Citizen's Rent 2005

It's Not that I Hate Christianity - It's the Bad Theology

Liberals are tarred on a daily basis as anti-religious. Those doing the tarring are generally conservatives, since the liberal religious actually spend time with liberals who aren't religious and know that they aren't bands of raving, hostile atheists.

I'm not particularly religious, though I used to be. And I harbor a deep respect for people of faith who live that faith. But I harbor antipathy for those who wear their faith as a cloak, as a get out of jail hell free card, as a trump card that's supposed to make a person's other qualities (like ethical lapses) irrelevant.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) chooses "faith as a trump card" when he makes this comment about DeLay's continued ability to strong arm the Republicans in the House into supporting unpopular legislation.

"It's not popular to say, but one reason is that he knows Jesus personally. When the chips are down, you usually start looking up."

I read this and grimaced. Not only because it ignores DeLay's sins, which in my opinion includes abuse of power. I also grimaced because it's fundamentally arrogant to say that someone knows God personally.

Yes, I know he means that DeLay has "accepted Jesus as his personal savior". But that's not what he said. And it annoys me. It's like those Christians who say "Jesus is my best buddy". To me, it reduces the majesty and mystery of God, of God as man, of the resurrected Christ.

And it's bad theology. Christianity isn't a deal with God where you promise to follow Him, to accept Jesus as the savior, and God promises you a good life. There's no deal here, no promise that your faith will be rewarded with anything but the comfort of being loved by God and the promise of heaven. There's certainly no promise of temporal success. Instead, we're all promised that "rain will fall on the just and unjust", that we should "bless those that persecute you". Not that we'll get what we want.

I would have an easier time respecting the faith of these political leaders and their friends if they didn't beat me over the head with it, respond to criticism as though they've been truly persecuted, if they didn't act as though their faith was the equivalent of a secret password that gives them access to the halls of power and worldly success. And I'd respect it more if they actually held each other accountable to living up to the precepts of their religion:

Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2)

Bless those that persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those that rejoice, and weep with those that weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Not minding the high things, but associating with the humble. Do not become wise in your own opinion. Repay no one evil for evil; providing that which is good before all men. If possible, as much as depends on you, keeping peace with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.   Therefore "If your enemy should hunger, feed him; if he should thirst, give him drink; for by doing this, you will heap coals of fire upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12)

That's not quite aligned with the "wanted dead or alive" or "hunt them down and kill them" .  And  the "knowing Jesus personally" just isn't enough.

BushSpeak

I love language, words, the way a specific word creates the perfect nuance of meaning. That's why it's so painful for me when I hear the person who represents us to the world, the President, say things like this.

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

Sigh.

Staying Current on the Torture Scandals

I have been terribly remiss in not covering news on Abu Ghraib, Gitmo Bay, and related detainee mistreatment information. Whether it's the Schmidt report, the use of Abu Ghraib techniques in  Gitmo Bay first, or the allegation that Gen. Miller lied to Congress by saying he didn't brief Rumsfeld or his top deputies on his tour of Abu Ghraib - I've been silent. I'll post on these and more in time, but for now, please head over to Andrew Sullivan's site, Daily Dish, to stay up to speed. It's too important to ignore, despite my own silence.

Intent vs. Motive: Lessons in Meaning for the Administration

One of the things (one of many) that really bothered me in the whole torture memo saga was the administration's legal analysis that said  a person was only culpable for torturous actions if when they engaged in the torturous behavior, their intent was to cause long lasting harm.

That came to mind when I read this in the NYT:

Mr. Rove told the grand jury in the case that the e-mail message was consistent with his assertion that he had not intended to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity but instead intended to rebut Mr. Wilson's criticisms of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq....

The defense here is that Rove's intent was to discredit Mr. Wilson, therefore any disclosures about Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, weren't criminal. But if he intentionally disclosed Plame's CIA status, regardless of his reason for doing so, he broke the  law. They're confusing intent and motive, making them equivalent.

Intent isn't motive - you can be motivated by the best of all possible reasons and still be found to have  intentionally broken the law. That's why if a parent kills a predator who molested their child, they're still arrested. Their motive, or reason, was to protect other children or their own child. But they surely intended to kill the guy in order to achieve their goals.

The official line may be that Rove's intent was to discredit Wilson and therefore he's not in the wrong, but what they're really saying is that Rove's motive was to discredit Wilson. Regardless of motive, if Rove intentionally outed Valerie Plame, he broke the law. The only way he's off the hook is if the disclosure was accidental. And I don't see anyone suggesting that.

In Defense of Maine

A while ago, I posted on the fact that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was included on the base closure list. In the comments to that post, a former (i think) military guy who spent a lot of time posted in or around Bangor ranted his dislike for the state of Maine. (You can read his comments by clicking on this link.)

If I can sum up his criticism, it's that the state government is inept, the schools are awful - students who graduate aren't really educated, the citizen's are lazy and poor (he compared Maine to Washington DC in its worst crack epidemic days), the unions destroyed the economy, the laptop program for schools is a boondoggle, higher education isn't valued as seen in the closing of U. Maine campuses, there's no opportunity for family, that the outdoor activities I enjoyed growing up are only available in state parks and are funded by the federal government, that Maine is anti-Indian, that the casino was voted down due to greed instead of values and preserving the Maine culture, and more.

He says Maine is festering and crumbling. He closes by thanking God that he'll never see Maine again.

He's offensive, judgmental, harsh. He seems to think that neither I nor anyone else who might defend Maine have any experience anywhere else, a basis for comparison. He's wrong on this as he is on so much of what he writes, as many of us can attest (I've lived in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, California, and Washington. And I've traveled the country working with public schools. I'd say I have a basis for comparison.)

So here's my request. Defend Maine. Tell everyone why this guy is wrong. And be honest - it's not perfect. But it's certainly not the hellhole this guy describes. Click on the word "comments" below and tell me what you think of Maine.

Fuzzy Math 101: Reducing the Deficit

Welcome to math class, President Bush.

Today, you have one math problem: projecting the federal deficit.

You must show your work and calculate a 50% reduction in the deficit over a five year period. You have all the data you need and you are allowed great latitude in making assumptions about the future. You may use fuzzy math, as needed.

To begin, complete the following steps:

1. Figure out all the money you have and will get in the next five years. (Assets)
2. Now list all of your bills for the next five years. Be sure to include loans and one-time expenses. (Liabilities)
3. Now subtract your liabilities from your assets. If the number you get is a negative number, you have a deficit. (Bummer) This is your five year projected deficit.

If your projected deficit isn't half of today's deficit, you must use fuzzy math to reduce it.

It is strongly recommended that you focus on decreasing your liabilities instead of trying to increase assets, i.e. raising taxes. Fuzzy math may not imply that you will take actions that are inconsistent with your politics. It may be inconsistent with your actions, but not your political philosophy. This is a foundational fuzzy math principle that cannot be ignored. Therefore, any solutions that increase assets through any implied tax increase will receive a failing grade.

For help in applying fuzzy math to today's math problem, consider using any of the following options.

• Assume that increased tax revenues likely due to a one-time corporate tax holiday are really a permanent  increase. Increase your asset projections accordingly. (Congratulations. You  just found an additional $328 billion in income. What a way to start!)

• Decide that not  all debts are created equal. Don't include money borrowed from the social security trust fund in the minus column. Reduce your liabilities accordingly. (Hey, you just shaved $173 billion off the deficit! Good for you.)

• Examine the assumptions you've made about repaying loans and notice the interest rates you've listed for each loan. Decide that the private market doesn't really know what they're talking about and it's perfectly reasonable for you to assume lower interest rates than they do. Hey, it's not like they're all-knowing or anything. Lower the future interest rates on your loans and use the lower loan payments to lower your total liabilities. (Wow, that makes a big difference! Who cares if no-one believes the interest rates will be that low. You're on your way to cutting the deficit in half!.)

• Examine your  liabilities. Is there anything you can cut?  Hey!  How come you're including a few hundred billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan next year and billions in the years after that? You don't know that we won't pull out by the end of 2006, maybe win the war on terror by then, do you? You should include a nominal sum for next year but nothing else. If someone criticizes you, you can accuse them of not having confidence in America. That's a good defense. Reduce your liabilities by erasing all those billions you listed to pay for the war and adding, say, $50 billion for next year. (Wow. You just saved hundreds of billions of dollars! And you know, even if the war  goes past 2006, it's not like you have to buy body armor or armored humvees for anybody. If they don't have them now you don't have to provide them later, right?)

• Your deficit still looks kind of high so it's time to cut the liabilities again (you can't raise taxes, after all). You look and look but can't find anything to cut. Do it anyway. Just cut $144 billion of discretionary costs - things like veteran's benefits, job training, the space program. Stuff you don't have to pay but that Congress won't cut. (Ignore that small voice in your head telling you that you always underestimate this stuff - like just last month when you had to go ask Congress for extra money for veteran's health care because you didn't budget well. That was embarrassing and you don't want to do it again. But then, it was a lot less embarrassing than having to admit your not going to hit your deficit reduction goals, so just do it.) Reduce your liabilities by $144 billion.

Congratulations! You've done it! You've figured out how to announce big deficit reductions over the next five years by using every single one of the options above. Thank God for fuzzy math. (It may not reflect reality, but this is politics, baby. Reality doesn't matter.)

You are dismissed, President Bush. You have worked hard and deserve a nice bike ride and maybe a pretzel. Have a lovely day. 

In Defense of Rove

So the Republicans have launched their Rove defense and a key part of it is the claim that Rove was doing the right thing, steering a reporter away from an inaccurate story. According to the well-orchestrated Republican talking points, Joe Wilson was only sent to Niger because his wife suggested the CIA send him, the Vice President didn't have anything to do with it, and Wilson's work was shoddy.

Let's take a closer look at that argument.

1. Joe Wilson only went to Niger because his wife suggested he go.

Does the right really believe that the primary foreign intelligence agency for the United States, faced with the need to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was actively working to reconstitute a nuclear program, with concern expressed by the Vice President, chose someone to investigate solely on the basis of nepotism, because an operative suggested her husband? If so, they're saying that the CIA didn't really take it's job seriously, cared more about accommodating the preferences of an operative over ensuring that they did their best to find out if Saddam was trying to go  nuclear. That's an incredibly harsh indictment of the CIA and if true, whoever was involved in sending Wilson to Niger should be fired.

Of course, the Republicans don't really believe what they're saying so there are no calls to identify and root out those who put  our national security at risk by agreeing to send Joe Wilson to investigate Saddam's efforts to procure uranium.

The truth is that Joe Wilson was eminently qualified to investigate the issue. That's why the CIA sent him. To claim otherwise is one more act of choosing politics over the credibility of the intelligence community, those  in charge of anti-terror intelligence gathering.

2. The Vice President didn't have anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger.

This is more of the name game. Cheney says he didn't know Wilson's name, ergo he couldn't have been involved in sending him to Niger. That reasoning is too simplistic for the second most powerful man in the country, though he's got a good role model in Rove.

Cheney may not have said, "Hey, let's send Joe to Niger." But that doesn't mean he didn't say, "Hey, I'm hearing reports that Saddam is trying to procure uranium in Niger. Can you guys at the CIA check that out?"

You don't get to absolve the administration of all involvement just because they didn't tell the CIA who should investigate. And just because they didn't assign Joe directly doesn't mean they didn't ask for the assignment to be done.

3. Joe Wilson did shoddy work.

I suppose it's irrelevant that Wilson was right.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the CIA wouldn't support the claim that Saddam was trying to get uranium - which is why Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union speech.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the documents indicating that Saddam was trying to get uranium were shown to be forgeries.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the administration acknowledged that it was a mistake to claim that Saddam was pursuing uranium - in the State of the Union speech and elsewhere.

I suppose it's irrelevant that once again the administration refuses to take responsibility and instead is laying the blame at  the feet of the CIA, saying they weren't told about Wilson's findings.

All that really matters is that they can discredit Joe Wilson, no matter that he was right about the Saddam's alleged pursuit of uranium and right about Rove being behind the leak of Wilson's wife.

The truth here isn't that Rove was a noble public servant, ensuring that the public wasn't mislead. The truth is that Rove is a political operative, working to discredit a critic of the administration and incidentally outing his wife as a CIA operative in the process. He's not noble - he's venal. And he should be held accountable.

Notes on DNC Conference Call with Sen. Reid

I participated in a DNC conference call on the nomination for a replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor. It took all of ten minutes, with a welcome from Howard Dean, and a short statement from Sen. Reid who then took a couple of questions.

It was almost interesting. 

Reid attending a White House meeting this morning on the upcoming nomination. Those attending included Senators Reid, Leahy, Frist and Specter, President Bush, Chief of Staff Andy Card, and Vice President  Cheney.

Is anyone else nostalgic for the days when Vice Presidents spent their time figuring out how to reduce  paperwork in government when they weren't attending state funerals? I am.

Key points Reid made were these:

• This first meeting wasn't consultation, it was the beginning of consultation.
• Consultation doesn't mean Bush accepts recommendations from Senators. Information has to go both ways.
• This is a chance to unite the country and it's up to Bush to do so. Bush can choose consultation or confrontation, judicial independence over ideology.
• If an extremist is nominated, Reid said "We'll use all procedural tools we have at our disposal to protect the American people."

Less centrally, there were a few things I noted. In talking about the seven Dems who made a deal and thereby negated the threat of the nuclear option being used, Reid said he approved the deal. Huh. It was an unnecessary comment I thought and came across as stealing credit or as posturing.

Reid is clearly annoyed at Sen. Frist for the comments he made on the floor of the Senate immediately following the White House meeting. The implication is that Frist isn't acting in good faith. Frist claimed that they didn't want co-nominations and Reid suggested that those words came straight from the mouth of James Dobson. Ouch. He also corrected the claim Frist made on the floor that what Bush is doing is unprecedented - Reid described that statement as "flim flam". To refute it, Reid referenced specific instances where President's submitted their preferred nominees to key Senators before making a decision.

Perhaps the most interesting thing Reid said was this:

"The nuclear option is gone, it's history."

He says too many Republicans won't support a non-mainstream nominee, the implication being that Frist couldn't get support to outlaw a filibuster if the Dems engaged in one. I guess we'll see. But Reid was pretty definitive in his statement. If he's right, that's good news.

Virgins in the Volcano

I think that one of the things that drives me crazy about the Republicans in control is that no matter what happens, they don't alter what they're saying - they co-opt everything and use it to prove their points. It's good spin, good marketing, but bad leadership.

After the bombings in London, there's been a lot of talk on blogs at least, about  what's being called the "flypaper theory" - that we're fighting terrorists "there" so we don't have to fight them here. The  London bombings seemed to show that this was just empty rhetoric.

I've always cringed when I heard Bush use the "fight them there" line. It strikes me as simplistic, based on false assumptions about the enemy, offering false comfort to the public. It's an invitation to sacrifice others to save ourselves. And it's simply not true.

The enemy we face isn't geographically bound to one locale. It's not the child of a nation-state, restrained by that association. It's not a quasi-military militia, managed with a top-down hierarchy of leaders. Instead, it is a network of militant, violent, ideologues united by common hatreds and a disregard for life. Yes, they are in the Middle East and it's likely that's where the greatest concentration of our enemy can be found. It's the land of  their birth, ideologically. But they're also in Asia, in Europe, and yes, they are likely here as well.

And yet, Bush continues to recite his misleading words of comfort: "We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them at home." (July 11 speech at FBI Academy) It's a disservice to the public, an insult to the world, and a lie. It makes our troops the modern equivalent of the virgins that ancient peoples threw into volcanoes - appeasing the gods and ensuring domestic tranquility. It's the sacrifice of the young and innocent to save the rest.  All we have to do is chant our support as they're tossed over the side, and trust our leaders that the sacrifice is worth it, that it will keep us safe at home.

Ultimately, Bush's continued use of empty and false rhetoric keeps me from having any hope that the administration is telling us the truth, is worthy  of my trust. I cannot make the leap of faith needed to have confidence that we are making the right decisions to win against our enemies. I fear  that the administration believes it's own rhetoric. And we can't afford such simplistic thinking if we are going to win this war. We can't afford to embrace the notion that as long as we support the war over there, as long as we're willing to send our troops into battle in foreign lands, we're safe at home. It's a false security we're offered - it's a dumbing down of America.

If Bush wants me to trust him then he should trust us to handle the truth. And he should tell it.

What's with the Red Tape?

Okay. We've all seen pictures of protesters with red tape over their mouths and the word "life" written on the tape. There's another one in the NYT today - a woman protesting abortion.

I don't get it. What exactly is the message here? The natural assumption is that tape over the mouth is about being silenced, and God knows that the abortion protesters are anything but quiet. And their issue certainly isn't a first amendment issue. And there's no bureaucratic "red tape" issue here. I don't get it. Why the hell are they putting red tape over their mouths?