M.D. : Medical Degree or Mass Deception?

In regards to Karl F. Stephens rant against “liberals” and Bob Kerr (“On Bush and WMD, Kerr’s still in dark,” May 28, 2005), could you kindly explain what the “M.D.” at the end of Mr. Stephens name is? Is it a reference to the (W)MD’s that were allegedly in Iraq is 2003? Of course, Mr. Stevens’ erroneously states that everyone thought the weapons were in Iraq in 2003. Oh, people worldwide knew the weapons were there….since we ourselves armed Saddam with them in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration. However, not everyone necessarily knew they were in Iraq in 2003 [see Ambassador Joe Wilson‘s comments on nuclear arms and WMDs from BEFORE the war].

So have (W)MD’s become a faddish suffix? Or is the signature a reference to President Bush’s “Mass Deception”? I ask, of course, because one’s degree in medicine has nothing to do with the politics of the war in Iraq. By signing his name “Karl F. Stevens, M.D.” the author has merely communicated his allegiance to Bush by tax-bracket. I hope all readers keep that in perspective while reading the attacks on journalists and the unabashed praise for an administration of lies. These lies have manipulated the media and the release of information (re: the Pat Tillman’s tragic death for one). Should I sign my letters with suffixes identifying my two bachelor degrees and two post-graduate degrees? No, I will let my words and the facts stand on their own.

On Bush and WMD, Kerr’s still in dark
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 28, 2005
Since the false Newsweek story and its tragic aftermath, I have been skimming Bob Kerr’s columns, anxious to see how he would manage to make President Bush responsible.

Unfortunately, for my reading pleasure, he must not be in a creative streak at the moment; he merely resorts to regurgitating the liberal talking point: It’s no different from Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction (“We might never know the real reason,” May 18).
Last November’s presidential election showed that most Americans “get” the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, but evidently it needs to be explained again, for those who don’t:
— Bush didn’t “lie.” The intelligence services of not only the United States and Britain but also France and Russia believed the WMD were still there, and no responsible president would ever ignore so many experts.

— All agree that Iraq had them at one time. And even though the delays caused by the French and Russians, trying to protect their oil deals, allowed Saddam Hussein to temporarily (he thought) get rid of them — apparently by sending them to Syria, dumping them in the Tigris, or some other means — no sane person doubts that the minute we turned our backs, he’d have been making them again.

“Chronic and Delayed-Onset Mustard Gas Keratitis,” in the April issue of Ophthalmology (aaojournal.org), presents vivid photos as evidence that Saddam possessed — and used — WMD. They also make one realize that any leader who does not take every step necessary to spare his populace the agony of these individuals would truly be criminal.


Bush’s Calvin College surprise

Bush’s Calvin College surprise
by Jim Wallis

As I’ve traveled the country this spring – 82 events, 48 cities, and hundreds of media interviews since January – I’ve witnessed a new movement of moderate and progressive religious voices challenging the monologue of the Religious Right.

An extremely narrow and aggressively partisan expression of right-wing Republican religion has controlled the debate on faith and politics in the public square for years. But that is no longer true.

At packed book events around the country these days, I often make an announcement that elicits a tumultuous response: “The monologue of the Religious Right is finally over, and a new dialogue has begun!” Smiles light up the faces of thousands of people as they break out in thunderous applause.

That new dialogue was visible recently at Calvin College. Karl Rove, seeking a friendly venue for a commencement speech in Michigan, approached Calvin and offered President Bush as the speaker. The college, which had already invited Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale to deliver the speech, hastily disinvited him and welcomed the president. But the White House apparently was not counting on the reaction of students and faculty. Rove expected the evangelical Christian college in the dependable “red” area of western Michigan to be a safe place. He was wrong.

The day the president was to speak, an ad featuring a letter signed by one-third of Calvin’s faculty and staff ran in The Grand Rapids Press. Noting that “we seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere,” the letter said that “we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration.”

The letter asserted that administration policies have “launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq,” “taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor, ” “harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment,” and “fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.” It concluded: “Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy….” One faculty member told a reporter, “We are not Lynchburg. We are not right wing; we’re not left wing. We think our faith trumps political ideology.”

On commencement day, according to news reports, about a quarter of the 900 graduates wore “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” buttons pinned to their gowns.

The events at Calvin, along with the growing crowds at our events around the country, are visible signs that the Religious Right does not speak for all Christians, even all evangelical Christians. What I hear, from one end of this country to the other, is how tired we are of ideological religion and how hungry we are for prophetic faith. The students and faculty at Calvin College are the most recent sign of that hunger.


I find it amusing that the British are upset by Malcolm Glazer’s purchase ofthe “football” team Manchester United.

Maybe we can swap their soccer team for the British ownership of our supermarkets [Shaw’s owned by Sainsbury, UK, Ltd.], our electricity [National GridTransco, UK], and even our coffee and ice cream [Dunkin’ Donuts and BaskinRobbins are owned by Allied Domecq PLC (AED), UK]!

Ordinarily, it seems it’s Americans who are xenophobic, like the American response to the sale of rights to the Grand Canyon and Rockefeller Center to foreign corporations.However, at the same time, it is outrageous for the British to complainabout something that they do themselves -buy up companies in other countries.

Sun, May 22, 2005
Anti-Glazer protest makes little impact
Associated Press
CARDIFF, Wales — The threatened anti-Malcolm Glazer protest by disgruntled Manchester United supporters made little impact at the FA Cup final on Saturday.

Although fans held banners showing their anger at Glazer`s takeover of the famous soccer club, their threat to disrupt the biggest game in the English soccer season never materialized.

One banner depicted a shattered coffin with the words “MUFC Glazer. RIP. No customers, no profits.” There was also “Glazer rot in hell,” “Yankee Go Home” and “MUFC 127 years. Glazer not in a million years.”
More Stories

The anti-Glazer faction among the fans said they wore black as a protest gesture. But with the United players forced to wear black instead of their usual red because of a clash of colors with Arsenal, most of the United followers did the same anyway.

After Saturday`s match, the fans trooped home in the rain after their team lost a penalty shootout to Arsenal 5-4 after a 0-0 draw at Millennium Stadium.

Glazer, owner of the NFL`s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, has bought 75 percent of United for 790 million pounds (US$1.47 billion, €1.16 billion), meaning he can virtually do what he likes with it.

Because most of that figure is borrowed money, fans organizations fear he could sell the club`s Old Trafford stadium or use it as collateral against debts. They also fear he will raise the cost of season tickets.
They have threatened not to renew their season tickets and have refused to buy anything from the club`s highly profitable merchandising stores.

Catholicity and Politics

Who “should” Catholics vote for?

Who is a pro-life Catholic to vote for? The Presidential election in 2004 has marred the picture. The media constantly questioned and attacked John Kerry’s voting record and support for abortion. Unfortunately, much of the secular media’s coverage of the life issue has been skewed.. Conservatives constantly decry the “liberal media,” yet it was George Bush who “won” the battle of the media. The pro-life positions of the Catholic Church clearly include much more than abortion: the death-penalty, euthanasia, stem-cell research, hospital life-support devices and the concept of living wills. There is a double standard for Catholics and politics. Democratic politicians, as we have seen, are forced to defend their Catholicity, yet Catholic Republicans who support the death-penalty are given a free pass.

Too many articles about the life issue give misleading or false information. Rhode Island’s own congressional delegation is comprised of three Catholics: two also support abortion and one is “pro-life.” Yes, Rep. James Langevin, is against abortion, but he supports stem-cell research. Such research also runs contrary to the “life platform.” In national politics, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (R) is famously regarded as a devout Catholic; his son is even an ordained priest. Scalia, however, supports the death penalty. So do other “famous” Republicans such as Clarence Thomas, Rick Santorum, Frank Keating, Arnold Swartzeneger, Jeb Bush, and Sam Brownback.

Frank Keating supports the death penalty, but was named Chairman of the Bishop’s committee on pedophilia? Would a Catholic who supported abortion be given such a position?

Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback (member of Opus Dei), who strongly support the death penalty, were given free “face-time” during John Paul II’s funeral and the election of Benedict XVI. Isn’t it curious that they were, but not John Kerry?

Jeb Bush, in a recent interview, was “allowed” to explain how “difficult” it was for him to be Catholic and sign death warrants. Read the article and replace Jeb Bush with John Kerry and death penalty with abortion.

Jeb Bush Given ‘Pause’ When at Odds with Church (Reuters)
By Phil Stewart Sat Apr 23, 3:14 PM ET

Whether it is the war in Iraq or the death penalty, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he is given “pause” when the policies he and his brother support run against the views of the Roman Catholic Church. Bush, who converted to Catholicism to share the faith of his Mexican-born wife Columba, will lead the U.S. delegation to the inauguration of Pope Benedict on Sunday on
behalf of President Bush.

“I get uneasy when the Vatican writes me letters when a death penalty case is about ready to take place in Florida. I’ll be honest with you, that gives me pause. It makes me pray harder,” Bush told reporters in Rome on Saturday.

“Even though it’s the law of our land and I have a duty to uphold that law, when there is a conflict .. it does give me concern. “But having said that, I think the president’s decision (on Iraq) was the right one,” he added, returning to an original question about Iraq.

Pope John Paul, who died on April 2, sought in vain to avert the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and was a stern and vocal opponent of capital punishment. Jeb Bush considered postponing an execution earlier this month until after John Paul’s funeral on April 8. He decided to proceed after speaking with the victims’ family, and the 47-year-old was killed by lethal injection for the 1999 strangling of a store clerk. He was the 60th person to be put to death since Florida reinstated the death penalty in the 1970s.

President Bush oversaw the most executions of any U.S. governor in modern history when he was governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. Texas executed 152 people. The Republican party receives strong support from Christian conservatives and is often allied with the Catholic Church on divisive issues like abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage and euthanasia. “It’s not a question of picking or choosing. I don’t believe it’s related to that … All of us can improve our relationship to God,” said Bush, who will meet the Pope following the ceremony on Sunday.

Like his brother did earlier this month, Gov. Bush spoke about the papacy’s important role in cultivating the “culture of life” and cited the case of Terri Schiavo. The brain-damaged Florida woman died last month after a U.S. state court ordered her feeding tube removed at her husband’s request. The decision drew strong opposition from the Vatican, her parents, Jeb Bush and the U.S. president.

How does it read now?

As a Catholic American, it concerns me that some people lose sight of the big picture in the world: the environment, children’s rights, women’s rights, working conditions, labor rights and peace. All of these are issues of importance to the church. Of course, nothing is as important to church teaching as the centrality of life, but it is wrong to rank the life issues in personal preference and project that opinion on candidates to serve your own agenda.

There are persons, especially members of the clergy, who would tell people that “abortion is the gravest evil.” As leading Democrats have finally stated, of course this country is better off when abortions are rare. Abortion is a sin to Catholics. However, a selective interpretation and preaching of the Church’s teaching is not the act of a Christian –it is the act of political hacks and psychological manipulators. Look at the
website http://www.cfpeople.org/page6.html maintained by Catholic priests who purport to be “pro-life.” Do you see the phrase “death penalty anywhere? Where is the line between “people of faith” and “people of agenda”?

When was the last time any secular publication questioned the Catholicity of a Catholic who supports death-penalty? Catholics should not be guilted into voting for one party or another. Catholics should look at the whole picture and decide for themselves without the manipulation of others.

Democrats too late of 2008?

About this time last year, I told a friend that I thought John Kerry would loose the election by fifteen votes. Part of the deal was that, if I was wrong, I had to publicly admit it. So this spring, I am writing to say I was wrong. Kerry lost by nineteen votes. Presumably had he been the nominee, Jonathan Edwards would have won his home state and its fifteen votes. Then the Democrats would be down only four electoral votes and the ambiguity of New Mexico’s results would have been a lot more interesting.

The point is that Edwards was always a more viable candidate than Kerry. In fact, Edwards actually came in third in the 2004 Presidential Election ahead of Ralph Nader: one Minnesota electoral delegate voted for Edwards (source U.S. National Archives). Perhaps Kerry actually believed that the selection of a Vice-President had an impact still?

Why does the national Republican Party have a better handle on Presidential politics than my Democratic Party? There are three key lessons which must be accepted: first, we are in a time of neo-sectionalism in which the Democrats tend to dominate the coasts and the northeast. Republicans dominate the south, the Rockies and the Plains while the Upper-Midwest is a toss-up. Electorally, that gives the Republicans the advantage and the Democrats must run a candidate from a GOP state in order to win (Clinton, 1992/1996).

Secondly, winning candidates have come from state governments (Bush 2004/2000; Clinton 1996/1992; Reagan (1984/1980; Carter 1976) and not from the Federal government (Kerry 2004, Gore 2000, Dole 1996). In that regard, we might explain why even with NC’s fifteen votes, Edwards would have been short.

Thirdly, the vice-president is meaningless. The only purpose of the office is to check the pulse of the president each morning and to break ties on the rare occasion they arise in the U.S. Senate. Did Cheney swing Wyoming into the Bush column? Did Quayle offer cover for Bush (41)? Vice-President Bush was so meaningless that, when Reagan was shot, Alexander Haige declared himself in charge. The last meaningful selection of a VP was Ford and that was only ex post facto. That is, if Nixon hadn’t resigned, Ford would not have been important. Truly, the last time a vice-presidential selection affected the outcome of an election was Lyndon Johnson in 1960.

So where are we now? One year out from the last primary season and about two or three years from the next primary season. Already the hopefuls are visiting Iowa and New Hampshire. Who is in the mix? U.S. Senators John Kerry (MA), Jonathan Edwards (NC), Hilary Clinton (NY), Joe Biden (DE), Evan Bayh (IN) lead the Democratic pack. Meanwhile the Republican nominee will likely be one of the following: MA Governor Mitt Romney, NY Governor Pataki, fmr. NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) or U.S. Senator John McCain (AZ).

Isn’t it interesting that the Democratic list is inundated with Senators? The very people that history has scorned? The only candidates that even make an electoral dent are Bayh and Edwards since they come from traditionally Republican states. If the Democrats have to rely on NY or MA then the election is already lost; there is no electoral advantage.

On the other end of the pendulum, the Republicans have mastered the strategy that the Democrats desperately need: the GOP list has three executives from two of the most Democratic states in the country!

The Democratic Party is the party of the people. It is the party that represents the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, but its being out-maneuvered in Presidential contests. It is crucial that Rhode Island Democrats help like-minded candidates get elected in southern, Midwestern and battleground states. We can not sit by and concentrate only on local issues, however important they may be. In truth, it may be already too late for 2008, unless we can unite the country behind a Gov Easley (NC), an Evan Bayh (IN), or another Democrat from a GOP state.

To filibuster or not to filibuster

To have a filibuster or not have a filibuster, that is the question. I can understand why Republicans and many Americans think we should do away with the filibuster rule. After all, the majority of U.S. Senators are Republicans, right? They should be able to vote on these judicial nominees. On the other hand, I do not believe most people know exactly what is at stake. This issue is a lot bigger than judicial appointments and it’s bigger than partisanship; it is essentially about our two hundred year old republic.

The Founding Fathers intentionally built in a bicameral legislature. The House, with its two year terms, is supposed to be the more impulsive and more quickly responsive to popular trends of opinion. The Senate, with its six year terms that are staggered into three cycles of expiration, was intended to be slower, more methodical, and to have a long term view. Changing the filibuster rule would alter one of the major purposes of a bicameral legislature.

The filibuster rule is over a hundred and thirty years old…and we’re discarding it like yesterday’s garbage. In 1872, Vice President Schuyler Colfax (R) created the filibuster with his ruling that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue.” Since that time, the filibuster has been an important part of the Senate’s role…the power to protect political minorities while maintaining the rights of the majority. As a result, the filibuster was used by Southerners of both parties to slow passage of the civil rights legislation; by Republicans to defeat President Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas to the U.S. Supreme Court; and in President Clinton’s first term, the filibuster was used to slow the passage of the gun-control legislation.

Sometimes politicians are wrong and the filibuster is stopped. Sometimes there is a political issue that is so important that the country needs to take a longer look. The filibustering of civil rights legislation strengthened the revolve of most Americans and our country is better off now that segregation has been defeated. The filibuster, and the threat of filibuster, focuses national attention on an issue and that attention educates the electorate. Gun-control advocates, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists and domestic-oil advocates have all been mobilized by filibusters.

Let’s take oil-drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge: It was stopped year after year, but over time, support for the project has grown with the shift of power in the Senate. Whether you like the decision of not, you can’t complain it’s a knee-jerk reaction to gasoline prices. There has been an ebb and flow to the Republican presence in the nation. In the Senate, this is is reflected in the distribution of seats. The Senate grew slowly more conservative in the 90s: 1992 (43 seats), 1994 (52 seats), 1996 (55 seats), 1998 (55 seats). Then, the country took a step back and didn’t seem to know what direction is wanted to go: President Bush was elected, but the Republican seats in the Senate fell to 50. Since that time, the Senate has trended conservative again: 2002 (51 seats) and 2004 (55) seats. But what’s next? What does the 2006 election hold for us? Are a couple of judges worth the destruction of a one hundred and thirty-three old rule as well as two hundred and sixteen years of the Senate’s longterm perspective?

Let me offer a parallel situation in American history. In 1936, FDR broke a one hundred and forty year old tradition by running for a third term. Rather than filibustering the Senate until Roosevelt withdrew his nomination, or filibustering the certification of election results, The Senate waited. After FDR was out of the equation, Congress proposed Amendment XXII to the U.S. Constitution on March 21, 1947 and it was subsequentially ratified on February 27, 1951.

My point is this: Why can’t we wait? Make the filibuster rule a major campaign issue in the 2006 election and see what happens to the balance of power. If the Republicans gain only five more seats they can end a filibuster and our government has not been endangered. If the rule is changed to a simple majority, then it’s a slippery slope to the demise of the Senate. Majority Leader Frist has said that the rule change would apply only to judicial nominees, but how can he guarantee that after the door has been opened? Sen. Frist, The U.S. Senate and the American people need to remember that, once this is done, it can not be undone. It’s not called the “nuclear option” for nothing. What’s more, are the Senate Republicans prepared to suffer this same treatment at the hands of a Democratic majority at some time in the future? Protect minority political opinions. Protect the Senate. Protect our democracy. Protect the Filibuster Rule.