And speaking of Military Religious Freedom ....

Every once in a while, even the most rabid Conservative notices that the anti-American feeling characterized as "Crusade Resistance" currently so prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan these days was not present during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, or Provide Comfort.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation suggests the difference is simple. During the First Gulf War, commanders were carefully briefed about not making the conflict into some kind of Religious Imperialism. From CinC CENTCOM to field units, from the Chief of Chaplains to the unit chaplains, every effort was made to keep the war from turning into a Christian Assault on Islam.

And why is it that much of the Moslem world now sees us as heading up a crusade to replace their religion and culture with a minority version of Christianity? Because we told them so.

How to Start a Crusade

Take a moment and read the above. Well known within the military community, but, I am now informed, not so well known in the general society.

And here we go again.

The Nobel Peace Prize has yet to be presented, yet nominations for the 2010 prize are already underway.

I find this item encouraging:

Among the early nominees is the Military Religious Freedom Foundation!!!!!

Not familiar with the organization? Have a wander around their website. You may find it interesting.

The great strength of the English Language ...

..... is its flexibilty. This is true of all the major dialects (Irish-English, Scottish-English, Welsh-English, Australian-English, New Zealand-English, American-English, Canadian-English, and Indian-English). It is also the great weakness of the English Language.

I am told by native speakers that a modern Hungarian, or Pole, or Finn, can read or hear poetry or prose in their respective languages written 500 years with 90% understanding or better. A modern English speaker can barely understand poetry or prose written 200 years ago.

English seems to have taken the advice of the 12th Century Theologin/Philosopher John of Syracuse to heart when he denounced the wisdom of past generations in favor of "the men of today, who require the wisdom of today" (rough translation). Fine.

For those who do NOT want to be cultural orphans, there are certain problems.

A case in point:

Lately, a quote from roughly a century back has been over-used. President Theodore Roosevelt used to suggest that the primary strength of the Presidency was the office itself, which he described as "The Bully Pulpit."

When the TV and radio pundits want to get clever, they have taken to suggesting President Obama should apply "less pulpit and more bully" in whatever matter they think he should have solved already.

So what's wrong with that? not a lot. It is their job to keep people angry. But when they do so by misquoting, it becomes deception.

When people of Theodore Rosevelt's era used "bully", it was praise, not description. Something or someone who was "bully" was exceptional. A "Bully show" was a splendid event. It had nothing to do with the thuggish behavior we now connect with the word. For modern times, "bully" is a noun, where it once was an adjective.

So when Mr. Beck or any of his ilk decides to be witty, the suggestion is that the President ignore the influence inherent in his office, and rely upon the thoroughly wonderful nature of himself.

But don't correct the person who quotes such silliness. You can't raise the intelligence of such people with an hydraulic lift. Let them look silly. It gives them a feeling of accomplishment.

There are two kinds of people .....

Those who think humanity is evenly divided on either side of a given issue, and those who know better. The latter group is probably more of a majority than one would think from watching and reading the news, but that may be because ignorant people tend to get violent, so many triple-digit IQ types tend to adopt protective coloration.

The closest thing to an apparent division at the far ends of a question involves the H1N1 flu vaccine (and the seasonal flu vaccine gets mixed in there, for reasons which shall become apparent).

The division is between those who are lining up around the block to get the vaccine for themselves and their children and those who are convinced that such things are part of a deep, dark, government plot. We used to have more of the latter in Southern California, where I make my temporary abode, but as H1N1 cases went above 50% in school districts, deaths of children passed the 100 mark, and deaths of pregnant women started to climb, there is a distinct shift to the former group.

One local church/conservative group, who had been preaching against vaccinations of any kind, chartered a bus earlier this week and ran their people around to the various free clinics where there is a good supply of both seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. Across county lines they went, many of their number having perfectly adequate health insurance (but the private insurance people who run the HMOs that form the basis of California Health Care were among the last to place their orders, hoping for a price decrease) and having no qualms about using resources paid for by the state and federal governments for people who were far more at risk than they.

When I see these supposedly religious people acting in ways that violate any of the holy books of religions that have holy books, I am reminded on Phil Och's comment on 60s liberals.

"Three points to the Left of Center on matters of national importance, six points to the Right if it affects them personally."

Phil, I said it then, and I'll say it now: the process extends to all kinds of groups.

PLEASE Stop Thanking Me

When I was young, and our phones were wired to the wall, and we fed our computers on papertape and punchcards, people often ended conversations with "Have A Nice Day!"

Even machines would flash that phrase in little red LEDs following some kind of transaction. Or a big sign on the top of the machine would light up, sometimes with a smiling face. I remember that as being the cause of my one unpleasant introduction to Airport Security. It was in San Francisco International Airport, 1967.

Admittedly, I was not in the world's greatest mood going in to the incident. I had just paid for a 5,000 mile plane trip to hear my fiancee tell me that she was not going to marry me (the original purpose of the trip). Apparently, she had decided the guy who lied his way out of military service (with the enthusiastic help of his parents) was a far better prospect. So I was now on my way back, trying to figure out how I was going to get my deposit back on an apartment, explain to my friends how it was "Mike's Angel" wasn't on the plane, etc., etc., etc.

So I put my last pocket change (this was prior to machines accepting bills) into a soft drink machine, made my selection, and watched the machine dispense the drink, the ice, and the paper cup -- in that order. As I stared at the cup sitting on its plinth of crushed ice, I caught a flashing light out of the peripheral vision. A previously blank strip of plastic, roughly ten inches by the width of the machine, was now backlit to show a group of happy people lifting identical paper cups and a caption that read "Have A Nice Day!!". Before this, I had never kicked a vending machine. I chose this moment, while a couple of Airport Security types were walking past, to break that record.

Fortunately, I had changed into my uniform (required for the 20% discount at the time), and they let me explain. Eventually, they let me proceed to my aircraft, and all was well. Getting frisked by the 60s equivalent of a small-town mall cop was more than a little embarrassing, but it did bring the hollow nature of such phrases into focus. Obviously, the thirty cents worth of peanut bulb, relay, and graphic did not care how my day was going to turn out. But neither did the various people who had expressed a similar wish during that particular stay in the States. It just pretty much came out as one long composite: haveaniceday.

Now we have "thank you for your service." It may be sincere every once in a while, but I've given up trying to sort the sincere from the merely trendy. Sometimes, there are clues. Partly my fault, I suppose. When asked for an I.D., I hand people my I.D. When asked for a driving license, I hand them a driving license.

The I.D. is a DD Form 2 (retired). It is issued by the Federal government, and is quite difficult to counterfeit. The driving license is issued by the State of Oregon, and, judging from the array of fakes found every time a high school does a no-notice sweep of lockers, can be counterfeited easily and at minimal cost. Since the point of asking is to compare my name signature, and picture with the name, signature, and picture on a credit card, a cheque, or some other item, it would seem natural to go for the less easily adulterated.

But I spend a lot of time in California, helping to care for my mother, and (as several store and branch managers have explained), most cashiers and bank tellers are trained to ask for an I.D. when they want to see the customer's California Driving License. Since I don't have one of those (although I do have a local checking account with my name and local address printed on them), I wind up having to discuss the matter with whoever holds the next level position. Convincing them that Oregon is allowed to issue licenses, and that many people do not have the California version is a cinch compared to trying to convince them that the Federal Document, which is supposed to trump local, county, and state documents, is all right. It usually gets resolved in a dozen or so minutes, or I go to another store/bank where I've already had this discussion.

And as I depart, what do I hear? Exactly: "Thank you for your service." Sometimes they add "have a nice day!!" This is, after all, California.

How does one respond? Negative words or gestures are churlish, and the person may have been sincere. Ignoring is all right, but we are trained from early childhood that statements require responses. So, if the wish for a nice day (whatever that might mean) is appended, I use the California standard "You, too." If the speaker sounds the slightest bit sincere, I smile, nod, and say "It's an honor to serve." If it's the person working the TSA line at the airport, I thank them for their service, since it helps me have a higher probability of getting to my destination in one piece.

I didn't join the United States Air Force so that somebody would thank me. In those days, they really did spit at you in public places in the States. I didn't go to places where they shot at me, or where I checked the underside of my vehicle for various devices prior to getting into it (EVERY TIME) so that somebody would thank me. I didn't spend 26 years of my life in that uniform so that someone would thank me. The actual reasons are lengthy, and far too long to explore here.

So I know most of you mean well, but please don't thank me unless you mean it. And do NOT thank me if I can't use my I.D. as one of two pieces of identification to cash a local check. Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day.

There are days I wonder .......

In the past few days, I have been amazed at the strange bedfellows created by President Obama being selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. We are treated to the sight of the self-identified dittoheads, teabaggers, and (is there a nice word for people who believe Glenn Beck?) striding hand in hand with the Taliban, Hamas, and anyone else who wishes the United States ill. For people who claim they are, at least in some measure, patriotic, this is strange, though hardly unexpected, company.

In a year that saw a record 205 nominations at the official close, and another 70 in the period between close and the committee's first meeting, there are a great number of people who are not thrilled about their favorite making the cut.

[FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT]
I signed nominating petitions for three people none of whom was President Obama. None of them were very likely contenders, and, under the rules, we'll never know where any nominee wound up in the selection process.

[ADDENDUM TO DISCLOSURE]
I'm told I should identify them so: Rebiya Kadeer, Pete Seeger, and Angela Merkle.

Back to the polemic.

The number of people who seem to think that a Peace Prize Laureate must have accomplished some great thing seem to fall into two groups.

First, there are those who honestly do not understand the process, the purpose, and/or the philosophy of the Peace Prize as it has evolved. I'll speak to that in a minute.

Second, there those who, for their own reasons, see some advantage in attacking the man himself. From the FOX News people, who should know better, to the idiot radio host who claimed the award was "an example of affirmative action," to the political types who seek to demean anything this President (who has the gall to be the wrong color) accomplishes, this group is beneath contempt. To cheer when the United States loses an Olympic Games bid and curse when the incumbent President of the Unites States is selected for the Nobel Peace Prize is shameful. In the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, the last incumbent President to be so honored, such behavior would clearly have qualified under The Alien and Sedition Acts of the time.

A Nobel Peace Prize reflects upon the person and the nation. In an amazingly few months, the United States has made unexpected progress toward mending the relationships destroyed by the former Administration. To paraphrase President Sarkozy, we have begun to act as a member of the family of nations, rather than the schoolyard bully, and we are resuming our place in the hearts of the people of the world.

More progress has been made in the areas of arms control, reduction of nuclear stockpiles, and establishing meaning dialog between nations in the past nine months than in the preceeding eight years. Granted, the heart of some of that was in the cancellation of some of the previous Administration's more egregious attacks on what President G. W. Bush is on record as calling "just a dam' piece of paper" (AKA the United States Constitution), but that alone would not have convinced the world of our return to maturity. The past few decades have seen frequent reversals in U.S. policy with the change of Administration. What is convincing is that President Obama, arguably the most knowledgeable President in the field of the Constitution and Constitutional Law since Madison, is ensuring that many of the repairs cannot be undone by a mere change in policy. The Chambers of Congress, whose responsibility it is to pass the enabling legislation, may not like the idea of doing their jobs, but the work is in progress, and the new levels of transparency will ensure the American people (those who care to seek out the facts, at least) know who voted for the good of the Republic and who voted their own self-interest.

The hour is late, and, once again, I lack the hours or the strength to write this shorter. Please wade through the weeds, gentle reader. I do think there are some interesting thing to be found.

Just what we need .........

........... more bigots with guns.

First, this piece from the Associated Press:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GOP congressional candidate pretends to shoot at Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

AP - The South Florida-based Southeast Broward Republican Club held an event earlier this week at a gun range where targets included silhouettes of Muslim stereotypes and of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). Among those who attended the event was real estate CEO Robert Lowry, who is vying to replace Wasserman Schultz in 2010:

South Florida Republicans held a weekly meeting at a gun range, shooting at targets including cut-outs of a Muslim holding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The GOP candidate to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired at a full-body silhouette with “DWS” written next to its head. [...]

Robert Lowry, who’s vying for Wasserman Schultz’s seat, initially described his target as a joke. Minutes later, he called it a mistake.

Others refused to apologized [sic] for the Southeast Broward Republican Club event, featuring assault rifles and handguns. A conservative activist said they should stand up for their beliefs in the heavily Democratic county.

Commenting on the event, Broward Palm Beach News Blog writes, “OK, so I suppose that target isn’t too offensive. Clearly, it’s a terrorist. That is, a religious radical who truly hates his political opponents, who arms himself to the teeth, and who uses violence as a means of achieving political ends. It’s just that in America, the Republicans have also been the religious radicals, the most hateful toward their opponents, and the most eager to use guns. So you all should be careful gunning down terrorists — you might hit one of your own.”

Update Rep. Wasserman Schultz issued this statement:

There is nothing light or funny about pretending to shoot someone. At a time in our country when people are bringing guns to Town Hall Meetings and a preacher is calling for the death of our President, I find this type of action serious and disturbing. Tonight I am going to have to talk to my young children about why someone is pretending to shoot their mother. Trivializing violent behavior is the kind of extreme view that has no place in American politics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, back again.

I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure none of the Republic Party stalwarts merrily shooting at targets have never been shot at. I'm also guessing they've never stood next to a friend one minute, just talking, and been screaming for a medic the next minute as the friend's blood is spreading across the flight line. There is nothing funny about shooting at pictures of human beings. I've done it on target courses, but that was in preparation for going to places where I was likely to have to decide who was or was not an acceptable target in the time it takes to move a weapon from "carry" to "fire" positions.

During the 1960's, I remember seeing pictures of a firing range in Alabama that had photos of Civil Rights leaders on the silhouettes. Apparently, some things don't change.

If terrorists REALLY looked that obvious, stopping them would be easy. But from Oswald through to the white supremacist this week who blew his fingers off while mixing bomb-making chemicals in a house where he also ran a marijuana farm and a day care center, terrorists tend to be people who are either native-born or in the country legally.

As I write this, the TV is showing security camera film of a barroom argument that winds up with one of the parties drawing a handgun, shooting the other party, then firing wildly into the room. Nothing changes. When I was stationed at Tyndall AFB, FL, a colleague was in a neighborhood bar, sitting at a table with friends when two people got into an argument at the bar. One of them walked out of the room, and the argument appeared to be over. Within moments, he was back in the bar with a pump-action shotgun in hand. By the time he had finished firing, 11 people were wounded, and two were dead.

So forgive me if I seem unwilling to buy the "just a joke" argument.

President Obama, who arguably has the best grounding in the U. S. Constitution and constitutional law of any President since the ones who had a role in writing the thing, has written a convincing case for the Second Amendment being about an individual, rather than communal right. At the moment, it is the only specified individual right that is not paired with responsibilities. A few more incidents like this may change that status.

Why Do they Do It?

When the United States lost the Olympics Games final, a whole batch of right-wing types started cheering because as one so inelegantly put it: "The ego had landed. In Flames."

Now anybody who thinks that the first time the United States sends a head of state/government was going to make a lot of difference truly needs to get an update on the process. But you can't blame the Rabid Right. They don't pay much attention to anything that doesn't involve steroids or cars that corner only one direction. As one ESPN talking head said the other day, "The Olympics is a great opportunity for me. I can let my wife watch all those weird sports and I can get caught up on NFL archive videos."

So, one can understand the Republic Party leaders (Steele, Limbaugh, Beck, et al.) cheering when the United States loses (or when anything else goes badly for us) because it gives them a chance to dream up more "interesting speculation" about why their President deserves to have everything (the country, the economy, national security, that sort of trivia) in ruins about him so he will learn his place. But why they see fit to disparage him when he is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize borders on the incomprehensible.

The neo-con attack dogs got in first, demonstrating their lack of knowledge about the Prize and equating it with the kind of quid-pro-quo system used to run the previous Administration/Congress -- please a lobbyist, get a cash prize. Then somebody noticed that the presumed leadership of the Republic Party were sounding like whiners. So those who have hopes for a longer career and realize that the Dittoheads and the Beckians do not constitute a winning number outside of the Old Confederacy have taken their grandmothers' advice, and are saying nothing at all.

The numbers of voices from the Right who are able to swallow the truth of the matter -- that this Prize not only reflects credit upon the President, it reflects credit upon the entire nation -- and have tendered their congratulations (to a varying level of civility) should have been higher. But at least it makes the negatives and the "present, not commenting" inputs look nearly as childish as they are.

These people claim to love America. They should be cheering. For the third time, the sitting President has been awarded what is, arguably, one of the highest honors in the world. So why is it that they are, at best, grudging, and, in the main, negative?

I truly wish their obvious ignorance of the criteria and process of this Prize could be an excuse. It is not. Possibly their pique over the absence of Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, or Sarah Palin from the list of honorees could excuse some of the vitriol. But the Republic Party does not honor the idea of world peace, or even reducing the level of warfare and crisis in the world. So that's not it.

I come to the reluctant conclusion that (paraphrasing one of my favorite films) that these people do NOT love this country. How could they, when they clearly hate the majority of their fellow citizens? How could they, when they treat the phrase "The United States of America" as a plural? ("The United States are going to ....) We settled that in the 19th Century (The United States is going to ........).

Apparently, the politics of fear and division cannot thrive in a truly united nation, so they must divide us, and seek to destroy anything that unites us. It puts them in power every time the nation gets scared enough to want to want to turn everything over to "the best people" and avoid the work and sacrifice that demonstrate the values we claim to possess. So keeping the Republic on the edge of disaster while the ruling classes line their off-shore bank accounts is in their interests, even it is clearly NOT in the interests of the people. But who cares about the people? Take their taxes, send them off to wars, keep a decent education just out of their children's reach, and tell them who to blame for everything they think they are being denied. Keep the taxes low for "the Best People", let their families avoid all but token participation in the defense of the nation, give their children the best education money can buy.

In 20 of the past 28 years, the gap between rich and poor has increased. Education has declined to the point where the 1980 7th grade reading level is not the 12th grade level. Not one area of the economy that has been "deregulated" operates as well as it did when there were regulations to protect consumers and workers. A decreasing percentage of the population holds an increasing percentage of the nation's wealth. How can any political entity claim to love the country and support its destruction?

All right.....NOW is it Obvious?

Every time I wonder how a practicing Christian, Jew, Moslem, Neo-Druid, Buddhist, or just about everything else could possibly support the Conservative Movement, I get beaten about the head and shoulders for not "getting it" --- usually accompanied by various quotations from the appropriate books.

Conservative Christians tend to be the prickliest about the idea,holding up one of the multiple hundreds of English translations of The Bible as "proof that God supports Conservatism" and, apparently that Jesus of Nazareth didn't really mean a lot of that stuff about loving your neighbor.

Now the wonderful folks at Conservapedia have launched The Conservative Bible Project. The idea is to get rid of what they see as "The Liberal Bias" in The Bible. It must be said that they appear to be concentrating New International Version (NIV), which should, I suppose, give that version some increase in sales. For an interesting precis of the effort, I refer you to the appropriate column in Crooks and Liars.

As one might expect, the less-than-Conservatively-Pure amongst us are going to have some fun with the whole idea that one specific version of one of the many translations of what may be the most edited work in history is somehow deserving of yet another revision.

AND SO IT BEGINS: As I type this, I have the news on TV, and the story has just cut into the space used last hour for David Letterman's most recent apology, and the interesting defense by the alleged blackmailer: "I have proof this was true, and so I shouldn't be prosecuted."

UPDATE: The first mention I saw was on MSNBC, now it's on CNN, and I am informed that the broadcast news programs have included it in their "silly season" units. NO, I don't know what Fox had to say about it. I will read their web site, I will subscribe to Human Events Online, but I cannot handle what passes for commentary on the channel.