True horror

The BBC maintains a reporter’s log covering certain news events. This week, after the tsunamis in Asia, several reporters have been writing dispatches posted online.

A reporter in Phuket, Thailand, wrote that a German tourist, Winfred Parkinson, said the following:

“Everyone who wanted to take something out of their house must have died. The people who ran and did nothing else but running, only they had a chance.”

Another reporter, in Aceh, Indonesia, posted this:

“The true horror of what happened here Sunday morning is slowly being pieced together.”

Dead bodies, the stranded, the injured, the hopeless. As it sometimes happens, the true horror of real life has far surpassed the viciousness of any imaginary tragedies we may have encountered in our books, movies, and other forms of fake drama.

Vinnee Tong

 

The clerics’ condemnation

“What a terrible thing it is that billions — and I mean billions — of pounds are being spent on war in the Middle East which could have been spent bringing people out of dire poverty and malnourishment and disease.”

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, one of Britian’s most influential Roman Catholics.  

The trinity of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and Roman Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor all took the opportunity in their Christmas messages to address the current situation in Iraq.  While the Pope was the most modest in his criticisms, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Murphy O’Connor openly condemned the war in Iraq and the prevalent climate of fear.

Mimi Hanaoka

  

 

Orally transmitted AIDS a possibility

A new study suggests that the virus that causes AIDS spreads rapidly through the head and neck areas after oral exposure, and may result in a greater number of infections than previously thought.  

In this study, researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas administered oral injections of SIV (the simian version of HIV) to rhesus monkeys, and found that the virus very quickly invaded all of the surrounding lymphoid tissue.  

If the findings are confirmed, they will challenge the messages we impart about the relative safety of breastfeeding and oral sex.  

For more information:

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
http://www8.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept37389/files/197419.html

Toyin Adeyemi

 

Quote of note

“It’s true that the Americans are Christians and we are Christians. But they should not associate us with them. All the Christians want the Americans to get out and the occupation to end. Nobody is with the Americans.”

— Father Gabriel Shamami of St. George’s Church in Baghdad.

There are approximately 700,000 Christians currently living in Iraq, and as Borzou Daragahi reports in The Washington Times, these Christians are reluctant to celebrate Christmas for fear of radical Muslim reprisals.

Prior to the American war in Iraq and in contrast to the current situation, Christians celebrated Christmas in harmony with their Muslim neighbors. Twenty-eight-year-old Sirab Suleyman, an Iraqi Christian, states: “Before the war, Muslims and Christians used to celebrate Christmas together,” he said as he rubbed his hands for warmth in his modest living room. “Muslims used to visit their Christian friends and greet them. It was a true celebration. That’s over now.”

Mimi Hanaoka

 

‘Tis the season to be angry

Christmas under attack: Bill O’Reilly’s search for the left-wing Scrooge.

With George Bush in the White House for the next four years, a Republican-led Congress, and a Supreme Court that is likely to be stocked with conservatives for decades, life is pretty tough for Bill O’Reilly. Gloating is fun for a while, but it doesn’t sell. If you want to keep the ratings up, you need a boogeyman.

So let me introduce you to O’Reilly’s straw man of the season: the anti-Christmas Left.

“Once again, Christmas is under siege by the growing forces of secularism in America,” O’Reilly argues in a recent column. And while 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, still, O’Reilly contends, “The tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.” And you thought getting hammered was a Christmas tradition.

You may not have noticed this disturbing “national trend,” what with all the flashing red and green lights, pine trees, and white-bearded fat men roaming around. But O’Reilly’s eyes are wide open.

One of the three examples of anti-Christmas bias O’Reilly exposes in his column, on his syndicated radio show, and on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s insistence that the big, brightly lit tree in Rockefeller Center is not a Christmas tree, but a holiday tree.

Some might call that excessive political correctness. O’Reilly calls it part of a “well-organized movement” cooked up by “secular –progressives” as a subterfuge to turn the United States into Canada, where the lack of public religiosity has spawned evils from gay marriage to decreased military budgets. Awful, isn’t it?

O’Reilly says Bloomberg is “one of the many scrooges in public life” who hides his lefty politics behind multicultural euphemisms. Bloomberg is, of course, a billionaire Republican, which sort of disqualifies him from being part of the Left.

Next on the list of Christ-haters is the entire city of Denver. For 30 years, the Downtown Denver Partnership, a non-profit organization that promotes Denver as “the unique, diverse, vibrant and economically healthy urban core of the Rocky Mountain region,” has been putting on a parade to celebrate the holiday season. For the past 10 years, the “Festival of Lights” parade has declined to include religious displays, opting instead to focus on the more secular Christmas icons: Santa, stockings, and gift-giving.

Bill O’Reilly would have his audience believe that the Denver has succumbed to a vast secular conspiracy to destroy Christmas. But the city itself has nothing to do with the parade, which is being put on by a private organization comprised of hundreds of local businesses. The fact is, any organization can have a parade through the streets of Denver, and invite any group they want to participate.

So here’s a suggestion for you, Bill:  Take some of the money you make from shilling coffee mugs and doormats, and put on your own damn parade.

The most preposterous of all of O’Reilly’s conspiratorial accusations is leveled at Macy’s Department Stores. That ungodly bastion of secular lefty-ness has opted to greet patrons with the pagan rallying cry, “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” O’Reilly has apparently forgotten, so here’s a reminder: Corporations exist for one reason — to make money. If Macy’s executives thought that giving every customer the stigmata would help sell clothing and housewares, they’d find a way to make it happen.

So it appears as though O’Reilly’s conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water. But just to be sure, I spoke with Alexandra Walker, Executive Editor of TomPaine.com, a progressive website that O’Reilly cites as a player in the secular movement. Walker assures me that no anti-Christmas movement exists, and that Michael Bloomberg, the Downtown Denver Partnership, and Macy’s executives did not have any immediate plans to start a vast left-wing conspiracy against Jesus’ birthday.

If progressives were so inclined, she said, “You’d think that we could execute an anti-religion strategy with a bit more organization and some higher-profile victories.” Indeed.

 

To be idealist or not to be idealist, that is the question

The European Dreamers,” an article published in The Economist print edition on December 16, 2004, inflates a bubble of idealism about the current perception of the European Union as seen through the eyes of the West, then seems to pop it in the end. Whatever the leanings of the article, there are enough opinions to go around, even for the Westerner with the choosiest tastes.

The old stand-by contention that Europe is a washed-up enterprise gains support from Europe’s current low birth rate and the aversion to immigrants, yet it fails to squash a growing trend of optimism about the future of the E.U. “One explanation for this new strand of opinion doubtless lies in the grim realities of modern publishing,” the article suggests. In other words, volatility sells as well as yellow journalism.

T. R. Reid, author of The United States of Europe, offers a la dolce vita-inspired perspective of Europe, which is understandably attractive to the generation of overworked Americans who flocked to see Under The Tuscan Sun. He offers several recent situations in which the United States has been forced to subscribe to European demands, though The Economist questions whether these illustrate European supremacy or just a process of globalization.

“A self-confessed former hippy, [Mr. Reid] argues that ‘it is in Europe where the feelings of the sixties generation have given rise to a bold new experiment in living.’ On several occasions, he asserts that Europeans spend a lot of time involved in something called ‘deep play,’ which appears to be an alternative to hard work. Visiting Europe, he is delighted by a continent in which everybody is nicely dressed, while on returning to the United States, he notes that ‘it seems everyone is grossly overweight.’ The moral of the Rifkin story is that America is hooked on overwork and excessive consumption, while the Europeans have their lives in balance — and are nicer to animals to boot.”  

When contrasted with the opposing perspective, which is explained by Jeremy Rifkin, author of The European Dream, is it any wonder that an increasing number of readers prefer optimism? Mr. Rifkin notes that it is not uncommon for “realists” to argue that “…the sad truth is that without a massive increase in non-EU immigration in the next several decades, Europe is likely to wither and die.”

It’s all in how you look at it. The Economist enjoys a distinctive European view:

“Awareness of the depth of the political and economic challenges that lie ahead accounts for the fact that many European officials are more inclined to troubled pessimism than to Rifkinesque optimism. This European willingness to be self-critical is, as it happens, a genuine strength. Unfortunately, there is a lot to be self-critical about.”

Filmmaker Michael Moore has shown that Americans are no strangers to self-criticism either. So toward which side of the idealism question does The Economist tend? Is The Economist intimating in this article that Americans are more practiced in visualizing an ideal world? And if so, does strengthening that ability increase the likeliness of actualizing those ideals?

—Michaele Shapiro

 

Social Security vs. liberal insecurity

TO DO: Cash in that Social Security Check

When is a mandate a mandate? Ever since the election, Democrats have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming that, “Bush does not have a mandate!” Their argument seems to hinge on the thread that even though President Bush won the election handily, with 51 percent of the vote — 49 percent still aren’t happy. Well LA DEE DA! Fifty-one percent is the essence of democracy, because 51 percent is a majority. Everywhere democracy is instituted, from boardrooms to schoolrooms to family rooms and kitchens, a majority always carries the day. If there were three people deciding where to go to dinner and two people voted for steak, and the remaining one voted for chicken, you can bet dollars to dominoes that
Beef — it’s what’s for dinner.

What is it about liberals in this country? They carp all day long about democracy, but as soon as it is exercised, they immediately take up the position that the winner now has to cater to the loser. It’s INSANE! In a New Republic published after the election, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson contend that the idea that Bush has a mandate is “patently absurd.” Nobody votes for all the things the candidate stands for, so why should the candidate do any of the things he promised in his campaign? That’s the way these people think. One editorial after another, and countless made-for-TV democratic “strategists” claim that Bush doesn’t have a mandate for tax cuts, doesn’t have a mandate for gay marriage, doesn’t have a mandate for abortion.

The most recent liberal to refuse the mandate is former Clinton economic advisor Gene Sperling. After Bush immediately got to work on pushing for Social Security reform (to the amazement of Democrats who never do what they campaign on), Sperling said to The Washington Post:

“All the president has shown is that you can vaguely talk about a free-lunch privatization proposal and not have that be decisively detrimental to your electoral outcome. There’s a big difference between that and having a mandate to carve up Social Security by cutting guaranteed benefits and adding significant market risk.”

Besides grossly mischaracterizing Bush’s Social Security proposal as “free-lunch privatization,” Sperling totally misses the point — the president said that this is what he’s going to do if he won the election and (wow!) this is what he’s doing after winning the election.

The point is lost on liberals though, because they still think that red-staters swung for Bush because of their predilection towards homophobia and their fear of women’s reproductive rights. Most Democrats probably still think that Heartland Republicans are too busy looking for abortion clinics to burn, which is why prominent Democrats think they can get away with calling the President’s Social Security plan a Christmas present to Wall Street.

Harry Reid, the new Senate minority leader, said, “They are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street, and I think it’s wrong!”

Maybe it’s wrong, or maybe the American people want to grow their own money instead of spending their grandchildren’s.        

—Christopher White

 

The new nonsmoking Italy

Reporter Alessandra Rizzo of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that on January 10, 2005, a law will take effect banning smoking in bars and restaurants in Italy. As expected, smokers and establishment owners are staging fierce protests.

Although smoking will be permissible in separate smoking areas which have a ventilation system and continuous floor-to-ceiling walls, Director General of Confcommercio Edi Sommariva reports that most establishment owners have complained that the costs of creating such a smoking area are too much to be worthwhile (roughly 300 Euro per square meter). As a result, an expected 90 percent of restaurants will prevent smoking. Confcommercio represents the interests of bar and restaurant owners in Italy. They plan to go to court if the law takes effect as anticipated.

Rizzo notes that restaurant owners are equally concerned about their relations with their customers. “We are being asked to become informers, but we don’t want to give up our relations with our customers,” Rizzo quotes Sommariva in her article Monday.

A national Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, ran an editorial on the front page, which protested that reporting violations is “the job of the state and of its public officials. A bartender and a restaurateur are not guards.”

Claudio Ferrari, a 27-year-old archaeologist, reflects the feelings of a significant part of the Italian population:

“The law is exaggerated, and it’s based on a terrorist approach I don’t agree with. I don’t share the idea that it’s up to the state to educate citizens. A little common sense is all it takes.”

—Michaele Shapiro

 

Sex and Muslims

“ ‘So what’s your name,’ she said indifferently, taking off her black panties and tossing them with her toe to the cobwebby corner of the motel room just off the Turnpike in Iselin. He had a cowed look, watery eyes that wouldn’t settle on hers forthrightly, and office worker hands. She bet he worked in a cubicle.”

This is how the current installment of “Sex and the Umma,” opens, and this is part of what has sparked such controversy. “Sex and the Umma,” is the Islamic sex column portion of Muslim WakeUp!, a site and online publication that “seeks to bring together Muslims and non-Muslims in America and around the globe in efforts that celebrate cultural and spiritual diversity, tolerance, and understanding.” It is also now under attack from individuals who call themselves the Islamic Challenge Brigades and who claim that the web site is a “vile attack on Islam.” The Islamic Challenge Brigades also allege that the magazine’s publishers are “murtad,” or apostates, a term that can imply impending physical violence.

Muslim WakeUp! Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Nassef is in contact with the FBI about the situation, and Lloyd Grove, who covered the story for the shamelessly and unrelentingly gossipy New York Daily News, quoted FBI Special Agent Jim Margolin as stating: “Even if this were merely a denial-of-service attack, it would be a federal crime.”

Mimi Hanaoka

    

 

Psychological secession

A “blue” print for half of the country’s future after the devastation of November 2.

In decades to come, historians will look back on the 2004 election — November 2, 2004 — as a turning point in the history of the United States. We crossed the Rubicon — or was it the River Styx? We are witnessing the beginning of the end of one country with the flashpoint as two divergent visions of morality and their implementation.

We have had a 229-year run, and history has taught us that nation-states are largely fragile, artificial constructs and finite. Within the context of human history, the United States’ influence is disproportionate to its physical size, population and duration, and it may prove to be insignificant and waning in influence as it retreats from any consideration of progressive issues facing the world.

Indeed in a few decades, we may well have another American revolution with the residents of so-called blue states revolting against taxation without representation in the very red federal government and declaring their independence from religious tyranny. Maybe such will lead to the physical division of our nation through blue state secession. In the meantime, I argue for something subtler: a mental separation, a psychological secession.

If our pretense to democracy was put on life support in 2000, conservatives just pulled the plug, proving that the most corrupt of administrations can lie, spin and buy their way out of the direst of electoral predicaments. Even when most Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, the current president has done a lousy job, and that most of the current administration’s policies have failed, some of those same Americans will still vote for him out of fear of something, whether it be terrorists or fags or feminists or gun-hating liberals or church-state separation or having to pay a fair share in taxes.

This year’s election was supposed to be the one in which  we made a cosmic correction. A few optimistic souls projected that more than 120 million would vote. Instead, roughly 115 million Americans voted out of nearly the 200 million eligible, meaning that about 40 percent of eligible voters did not vote in what was recognized as one of the most important elections in our lifetime. That is a travesty. Even more devastating is that we are celebrating the “high” turnout.

The Republicans’ plan for the 2004 election was twofold: increase voter turnout among conservatives in the swing states and suppress Democratic voter turnout in the same. While Republicans may not have been successful in suppressing the “Detroit” (read: urban and minority) vote, their threat to challenge the rights of over 50,000 newly registered Democrats in Ohio almost surely had a chilling effect on voter turnout in poor and minority neighborhoods in that state and probably others, which was, of course, the desired effect.

Intent not to be left on the sidelines, the corporate-owned media did their part to discourage voting with unfounded rumors of terror alerts, unsupported reports of an election-day attack, constant reminders about paperless voting machines not subject to recounts, horror stories of widespread voter irregularities, and cautionary tales of 500,000 too few poll workers by federal estimates. Increased anxiety coupled with just enough predictable voter apathy made for the perfect election storm favoring an unpopular incumbent. Maybe many were so afraid of terrorist attacks that they went shopping instead.

Were the exit polls in Florida and Ohio (and other states) really that far off? I’m sure we will never know as we can rest assured that this is not a story that our country’s media is interested in pursuing. As we witnessed in 2000, stability in election outcomes is more sacred than the accuracy or legitimacy of the election process itself. Four years ago, our country’s political power structure learned how patient the electorate would be in the face of an election crisis. Not only were we willing to affirm the legitimacy of an election where every vote was not counted, we would even allow the Supreme Court to choose our president for us.

During the time since the previous election, our corporate and political elite never wasted an opportunity to remind us how important it is for Americans to accept whatever result our faulty election process spits out. Markets like stability; whether your vote was counted correctly or counted at all doesn’t matter. The fact that we have a “clear” winner is more important than ensuring the integrity of the process that determined the winner. Despite the growing clamor for an investigation of the inconsistencies and potential fraud of November 2, 2004, none will be forthcoming. The proponents of transparency in our elections are now painted as poor losers or worse, conspiracy theorists.

Despite all their dirty tricks and the many who flouted their civic duty, the bottom line is the Republicans are still in charge. And if any doubt from 2000 lingered that we live in a deeply divided nation, it was vanquished on November 2. We now live in two countries, and rather than involving ourselves in the spectacle of the national Democrats’ self-flagellation in hopes that Republicans won’t treat them too unkindly, we need to think about moving in a new direction, our own direction. We must determine to decide our own destiny.

Abandon national politics

The national Democratic Party is now irrelevant and already scurrying to the right, dropping inconvenient progressive causes along the way, as if conservatives are ever going to choose a faux Republican when they can have the real thing. Make no mistake, we now have one national party, the GOP, which is set during the next four years to complete its work of crippling the federal government’s ability to aid those in need; its decades-long goal of destroying the New Deal and any remnant of the Great Society will have been met.

While Senate Democrats could filibuster proposed regressive legislation or votes on ultra-conservative judicial nominees, they won’t. There are just enough senators from red states who will be so frightened of losing their seats (a la Tom Daschle), that they will be quite compliant. Any way you look at it, the Republicans have a comfortable majority with which to bring about their revolution. They may not be passing constitutional amendments banning flag burning or gay marriage (at least not before the elections of 2006), but judicial nominees will sail through, our tax system will be “reformed” and what’s left of the social safety net will be unraveled.

The most useless act you can commit at this point in our nation’s history is to vote in a national election. And by the way, stop giving money to national political parties. Your time and money are better spent supporting the various charities and civic organizations that will have to expend their scant resources fighting back the red tide on every issue from civil liberties to environmental protection and filling the vacuum of leadership in Washington.

We must learn to expect nothing from the federal government except its disdain. Many say that we are now heading towards a theocracy, but I would argue that we are living in a corporate theocracy. The corporate powers that be that are running our government have promised conservative Christians a theocratic social agenda in exchange for their political support. So the corporate oligarchy gets less public regulation while the social conservatives get their desire for more regulation in the private sphere, which is the opposite of our clear blue vision for the country. Personal freedom is out; corporate freedom is in.

Support state and local organizations financially

If you are one of the lucky few to benefit from the current administration’s tax cuts, then your state government had better become your new favorite charity, especially if you live in a blue state. State governments will have to fund any public policy program that does not dovetail with our national government’s extremist agenda. And while the red states may be in for a federal tax-dollar bonanza, the blue states will be picking up the tab.

Most certainly, environmental protection will fall completely to the states, always subject of course to the feds overriding anything they don’t like; state’s rights only apply to the red states. States will have to replace Medicaid/Medicare and, eventually, social security. Corporate oversight, disaster relief, housing assistance, education assistance, and protections of civil rights and civil liberties will become the burden of the states as the funding for the federal agencies historically charged with such will be diverted to deeper tax cuts, defense and faith-based (read, Christian) charities.

The way Bush has insidiously interwoven faith-based initiatives throughout cabinet level departments is nothing short of ingenious. It can claim that the Department of Education’s budget has been increased without acknowledging that all of the increase will be earmarked for faith-based initiatives only. The same is true for Health and Human Services, the Commerce Department, and a host of others.

Thinking about ourselves in a new way

We must look to alternatives by buttressing the independence of our state and local governments and increasing our support for organizations that will be forced to absorb the responsibilities that the feds are and will be shirking or creating some sort of extra-federal system or regional systems of government or coalitions of blue states to supplant the role of the federal government.

We must also get more involved state activisim and do whatever we need to do to make blue states a haven for those fleeing the theocratic tyranny of the red states, and to create a bulwark against encroachments by our federal corporate theocracy. We must ignore the national media outlets with their democracy plazas and glib talking heads.

As media become more consolidated under the control of a handful of corporate interests with Bush’s dismantling of Federal Communications Commission corporate oversight, getting your news and information from independent and varied sources becomes paramount. Corporate media in the United States have the journalistic integrity of Pravda during the Soviet era. They act as a mouthpiece for the government, which in turn rewards them with further tax breaks coupled with less regulation of their corporate structure.

Possibly the most important task will be reigning in corporate influence in state and local politics as the failure to do so on the federal level has been a significant contributor to the demise of responsive government. We must not allow our states to follow suit; they are our last hope.

We need to overturn the most undemocratic of initiatives: term limits. On the state level, such as in a large, complex state like California, they wreak havoc on our representatives’ ability to legislate effectively and intelligently. A six or eight-year term is barely enough time for a new representative to understand fully the intricacies of a handful of issues before being banned from the statehouse. And with new representatives unable to look to veteran legislators for mentoring, the friendly neighborhood lobbyist will be more than happy to explain legislation to them and even tell them how to vote. Lobbyists, by the way, are not subject to term limits. Can you imagine firing your doctor every six years because she has been practicing too long and knows you too well?

True campaign finance reform in the blue states will have to come from the ground with our demanding the end of corporate influence money. A start would be limiting campaign contributions to natural persons only and not corporate “persons” granted personage through the pernicious legal fiction of corporate citizenship. This would not cease corporate influence completely, but it would severely restrict the flow of corporate money into politicians’ coffers. Coupled with a ban on in-kind contributions, we could forestall in the blue states what has happened in Washington and see the beginning of a new era of responsive government.

Be patient, but vigilant

Our new blue state revolution will not happen within a few months, or even years. The first step is easing into the mindset that we are on our own and will now need to fight to preserve the rights and liberties we value. And remember, you have not abandoned your country — it has abandoned you.

STORY INDEX

TOPICS > FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

President Bush’s plan
URL:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/