Mother Davis turns the page, looks up, and says,

Yesterday, Jim took note of the recent behavior of some of the leaders of the Christian religious right: They’re busy trying to censor criticism of their ideas, calling for the murder of their enemies, and trying to sentence people to life in prison for having sex. Christians need to realize that these kind of antics are the predominant public face of their religion these days.

It’s not a matter of media bias so much as it is a matter of focus. The right wing of Christianity is a whole lot better organized than the left wing, and seems an awful lot more motivated too. The right wing, and its aggressive antics, dominate Christianity today.

When I make comments like these, people might assume that I am anti-religion. To do so, however, they would have to make the mistake of equating right wing Christianity in particular with the entire category of religion.

Contrast the right wing religious activities of public Christianity described above with the following statement:

“The more people I meet the stronger my conviction becomes that the oneness of humanity, founded on understanding and respect, is a realistic and viable basis for our conduct. Wherever I go, this is what I speak about. I believe that the practice of compassion and love - a genuine sense of brotherhood and sisterhood - is the universal religion. It does not matter whether you are Buddhist or Christian, Moslem or Hindu, or whether you practice religion at all. What matters is your feeling of oneness with humankind.”

That is the voice of a truly wise leader. That is the voice of the Dalai Lama, from his book, How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life.

Now, I don’t agree with everything that the Dalai Lama believes and says. However, where the Dalai Lama earns my respect is that he does not wish to require me to agree with and obey his beliefs. At the close of the introduction to the book I have quoted above, the Dalai Lama says of the book that, “I hope that parts of it may be of use, but if not, that is all right, too!”

The attitude condensed in that statement is one that I would like to express more often in my life. I wish it were expressed more by the culture that surrounds me as well. I hope that, through our writings here at Irregular Times, we are working to promote an attitude of openness and compassion, even though we do not express it with the unpretentious dignity of the Dalai Lama.

Turning another page,
Mother Davis

Cindy Sheehan’s vigil in search of answers about the death of her son comes to an end today as we turn from August to September. However, her journey, and the journey of her supporters, has just begun.

Over the next few weeks, Cindy Sheehan and other mothers of people killed in the Iraq War will be touring the South, Midwest and Northeast regions of the United States. You can visit the Bring Them Home Now Tour web site to see where and when the pro-peace caravan will be coming near your home town.

Of course, this journey leads up to the big event, a national anti-war protest in Washington D.C. and San Francisco on September 24 - just over three weeks from now. Be there.

There are some pretty harsh economic numbers coming out these days. Yesterday, the following two numbers struck me with a particular strength:

Crude oil at 70 dollars per barrel
Poverty levels among Americans increasing to 12.7 individuals per hundred.

Add another number from today: 1 in 7 Americans can’t afford to buy health insurance.

People are poorer in America, and yet the basic costs of living, like energy, health care, and housing, are going up.

And what of those Republican promises of a trickle down of wealth from the big corporations and wealthy Americans who got big tax favors from the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration? Trickle this: The stock market has gained NOTHING. It’s flat.

It’s enough to leave me feeling oily.

I’m doing everything I can this year to keep track of all the congressional campaigns that are starting to move in preparation for next year’s election. The Congress in power right now has proven itself to be terribly corrupt, petty, and beholden to corporate lobbyists and extremists on the far right who are trying to wage a “culture war” against the rest of America (why not just drop the word “culture” and declare war, wing nuts?). Typically, American voters are lazy when it comes to paying attention to Congress, although the Congress as a whole has a power equal to the presidency. (Check out Politics1 for a good source on the congressional races in your neck of the woods.)

So, I was glad to hear that a fellow named Steve Young has decided to run as a Democrat in the special election being held this December in California’s 48th congressional district. The winner of this election gets to represent Orange County in the United States House of Representatives.

But, as strong a supporter of electoral politics as I am, I couldn’t help but stifle a giggle when I visited the Steve Young campaign web site this morning to find a really silly and gratuitous use of new Internet technology.

About ten seconds after I visited the front page, a moving, talking image of Steve Young popped up in the lower left-hand corner of my screen, like a pixelated sock puppet. Well, isn’t that cute? I learned, by seeing this unexpected movie, that Steve Young really likes to watch himself smile.

What else did I learn? Well, the movie of Mr. Young asked that I please visit his web site to find out more. Chipper Mr. Young even told me the name of the web site: SteveYoungforCongress.com.

That’s really, really swell, but… I already was at the web site, see, and that’s how come I got to see his movie, see, and I already knew the address of the web site, see, ’cause I was already at the web site, see.

You know, I appreciate it that the Internet is, for the most part, a quiet experience. I like to read in peace and quiet, and it kind of irritates me when someone thinks I’ll enjoy it if he pops his head up and starts blabbering to me. On the other hand, this new technology is bright and shiny, my precious.

In the interest of fairness, people ought to know that there are other Democrats running for the nomination for this seat in Congress. There’s Bea Foster, who’s a teacher who does not currently have a campaign web site. And then there’s John Graham, a college professor with a web site that does not babble at visitors. Tom Pallow is also running for the Democratic nomination. He’s a marketing consultant. There’s also Béa Tiritilli, who is running as a Green, and seems very nice.

The Democratic primary to choose a nominee for this special election will be held on October 4, and I’ll be waiting eagerly to see how it turns out. Will silence win out over gratuitous babbling technology? Stay tuned…

The Republicans, dominated by their conservative Christian fundamentalist wing, keep telling the rest of us that their efforts are all informed by the “moral values” of their religion.

But precisely what moral values are those? Thumbing through just one day’s copy of The News and Observer last week, the following examples of conservative Christian fundamentalist moral values came to light:

Assassination: It’s a Moral Thing. The Reverend Televangelist Marion “Pat” Robertson, after being caught in the transparent lie that he never spoke of assassination, admitted that he called for assassination but continued to argue that assassinations can sometimes be a moral thing.

Life in Prison for Consensual Gay Sex?: It’s a Moral Thing. Fundamentalist Christian groups in Hong Kong harshly criticized a judge for nullifying laws sending men to prison for life, just for having consensual gay sex. The conservative Christian groups argued that if you didn’t give men life sentences in prison for having sex with each other, they might be more likely to hop in bed. A deterrence of life imprisonment, therefore, was required. Life in prison? A better fate than sodomy!

Censor Thy Critics: It’s a Moral Thing. The conservative fundamentalist Christian Reverend Jerry Falwell couldn’t stand that Christopher Lamparello created a website that begins “The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell is completely wrong when he says that gay and lesbian people are sinning and can change. Please take a moment to read why…”. So he took Lamparello to court and demanded that the critical website be taken down. Reverend Falwell lost, of course, but in bringing the lawsuit he displayed his conservative fundamentalist moral values: censor thy critics.

That’s what we know conservative fundamentalist Christians were up to in just one day. That’s what they are trying to accomplish as they try to gain control of our legal and political systems. These are the moral values of the people who put George W. Bush and Republican majorities into office. This is why the elections of 2006 and 2008 matter.

What won’t Katherine Harris do to win an election? In 2000, she showed her willingness to stoop to the lowest methods of electoral manipulation when, as Secretary of State of Florida, she helped the Bush Family prevent all the votes in that year’s presidential election from being counted.

After she earned the loyalty of the Bushes, Katherine Harris cashed in her chips and ran as a Republican for a seat in the United States Congress. While in House of Representatives, Katherine Harris has supported the most radical right wing ideas concocted by the Republican Congress.

This year, Katherine Harris announced that she would be running for a seat in the United States Senate, and she’s showing her old cutthroat political tendencies. The problem for Harris is that, after you’ve cut a certain number of throats, everyone around you with a head still attached develops particularly foul memories of you.

It turns out that Katherine Harris has been making promises to just about everybody, and keeping those promises to almost nobody. This tendency is illustrated most clearly in her promises on the issue of abortion.

In 1994, when she was campaigning for a seat on the Florida Senate campaigned as pro-choice, and promised that she would never support laws restricting abortion. Eleven years later, Katherine Harris says that she has always been pro-life, and will only support legalized abortion for victims of rape and incest, and in cases when the mother’s life is in danger. For everyone else, Katherine Harris says that abortion should be illegal.

To make things worse, Katherine Harris is attacking her opponent because he does not share her opinions about abortion, whatever they are.

Which is the real Katherine Harris? Does it matter? The best way to categorize Katherine Harris is as pro-crass. Florida deserves a Senator who doesn’t fly across the ideological spectrum according to political convenience.

the pastor says, “do as I tell
or the lot of you’s going to Hell”
I would turn off my mind
and fall right in behind
but I can’t seem to stomach the smell

With the Republicans in firm control of the federal government, all their rhetoric has been put to the test.

Against big government spending? The Republican government has broken all records when it comes to spending, passing wacko pork barrel programs for things like a giant bridge the size of the Golden Gate to go from the Alaskan mainland to a little island with 50 people living on it.

For term limits for members of Congress? Why I couldn’t count the number of Republicans in Congress who broke that promise.

Defending America from corrupt elite Washington insiders? Why, Republicans have become the very Washington insiders that they used to warn us about.

Oh, sure, there’s Tom DeLay. I don’t need to use him as an example - he’s infamous.

No, let’s talk about someone who may be less familiar to you: Republican Senator James Talent, from Missouri.

Don’t recognize the name? How about Jim Talent? Yes, even though he runs around in a suit and tie all day, cuts deals with corporate executives, and has afternoon tea with the most powerful politicians in the country Senator James Talent prefers it if you call him Jim. It’s a public image thing. He’s trying to cultivate a folksy image.

If only that folsky public relations schtick were for real. For real, Senator James Talent is too busy protecting the interests of the rich and powerful to spare an extra thought for ordinary folks. Senator Talent’s record record reveals that just this year, he:

- voted for a new law to help credit card companies squeeze more money out of working Americans
- refused to support a bill to increase the wages of the worst-paid working Americans
- approved that special funding for the giant bridge that runs to next to nowhere
- refused to support a bill that would help working Americans get access to medical care
- voted to give billions of dollars of taxpayers money as gifts to big oil corporations, at the same time that those same big oil are charging us record prices for gasoline

As if these votes against the interests of the working people of Missouri are not enough, James Talent now has the chutzpah to come out and campaign as a Washington insider.

Missouri Auditor Claire McCaskill is set to formally announce her campaign to run as a Democrat against James Talent for the U.S. Senate next week. And how does Senator Talent plan to defeat her?

According to Reporter Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Republicans supporting James Talent plan to attack Claire McCaskill with a plan to “portray her as someone who doesn’t have the Washington credentials”.

This is where it’s easy to get confused. Are the Republicans in Missouri really saying that it’s a good thing to be a Washington D.C. insider? Is the James Talent re-election campaign really preparing to say that someone who isn’t a Washington insider can’t do the job of a United States Senator?

Well, then, that really begs one last question: What exactly does James Talent think the job of a United States senator is?

These boots are made for walking
And that’s just what they’ll do
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you…

I can get myself to imagine Carl Sagan saying the first two lines (especially the second), but I can’t get him to say the third in my mind. Can you do it?

I can easily imagine Carl Sagan reciting this lyric: Just a song at twilight, when the lights are low….

What lyrics can you imagine spoken by Carl Sagan? And what just wouldn’t work?

Help me out with this “Intelligent Design” thingy:

So the idea is that everything that exists was designed by some intelligent designer thing, right?

Well, that designer is also an thing that exists, right? So what designer designed that designer?

And what designer designed the designer of the designer?

And what designer designed the designer of the designer of the designer?

And…. Auuugh! Well, you get my drift. This just goes on for ever.

I suspect this “Intelligent Designer” business is just a highfalutin way of saying “and then a miracle occurred,” because the I.D. argument has an infinite set of holes that can only be plugged by an infinite set of unobservable, unverifiable, unquestioned, assumed hypothetical designer thingies.

If your theory’s major mechanism is an infinite set of unobservable, unverifiable, unquestioned, assumed hypothetical thingies, then your theory is not scientific.

Last night, I wrote about the good news that Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach has decided to cosponsor H. Res. 375 - a bill introduced to the U.S. Congress that requests documents related to the very early planning for the Iraq War conducted by the Bush Administration. There is no longer any valid security reason for these documents to remain secret - the invasion is over and done, and the occupation of Iraq is done for. The only reason that the Bush Administration has for keeping these documents secret is to protect itself from criticism - and from criminal prosecution. The documents requested by H. Res. 375 are the American equivalents to the British Downing Street memos.

So a Republican in Congress has finally cosponsored the H. Res. 375 - great. Now, will the majority of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives please get off their lazy behinds and do the same?

39 principled Democrats have co-sponsored the bill. 158 Democrats have been too damned busy trying to protect their own little petty pork barrel bills and voter-coddling resolutions to bother with cosponsorship of H. Res 375. This morning, I’ve put together a complete list of these lazy Democrats, so that you can see if your own representative is among this group.

Oh, some of these Democrats we expect such sloth from. Democrats like Ted Strickland, Sanford Bishop and Collin Peterson have been consistent disappointments this year. Others, like South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth, hardly count as Democrats at all, so often do they vote in league with the Republicans. However, there are some others on this list of the lazy 158 who know better than to ignore this issue.

Sander Levin, Jerrold Nadler, Tom Lantos, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, and Cynthia McKinney - what the heck are you thinking? You have all been consistent supporters of open government and progressive values in the past. Please, don’t let a Republican outdo you. Take a little time to read H. Res. 375, and then give it your support so that we can remove you from the list of the lazy 158 Democrats who just can’t seem to take the time to ask the Bush Administration to reveal the truth about why we went to war against Iraq.

Now that the American dead from the Iraq War are nearing 2,000 in number, and our nation is bankrupted by our investment in violence there, we look forward to the 2006 elections as an opportunity for America to change course away from irresponsible war and toward a more mature, stable foreign policy. In this election, every member of the House of Representatives will be judged according to whether they stood strong against the war, or whether they waffled, and refused to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its secrets and lies.

Democratic members of Congress, take notice: It is not enough for you to say that you are against the war. We’re paying attention to your actions. If you want to be counted as on the side of peace and progress, endorse H. Res. 375. The American people deserve straight answers, and they deserve representatives who are willing to do the hard work to get those answers.

Remember the Downing Street Memos? They were the British government documents that were leaked to the public earlier this year, providing evidence that the Republicans in the Bush White House were planning to deceive the American public in order to provoke a war with Iraq - and that George W. Bush was set on going to war with Iraq even if there was no pressing national interest in doing so.

Well, what with the Karl Rove leak scandal, the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, and the Cindy Sheehan-inspired protests against the Iraq War, the story of the Downing Street memos had faded into the background a bit over the summer.

Now, the Downing Street memos may be pushing their way back up into public consciousness. In an unprecedented move, a Republican member of Congress from Iowa is co-sponsoring H. Res 375 - a bill demanding that “the President and directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all information in the possession of the President and the Secretary of State relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq.” In other words, H. Res. 375 would start an investigation looking for the American equivalents of the Downing Street memos.

What the Downing Street memos suggest is that President Bush broke the law, engaging in a purposeful conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Congress and the American people. So, H. Res 375 really amounts to a first step in an effort to hold George W. Bush and his inner circle legally accountable - and impeach them.

For Republican Congressman Jim Leach to join this effort is an amazing step forward for the anti-war movement and the effort to impeach Bush. A few months ago, it would have been inconceivable for a Republican member of Congress to break ranks with George W. Bush. A few months ago, the Republicans in Congress, including Jim Leach, refused even to allow Democratic Congressman John Conyers to hold a hearing asking questions about the Downing Street memos. All that harumphing from the Republicans about the so-called Bush mandate has long-since evaporated like mist in the morning sun.

And so, it makes a certain kind of political sense that Republican members of Congress like Jim Leach are now starting to turn on President Bush. After all, there is a nationwide congressional election coming up in 2006 - in just a little over a year from now. Every single member of the House of Representatives, including Jim Leach, will have to run for re-election, and their campaigns are starting right now.

Given the disastrous quagmire that the Iraq War has turned into, the current members of Congress have a lot to answer for. After all, most of those congressional representatives, including Jim Leach, supported Bush’s rush to invade and occupy Iraq. They failed to stand up to the Bush Administration bullies. They failed to demand evidence that the war was necessary. Only a brave minority in Congress did the right thing and opposed the war before it started. In most of the congressional districts across America, a strong majority of voters are now anti-war. That’s certainly the case for Jim Leach, whose district includes the liberal activist center of Iowa City.

So, I’m glad that Republican Jim Leach has finally come to his senses and decided to demand answers about the Bush Administration’s planning for the Iraq War. But, you know, I’d also really like to see Jim Leach’s office release all of its own memos about the planning for an Iraq War in 2001, 2002 and 2003. What exactly was Jim Leach saying to his staff members about the obvious lack of evidence for a need for war - and what were his communications with other Republicans in Congress about that problem?

I hope that more Republican members of Congress add their support to H. Res 375, and demand answers from the Bush Administration. However, for every single member of Congress that voted to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a small version of the Downing Street memos lies in waiting. The American people deserves full documentation, complete explanations, and unvarnished apologies from each one of them.

Take Out v (Evangelical; early 21st century)

1 To assassinate.
2 To kidnap.
3 To date, romantically.

Over the last couple of days, Pat Robertson has been asking his supporters to have a kind of faith-based interpretation of his recent comments suggesting that the American government should send agents to murder Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Pat Robertson said of Chavez, on his Christian evangelical television show The 700 Club, that, “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

To the eye of someone who is not a member of The 700 Club, that statement looks pretty straightforward. But, 700 Club members have faith that Pat Robertson really meant something else. Robertson has defended himself by saying, “I didn’t say ‘assassination’.” Well, strictly speaking, that’s true. Robertson said “assassinate”, not “assassination.” One word is a verb, or a command. The other word is a noun. Big difference.

But Pat Robertson’s defense has a lot more substance to it than grammatical technicalities. Robertson also says, “I said, ‘Our special forces should take him out.’ ’Take him out’ can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to ‘take out’ a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted.” Poor, suffering Pat Robertson, the victim, like so many other radical right wing evangelicals, of vicious misinterpretation.

So, if we take Pat Robertson at his word, whatever could it mean that he wants to “take out” Hugo Chavez? Well, assassination is a possibility. Then Pat Robertson also says that “take out” could mean that he wants to kidnap President Chavez.

Mr. Robertson’s defensive evasions suggest a third explanation, however. I think that Pat Robertson has a little romantic crush on Hugo Chavez. I think that Mr. Robertson wants to take out Mr. Chavez - on a date. Just imagine, a table for two, a bottle of wine under candlelight, and Pat looks Hugo in the eye and says those three little words that he has been waiting years to say: “In Jesus name”… and then Pat squints his eyes the way he does so often during the faith healing segment of his TV show, and heals that small erectile dysfunction that Hugo Chavez has been suffering from.

Oh, Pat. Why didn’t you just say how you really felt? There’s no use acting like a little boy on the playground, pulling the braids of the girls that you like the best. If you want to get to know Hugo better, don’t try to get his attention by calling for his assassination. Give him a phone call. Go ahead and take him out, Pat. I’ll tell you what - if you can summon up the courage to ask out Hugo, I’ll pay for the first date myself. That’s a promise.

I make it a habit of offering a short fiction writing prompt every Sunday as a way to encourage other aspiring writers. A writing prompt is a short challenge or point of consideration meant to provoke a writer into creation. By providing some unexpected limits to the writer, a prompt can often elicit unexpected ideas or events in a short burst of fiction.

Last week, however, someone questioned whether Irregular Times ought to bother having something like fiction writing prompts. The argument was we ought to be focusing all our attention on important stories such as problems in Iraq. It was suggested that things like writing prompts were unacceptably frivolous.

My thought on the matter is that people thrive on variety. That’s true for readers and writers alike. The blogosphere would be practically useless if all it did was to make comments on just the “top stories”. Irregular Times has always focused on being irregular - not following along in the direction that everyone else is going. Sure, we comment on the big stories that have captured everyone’s attention, but we make sure to write about little things off in odd corners too.

Imagine a world in which people could only talk about non-fiction. We’d all have to be literalists in everything we said. No metaphor. Unreality is a great sphere for reflection on real issues, because it’s as flexible as our minds can make it. Symbolism helps us see the deeper aspects of everyday events. So, flights into fiction make us sharper consumers of nonfiction.

A Sunday morning writing prompt is a little thing. It won’t change the world. I believe, however, that the more writers we have in the world, the better the world becomes. We all have the capacity to be more than just consumers. We can contribute to our culture, and expressing our thoughts in written form is one of the best ways to do that.

So, here is today’s writing prompt:

Imagine a conversation held by two neighbors, sitting on the curb with their young children, watching a parade go by. In this conversation, the neighbors use the following words and phrases:
- obsolete
- contempt
- corrosion
- flugelhorn
- behind the wall
- in the middle of the night
- organic compost
- twilight
- poses