation, yet can become outraged about some pervy old bastard's instant messages asking highschool kids to measure their shlongs.

Priorities, folks.

Personally, I could care less -- I think a GOP rep like Foley has done infinitely more harm to America's youth with his votes than with his hunger for teenage man-flesh. And I certainly don't think the guy's a pedophile -- he's an ephebophile (or a hebephile) -- which, in my mind, is far less yucky (although still highly sleazy).

And while I'm nonplussed by the charges themselves -- as long as there's no sex with kids or coercion involved, I have a high degree of disinterest in people's sexual desires unless they're directed at yours truly -- I'm as happy as the next guy to see something pierce the fog of the electorate, especially the folks that ostentatiously label themselves "pro-family."

And it is entertaining, to say the least, to watch the right bend itself into pretzels trying to stop the bleeding.

Which brings me to Charles Krauthammer's whiney Weekly Standard column, in which he parrots one of the new classics: there's a liberal conspiracy to be mean to Mark Foley only because he's a Republican, and, damnit, it's just not fair:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Prediction: 51-49 Democratic Senate
Posted by Bob Geiger on October 11, 2006 at 10:52 AM.

Well, it's time to put my butt on the line again and give updated predictions for how the United States Senate will look after the election on November 7. Last month, I predicted a 50-50 split when all the ballots are counted -- or not counted, depending on whether or not the GOP is in charge in a given state -- and, while it seemed overly-optimistic to many, I'm sticking by that call. There's even a chance it could go to a 51-49 Democratic majority.

Here's my Reporter's Notebook (go here for all recent Senate polls):

In Arizona, Democrat Jim Pederson has consistently lagged nine to ten points behind the GOP's Jon Kyl and I don't see anything happening to change that between now and November 7. Fortunately, Democrats never really banked on this one because, at this point, Kyl will have to be caught exchanging sexy instant messages with Osama bin Laden to lose his Senate seat.

I've given up trying to figure out what's going on in Connecticut as too many polls show Ned Lamont significantly behind Joe Lieberman. My only hope is that what I keep hearing from off-the-record sources is true -- that Lieberman has more pressure to drop out being brought to bear by other Democrats than anyone realizes. But, at this point, why should he leave the race? He already knows most Democrats hate him and yet he still leads in all polls. Questions linger about whether people who say they'll vote for Lieberman when talking to pollsters will actually be moved to do that on election day and a massive get-out-the-vote effort is going to be required of Team Lamont.

Katherine Harris claims she's quietly sneaking up on Bill Nelson in Florida and will shock the world on election day. Yeah, that's the ticket. And I will soon shock all of my buddies by announcing a hot fling I'm having with Scarlett Johansson.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

I believe you, Mel
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 11, 2006 at 7:27 AM.

Snippets of Mel Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer have been released by ABC. You'll read the same bits everywhere:

"It was just the stupid rambling of a drunkard, you know and ... what I need to do to heal myself and be assuring and allay the fears of others and to heal them if they had any heart wounds from something I may have said."

And:

"So, this is the last thing I want to be is that kind of a monster."

"That kind of monster," eh? Actually, I'm sort of inclined to believe Gibson. In his world, in the world in which he was raised, I'm not sure his comments were quite the faux pas they are in the rest of the world. I also don't think he, and others who believe that the Passion was "just an accurate portrayal of the Gospels," understands the damage that that particular interpretation has sown.

And think of the psychic cost of being forced to understand that your father is a dangerous bigot.

So I guess the point is that I don't give a flying f**k about Gibson the individual. He can understand or not understand. It'll only make his life more interesting to get it. It's everyone else who I care about.

But here's the real scoop: Gibson never said anything at all about the Jews. What he said was: "I hate Juice":

Evangelical minister's letter to Dobson:
Posted by Evan Derkacz on October 10, 2006 at 8:17 PM.

Evangelical Christian and ordained minister Jeff Carr penned an open letter to James Dobson, calling him out on his response to the James Foley scandal.

Thank God.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that conservative Christian leaders have been engaging in political pilates (pontius pilates?) to simultaneously appear outraged and to assure congregants that voting is important and that this IS NOT A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Robertson's version is HERE, Tony Perkins' is HERE and Dobson's is HERE.

After praising Dobson as a leader he once respected, Carr's letter reads:

But somewhere along the way, I fear you have lost your way. Your message of hope has turned into a message of...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »