The L.A. Times reports that when asked if the US was winning the war in Iraq, General Peter J. Schoomaker had to think for a good 10 seconds before he could reply. The General, known for his honesty, finally replied, "I think I would answer by telling you I don't think we're losing."
A resounding endorsement, to be sure. However, it was closely followed by this nugget of pure truth: "The challenge...is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be. That's why I tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of this."
General George W. Casey, Jr., supreme commander of our forces in Iraq, has also said that, due to increasing sectarian violence, it appears the number of troops in Baghdad might go up, instead of down as he'd hoped.
Now, consider the position in which the GOP and the White House find themselves. They must rabidly support the war. They cannot point to many negatives in Iraq because every single one can be traced to their own lies leading to the war, and their aggressive incompetence in handling it. They must openly ridicule Democrats who push for a loose timetable to withdraw our troops. They must, in their own empty words, "Stay the course."
But the two people in charge of operations in Iraq are dubious about success. They are worried about the growing violence and instability of the entire region. Retired military officers, normally strong supporters of this sort of thing, have loudly called for Rumsfeld to be removed as Defense Secretary. The American public is becoming more and more convinced that the indisputable facts are indeed correct. Bush decided long before the war began that it would happen no matter what (see the Downing Street Memo); he manipulated and falsified information to try to convice the world this was justified (see Colin Powell's February, 2003 address to the U.N.); the entire Middle East is prepping for a brutal, all-out war (see Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc).
Faced with the overwhelming evidence pointing to their utter lack of credibility in regard to Iraq, what do you suppose Bush and Co. will do? What do you suppose they will instruct their GOP minions to do, or the castrated watchdogs who report news inside the Beltway? It's time for more prestidigitation, more issue waving and baiting and switching. They've already tried gay marriage and flag-burning, what's next? As Ziggy points out over on Highly Agitated, the right-wing attacks on Ned Lamont are cranking up. Look for the Repubs to really start getting into Dem-bashing as midterms draw nearer. Look for personal and idealogical attacks on Democratic candidates, as well as on any media that dare speak positively about them. Watch for more spastic applause as individual states continue to ban homosexual unions. Watch continued polls that show increasing opposition to the war be eclipsed by Republican talking points about Democracy in Iraq. Eventually, watch for those poll numbers to no longer even be reported by the mainstream media. Most of all, watch your back. Like any good magician, the GOP will be creating fire and flash and smoke, and while you're oohing and ahhing, their other hand is pick-pocketing more of your freedoms.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Cries of Embryonic Pain
In a move guaranteed to surprise no one, the Catholic Church is cranking up the anachronism machine again. Their never-ending efforts to set the population back hundreds of years at a time and ignore the blush of modernity continue unabated. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo led the Holy See back up onto it's creaky, old high horse last week in an interview published by a Catholic weekly, reports the New York Times.
Cardinal Trujillo is pushing for changes in Church law that would allow scientists involved in stem cell research to be excommunicated. Not just regular ol' excommunicated either; immediate, invisible, sudden-death excommunication by God. In 1990, Pope John Paul published the Evangelium Vitae, which, among other horrors, declared that abortion would precipitate instant excommunication for both women and doctors. This is called latae senentiae, and it means that the Church doesn't have to do anything; you basically excommunicate yourself automatically if you have or perform an abortion. The Big Catholic Fathers consider abortion so severe that no judgement from them is necessary. No papers are filed, you don't get a notice in the mail, no phone call, just the total and irrevocable severing of your bond with Jesus.
To the short list of offenses that warrant automatic, light-speed holy exile from the love and grace of God forever, Cardinal Trujillo would like to add pretty much anyone involved with embryonic stem cell research. His quote in the Times reads "Destroying an embryo is equivalent to abortion. Excommunication is valid for the women, the doctors and researchers who destroy embryos."
The article also states that it's "unclear" if the Pope is currently in favor of this newest anti-science tactic. However, he will be attending the final day of the Church's World Meeting of Families on July 9 in Spain. Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, will also be there. And, since his responsibilities include new policy proposals, it's a safe bet he will be sitting down in the Papal presence to do some politicking.
Even if the Pope is already on board, or will be convinced at the meetings this month, there's little chance of the changes taking place anytime soon. The Rev. Brian Johnstone says "Clarification of such a delicate point of this importance is unlikely to be made at such a large gathering."
Obviously, since Church dogma maintains that life begins at the moment of conception, both abortion and embryonic harvesting of stem-cells are out. But to assign a spiritual penalty, and the Church's most drastic one at that, to these procedures is truly religious terrorism.
Abortion is a private choice that a woman makes; if one consideration of that decision is spiritual teaching then I don't see a problem. But when an iron-clad dictum mandates one course of action and totally forbids the other, conflicts become prevalent. Human life is not black and white, and neither are decisions, even religious ones. Abortion is an intensely personal issue that everyone must reconcile for themselves. The Church's opinion should be valid to practicing Catholics, but it shouldn't be allowed to intrude upon secular law.
Stem-cell research is the greatest, most promising thing to arise in the scientific community since antiseptics were discovered. If it is allowed funding and study it could very well save millions of people their lives and minds. This is neither private nor personal: the promise that stem cells hold literally affects millions of people worldwide suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, burns, muscular dystrophy, loss of hearing and vision, and countless other afflictions. To deny these millions the very real possibility of a cure or the alleviation of their conditions based on an unverifiable spiritual belief is an act of tragic cruelty. The Vatican is telling sons and daughters that the observable suffering of their living parents is unimportant next to the idea of protecting life that may never be.
In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris delivers a concise description of stem-cell research:
The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman's body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body-neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.
Mr. Harris goes on to say that the embryos are destroyed at the 150-cell stage, but there is no physical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they feel the pain or loss in any way. He baldly states, however, that the immeasurable pain and misery felt by those who could be helped by stem cell research is tangible every day.
Again, I must point out that the Church has it's own, very specific place in this scheme. Science is unbiased, empirical, and based soley on facts. Religion is biased, philosophical, and concerned with invisible qualities such as faith. Therefore, the Church is relegated to an advisory position only. It's opinions must only be valid to those who choose to accept it's belief system. Science cannot be hindered by the religious notion that life begins at conception when it accepts (and the law declares) that life begins at birth. It's understandable that, since so many people look to their spiritual leaders for guidance on so many topics, that guidance should be available. What's incomprehensible is millions of people with myriad, incompatible beliefs thinking that science should be governed by superstition, conjecture and unprovable concepts.
I know most of us are used to George Bush lying to us. What's more, we're aware of the vast resources his administration has at their disposal to create, substantiate, and disperse these lies. On May 24, 2005, in the East Room of the White House, he fed the American public a heinous falsehood. This lie towers as a monument to his blatant, right-wing disregard for a factual approach to science. Bush stated that "The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo." The overwhelming evidence to the contrary comes from the June/July 2006 issue of Free Inquiry, in an aritcle titled "Lies in Embryo," by Arthur Caplan. According to Mr. Caplan, America is storing somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand frozen embryos, with more being created every month. Bush's proposed alternative to using them for stem cell research is the argument that they can be "adopted". And many are. But with such a staggering number of embryos in clinics around the US, there is no way to imagine that even a small percentage of them will be adopted. Many donors of existing embryos have died; some couples created them hoping to have their own child, and don't wish to donate them when their efforts failed; there are even folks who specifically wish them to be used for research if they cannot conceive.
Many couples opt for in vitro fertilization so that at least one of them can give sperm or an egg and thus contribute to the genetic makeup of the child. They have no desire to adopt an embryo created by others. Even if everyone who couldn't have a baby wanted to use an embryo donated by two strangers, there aren't four hundred thousand couples in the country who could afford the procedure. If a couple tries unsuccessfully to have their own child and finds out one or both of them are infertile, adopting a living baby is much easier and cheaper than in vitro.
All this points to one, very obvious fact: There is an undeniable surfeit of "spare" embryos in clinics all across America. In fact, there are so many "spares", that Mr. Caplan says with authority that "...the only fate that awaits nearly all of the embryos now frozen in the United States and the new surplus embryos being created every day is to be destroyed."
Bush has again twisted the facts to back his own, insupportable ideas. It would be wonderful if every embryo could be adopted by a loving family, if every child was a wanted child. This is not the case, and Bush knows it's not the case. He's pushing his own agenda of "life-affirming alternatives" to stem cell research because he disagrees with it on religious grounds.
Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Holland and Spain are among the countries that have decided to use their extra embryos for research. And here, in the world's only superpower, we're still being told by leaders that our invisible friends in the sky will never condone research to alleviate the boundless suffering of the living.
Wake up and resist.
Cardinal Trujillo is pushing for changes in Church law that would allow scientists involved in stem cell research to be excommunicated. Not just regular ol' excommunicated either; immediate, invisible, sudden-death excommunication by God. In 1990, Pope John Paul published the Evangelium Vitae, which, among other horrors, declared that abortion would precipitate instant excommunication for both women and doctors. This is called latae senentiae, and it means that the Church doesn't have to do anything; you basically excommunicate yourself automatically if you have or perform an abortion. The Big Catholic Fathers consider abortion so severe that no judgement from them is necessary. No papers are filed, you don't get a notice in the mail, no phone call, just the total and irrevocable severing of your bond with Jesus.
To the short list of offenses that warrant automatic, light-speed holy exile from the love and grace of God forever, Cardinal Trujillo would like to add pretty much anyone involved with embryonic stem cell research. His quote in the Times reads "Destroying an embryo is equivalent to abortion. Excommunication is valid for the women, the doctors and researchers who destroy embryos."
The article also states that it's "unclear" if the Pope is currently in favor of this newest anti-science tactic. However, he will be attending the final day of the Church's World Meeting of Families on July 9 in Spain. Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, will also be there. And, since his responsibilities include new policy proposals, it's a safe bet he will be sitting down in the Papal presence to do some politicking.
Even if the Pope is already on board, or will be convinced at the meetings this month, there's little chance of the changes taking place anytime soon. The Rev. Brian Johnstone says "Clarification of such a delicate point of this importance is unlikely to be made at such a large gathering."
Obviously, since Church dogma maintains that life begins at the moment of conception, both abortion and embryonic harvesting of stem-cells are out. But to assign a spiritual penalty, and the Church's most drastic one at that, to these procedures is truly religious terrorism.
Abortion is a private choice that a woman makes; if one consideration of that decision is spiritual teaching then I don't see a problem. But when an iron-clad dictum mandates one course of action and totally forbids the other, conflicts become prevalent. Human life is not black and white, and neither are decisions, even religious ones. Abortion is an intensely personal issue that everyone must reconcile for themselves. The Church's opinion should be valid to practicing Catholics, but it shouldn't be allowed to intrude upon secular law.
Stem-cell research is the greatest, most promising thing to arise in the scientific community since antiseptics were discovered. If it is allowed funding and study it could very well save millions of people their lives and minds. This is neither private nor personal: the promise that stem cells hold literally affects millions of people worldwide suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, burns, muscular dystrophy, loss of hearing and vision, and countless other afflictions. To deny these millions the very real possibility of a cure or the alleviation of their conditions based on an unverifiable spiritual belief is an act of tragic cruelty. The Vatican is telling sons and daughters that the observable suffering of their living parents is unimportant next to the idea of protecting life that may never be.
In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris delivers a concise description of stem-cell research:
The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman's body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body-neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.
Mr. Harris goes on to say that the embryos are destroyed at the 150-cell stage, but there is no physical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they feel the pain or loss in any way. He baldly states, however, that the immeasurable pain and misery felt by those who could be helped by stem cell research is tangible every day.
Again, I must point out that the Church has it's own, very specific place in this scheme. Science is unbiased, empirical, and based soley on facts. Religion is biased, philosophical, and concerned with invisible qualities such as faith. Therefore, the Church is relegated to an advisory position only. It's opinions must only be valid to those who choose to accept it's belief system. Science cannot be hindered by the religious notion that life begins at conception when it accepts (and the law declares) that life begins at birth. It's understandable that, since so many people look to their spiritual leaders for guidance on so many topics, that guidance should be available. What's incomprehensible is millions of people with myriad, incompatible beliefs thinking that science should be governed by superstition, conjecture and unprovable concepts.
I know most of us are used to George Bush lying to us. What's more, we're aware of the vast resources his administration has at their disposal to create, substantiate, and disperse these lies. On May 24, 2005, in the East Room of the White House, he fed the American public a heinous falsehood. This lie towers as a monument to his blatant, right-wing disregard for a factual approach to science. Bush stated that "The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo." The overwhelming evidence to the contrary comes from the June/July 2006 issue of Free Inquiry, in an aritcle titled "Lies in Embryo," by Arthur Caplan. According to Mr. Caplan, America is storing somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand frozen embryos, with more being created every month. Bush's proposed alternative to using them for stem cell research is the argument that they can be "adopted". And many are. But with such a staggering number of embryos in clinics around the US, there is no way to imagine that even a small percentage of them will be adopted. Many donors of existing embryos have died; some couples created them hoping to have their own child, and don't wish to donate them when their efforts failed; there are even folks who specifically wish them to be used for research if they cannot conceive.
Many couples opt for in vitro fertilization so that at least one of them can give sperm or an egg and thus contribute to the genetic makeup of the child. They have no desire to adopt an embryo created by others. Even if everyone who couldn't have a baby wanted to use an embryo donated by two strangers, there aren't four hundred thousand couples in the country who could afford the procedure. If a couple tries unsuccessfully to have their own child and finds out one or both of them are infertile, adopting a living baby is much easier and cheaper than in vitro.
All this points to one, very obvious fact: There is an undeniable surfeit of "spare" embryos in clinics all across America. In fact, there are so many "spares", that Mr. Caplan says with authority that "...the only fate that awaits nearly all of the embryos now frozen in the United States and the new surplus embryos being created every day is to be destroyed."
Bush has again twisted the facts to back his own, insupportable ideas. It would be wonderful if every embryo could be adopted by a loving family, if every child was a wanted child. This is not the case, and Bush knows it's not the case. He's pushing his own agenda of "life-affirming alternatives" to stem cell research because he disagrees with it on religious grounds.
Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Holland and Spain are among the countries that have decided to use their extra embryos for research. And here, in the world's only superpower, we're still being told by leaders that our invisible friends in the sky will never condone research to alleviate the boundless suffering of the living.
Wake up and resist.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
You Spin Me Right Round, Baby
Despite yet another setback, the GOP is determined to use all of their blistering, public losses to their advantage. Unfortunately, many Democrats and some of the voters may be dumb enough to buy it.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court handed the Republicans their latest defeat. Bush has long been clamoring about military commissions for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who haven't managed to kill themselves yet. This is a flagrant end-run around the Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the Supreme Court struck the idea down. In the face of numerous human-rights violations at Gitmo, the administration still insists that most of the prisoners being held with no charges against them and no real hope of a trial are members of al-Qaeda or other terror groups.
The Court ruled that Congress must come up with new rules for trying these detainees, and make sure that the issue is put before the public so they know exactly what's going on. Many critics are using this as another weapon in the battle to have Gitmo shut down for good. It's defenders, predictably, are howling that closing the prison would put killers on the streets. This, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of prisoners haven't been charged, much less proven a killer. Not to mention the US policy of rendering prisoners back to their home turf to be tortured and executed.
Once again, the GOP has dragged out their worn-down, listless, swaybacked one-trick pony. With their demands that Democrats back Bush on this thing, they're again threatening to brand the Dems as weak on terror if they oppose. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has stated that the ruling "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." John A. Boehner, House Majority leader, attacked those comments, insisting Pelosi was advocating "special privileges for terrorists."
Only a right-wing spin doctor could advance that notion, considering the SUSPECTED terror suspects have been bereft of charges or trials to even begin to prove their affiliations. They don't have ANY privileges, much less "special" ones.
Terry Nelson, Bush's 2004 political director has said that "It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists." Other GOP strategists have insisted this is a good time for Bush to "put Democrats on the spot."
No, it isn't. I can't believe the utter gall of Terry Nelson; no one is arguing for "additional" rights here. People are demanding that the prisoners' original rights be restored. If Bush and Co. are so maniacally convinced that these detainees are terrorists, how hard should it be to prove it in a fair trail? Or to even come up with something to charge them with? Democrats had better find a touch of unity and refuse to be "put on the spot." This is a step forward! Stop being wishy-washy! Don't let the Republicans turn a ploughshare into a sword. This is a major, legal setback for an administration that should have toppled long ago. We need to give it a good, strong shove here and watch as it drowns in it's own criminal intent.
A majority of Americans favor holding prisoners at Guantanamo. 71%, however, also support charges being brought against them or identifying them as Prisoners of War. Let's give them what they want, Democratic Party. Let's come up with new rules so that these people can be tried. If their trials support the charges that they're terrorists, then we can enjoy some bipartisan unity. If, as many believe, the trials will not support such charges, then the American public's opinion of Guantanamo Bay will swing fully into the negative. If that happens, the GOP will finally have to swallow some bitter medicine, and maybe some Republican voters will realize the extent to which their party has deceived them by spinning obvious defeats into victories.
Wake up and resist.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court handed the Republicans their latest defeat. Bush has long been clamoring about military commissions for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who haven't managed to kill themselves yet. This is a flagrant end-run around the Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the Supreme Court struck the idea down. In the face of numerous human-rights violations at Gitmo, the administration still insists that most of the prisoners being held with no charges against them and no real hope of a trial are members of al-Qaeda or other terror groups.
The Court ruled that Congress must come up with new rules for trying these detainees, and make sure that the issue is put before the public so they know exactly what's going on. Many critics are using this as another weapon in the battle to have Gitmo shut down for good. It's defenders, predictably, are howling that closing the prison would put killers on the streets. This, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of prisoners haven't been charged, much less proven a killer. Not to mention the US policy of rendering prisoners back to their home turf to be tortured and executed.
Once again, the GOP has dragged out their worn-down, listless, swaybacked one-trick pony. With their demands that Democrats back Bush on this thing, they're again threatening to brand the Dems as weak on terror if they oppose. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has stated that the ruling "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." John A. Boehner, House Majority leader, attacked those comments, insisting Pelosi was advocating "special privileges for terrorists."
Only a right-wing spin doctor could advance that notion, considering the SUSPECTED terror suspects have been bereft of charges or trials to even begin to prove their affiliations. They don't have ANY privileges, much less "special" ones.
Terry Nelson, Bush's 2004 political director has said that "It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists." Other GOP strategists have insisted this is a good time for Bush to "put Democrats on the spot."
No, it isn't. I can't believe the utter gall of Terry Nelson; no one is arguing for "additional" rights here. People are demanding that the prisoners' original rights be restored. If Bush and Co. are so maniacally convinced that these detainees are terrorists, how hard should it be to prove it in a fair trail? Or to even come up with something to charge them with? Democrats had better find a touch of unity and refuse to be "put on the spot." This is a step forward! Stop being wishy-washy! Don't let the Republicans turn a ploughshare into a sword. This is a major, legal setback for an administration that should have toppled long ago. We need to give it a good, strong shove here and watch as it drowns in it's own criminal intent.
A majority of Americans favor holding prisoners at Guantanamo. 71%, however, also support charges being brought against them or identifying them as Prisoners of War. Let's give them what they want, Democratic Party. Let's come up with new rules so that these people can be tried. If their trials support the charges that they're terrorists, then we can enjoy some bipartisan unity. If, as many believe, the trials will not support such charges, then the American public's opinion of Guantanamo Bay will swing fully into the negative. If that happens, the GOP will finally have to swallow some bitter medicine, and maybe some Republican voters will realize the extent to which their party has deceived them by spinning obvious defeats into victories.
Wake up and resist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
