I had the occasion for watching a bit of “Good Night and Good Luck” the movie yesterday morning.  Edward Murrow v Senator Joe McCarthy docudrama.  Does anyone recall the Commie scare of the 1950s?  I was born as McCarthy was continuing his hunts for “commie infiltration” into gvt and the U.S. Military and going after anyone who dared to question him.  Where Murrow and the CBS crew at the time was concerned, they were uniquely brave to go on the air and question what McCarthy was doing.  This was a particularly hideous time in this nation’s history, just by being associated with someone who read the wrong newspaper, you were immediately regarded as a security risk.  If you were even married to someone at some point who had in fact attended the wrong sort of meetings, you were deemed questionable as to your loyalty.  Yet, in spite of all this, the news media did its job and questioned McCarthy.  Despite being called “leftists” for asking the tough questions concerning McCarthy’s persecutions of the innocent, ultimately, Murrow and his team were to prevail and McCarthy’s attacks on freedom itself was eventually thrown into disarray.

In an age where newspapers are suddenly reeling from having lost to competitive blogs, TV, a bad economy and etc. perhaps this is a lesson to be learned here.  Murrow faced something far more daunting that truly did threaten freedom of the press and because of his efforts, that freedom continues to exist today.  So, what has the news media done with the freedom of the press preserved for them by the efforts of Murrow?

They spend too much time discussing Michael Jackson rather than dealing with important news developments.  They engage in political partisanship depending upon who enters office rather than taking a broad look and reporting on the problems, failures and successes of gvt as a whole.  They provide fluff pieces over and above investigative work.  Or they may instead kill investigative work if in fact an exposure of a company as sponsor of their program were to annoy or offend their sponsor.  In short, the news media does not operate on courage any longer.

I think that “Good Night and Good Luck” should be a must view for all news media outlets, you could get here today only because Murrow practically single-handedly saved your industry for you.  Now what you do with that gift is up to you.

Leonard Pitts jr (republished Spokesman-Review 16 November 2009) is entirely correct about human inconsistency in life and death matters.  And wrong that the Roman Catholic Church is actually consistent in opposing both abortion and the death penalty.  Let’s put it bluntly, that the church is only now in opposition to these irreversible decisions but it can hardly square such positions with a history of violence.  Nor can it square such positions with the bible.  Where God’s word actually does support warfare—as long as it is righteous.  Will allow the death penalty—as long as it is the ultimate penalty against biblical crime.  In short, according to the bible, God himself put the power of life and death into the hands of man and most outposts as well as bastions of religiosity were more than willing to take advantage of it.  Very few beliefs would have been exceptions to God inspired violence.

Which is why it is indeed possible to be pro-choice and generally against capital punishment.  Because neither position is actually based on a certitude.

Unlike Mr. Pitts, I am in favor of capital punishment; and heaved a grateful sigh of relief when John Allen Muhammad was put to death for acts of domestic terrorism in the greater Washington, DC area.  But like Mr. Pitts, I recognize that once the decision is made and the switch is pulled or the needle injected, it is irreversible.  If a mistake was made about the person against whom a death sentence was indeed carried out, it is an act that can not be undone.  Which is why we need a certainty (not certitude) that the person condemned is indeed the perpetrator who did it.  With Muhammad and also Timothy McVeigh, there was no question.

Yes, today “Christians” will declare the fetus to be an innocent (or defenseless or helpless) when it comes to “abortion on demand.”  But even “Christians” can not square such views with such biblical certitudes as God visiting the sins of the fathers unto the children…  And the ways in which He does so are described in the majority in the Old Testament/Tanakh and to a more minor extent in the new.  Anything from miscarriage to infanticide by invading armies to wholesale holocaust style wars by His chosen people against non-believers.  Indeed, God could even allow mothers to become cannibals of their own children as a form of punishment against a sinning people.

So, the “Christian” view of the fetus as “innocent” has a decided problem with the biblical declarations that if they die under such heinous circumstances, then they are not.

So, how can “certitude” be defined in this day and age?  An unbending view of always being right?  Because this is how you view the world, this is the only correct view to have?  Try another one, certitude is one of the definitions of radical. If a person who holds a view that can be defined as a certitude, it is a view that does not allow for contrary facts, it does not admit contrary opinions, it does not entertain in the slightest a contrary doubt about one’s personal opinion.  The person who carries a certitude when it comes to religious and political positions looks upon the world from a truly narrow perspective.  It is a matter of us or myself v “the other.”

That being said, certitudes can lead to violence.  Scott Roeder after all decided that he could be the judge, jury and even executioner of an abortion provider:  Dr. George Tiller.  He could take a unique and individual life in the name of other unique and individual lives who have no more guarantees of being born after Dr. Tiller’s murder than before Roeder carried out the act.  Roeder could set aside biblical law against murder in the name of “defending” the other, the fetus.  And acting out of anger or even hatred of Dr. Tiller’s legal practice, he set aside the teachings of Christ that hatred is the same as murder.  Dr. Tiller’s legal practice (in the state of Kansas, no less) could come between Christ’s commands to love one’s neighbor—in order to be truly righteous—and Mr. Roeder’s certitudes about abortion.  When Roeder visited death upon “the other” he forgot what defines a human in his act of certitude.

How about the certitude of Nidal Hasan?  An Army psychiatrist with real and legitimate questions about the U.S. presence in the Middle East?  But in answering those questions, he doesn’t get out of the military, he does not resign his commission; he instead turns his weapons on his fellow soldiers!  As though killing them will change U.S. policy ref the War on Terror.  It won’t change that policy and it does make the situation more difficult for the vast majority of American Muslims whether civilian in the U.S. or serving in the U.S. Military (that to be Muslim is not an unforgivable stigma) as very well expressed by Raeed N. Tayeh (same paper same day).  Just as it makes it far more easy for “Christians” such as Cal Thomas to forget the tenets of his faith.  One’s “neighbor” after all, isn’t always a fellow Christian in a country of religious diversity.

Not if one can capitalize on fear and hysteria instead.

Why is pro-choice actually not a position of certitude?  Simple really.  No pro-choicer in good standing dictates the decision made by individual women, only defending their right to make such a decision.  On the other hand, what do anti-abortionists have to defend when it comes to their political positions?  The fact that their political positions don’t square with a violent religious history, violent extremism among their own faction and the condoned by God violence in the bible.  That’s a lot of inconsistency to defend.

It was extremely sad and tragic that thirteen people, 12 soldiers and 1 Spokane, Washington native who eventually moved to Texas and a civilian contractor, died in a horrible massacre.    It is quite another matter to use a rare incident to stridently attack all Muslims in this country and even further, to use this tragedy to extend hatred toward “liberals,” “the politically correct,” “brain-washed dupes,” and etc.  And whom would Mr. Thomas regard as “the wise,” anyway?  Or of “sound mind?”  Considering his frothing histrionics these days over anything and everything to do with Islam.  The wise and those of sound mind would in fact recognize that in all of the centuries that this U.S. of A. has existed, just how many times have American soldiers committed fratricide?  I’d have to say that with the best of my knowledge, there have only been three such incidents and only in the last few decades.  And of the 3 incidents in question, two were committed by Muslims.  So, why did Thomas not froth over the incident at a Pacific Northwest Military base where a non-Muslim went on a lethal rampage?  Oh, because he wasn’t Muslim, I suppose.

One shouldn’t have to rehash old arguments,  but just how tolerant would Cal Thomas be toward “Christian” based terrorism? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a good ol’ American with military experience and undeniably “Christian.”  He also developed a pure hatred for all things government, accused the American government of putting a microchip in him to “keep track of his whereabouts,” and eventually blew up a federal building; engaging in a more lethal rampage by killing 168 people, men, women and children.  Oh, and McVeigh’s actions were definitely excused by other people with their own hatred of the government.

Should we call such people who could excuse the actions of a “Christian” terrorist as politically correct, “liberal,” brainwashed dupes?  Of course not.  How about “Christians” who went around bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion providers such as Dr. George Tiller?  And all of those people who came out in droves to proclaim their support for Dr. Tiller’s murderer, Scott Roeder?  Can we say that they were brainwashed dupes, “liberal,” politically correct or not of sound mind?  Actually, it has to be as long as they are in 1,000% agreement with where Mr. Thomas stands now as to political ideology that he will be greatly tolerant of themselves.  In other words, dangerous and lethal extremism can in fact be tolerated as long as it is my extremism.

There is no question that Thomas bigotry is showing.  He rants and raves in column after column attacking Muslims at every turn, especially Muslims who came to this country seeking freedom to worship as they please.  Muslims, the vast majority of whom serve this country in the U.S. Military; who I am sure wouldn’t threaten their fellow servicemen.  Whereas, there have been plenty of “Christian” servicemen who have proselytized and even sought to baptize “and make Christian” fellow servicemen.  And all of this without one word of complaint from Thomas.  Of course, when they are “Christian,” they can’t “get into trouble” for making public attempts at  proselytizing and public baptisms of their fellow members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Nor are they going to “get into trouble” for wearing any symbol of their faith.  But we should all be damned afraid of an American soldier and Psychiatrist who wears religious garb when off-duty.  Especially if he is a Muslim.

If he is a Psychiatrist, so Thomas decrees, he shouldn’t have takien advanced firearms training.  He’d have no need to.  Uh, wasn’t he supposed to have deployed to Iraq(?) in a number of days?  Then, he’d probably have need to.  As you never know what trouble even psychiatrists deployed in a theater of war might get into if they didn’t know how to fire a weapon.  That is, any other psychiatrist but Hassan.  Yes, I am sure that this Islamic psychiatrist did have personal objections to the U.S. presence in the Middle East.  So did many an American in general have objections to the U.S. being present in a theater of war in the Middle East.  But we can suddenly be “tolerant of them” as long as they aren’t anti-war Muslims, right?  Except when we find it politically convenient to not be tolerant of them at all.

Thomas has a problem.  This nation is built on a foundation of freedom.  The freedom to believe what you wish, the freedom to practice what you believe,  the freedom to say what you wish even in dissent.  And a Muslim psychiatrist who joins the U.S. Military is primarily doing so because he is there defending those freedoms.

I can’t hope to read the man’s mind.  I can’t hope to speculate or second guess why he would flip out and gun down his fellow soldiers in an act of fratricide.  That must be up to a judge in a courts martial where the facts come out.  But, Thomas isn’t going to wait for such niceties as letting justice take its course, he’ll condemn now!  And tell the rest of us, “I told you so,” because this is the third time that soldiers died at the hands of a fellow soldier in a non-theater of war situation.  And the perpetrator just happened to be a Muslim.  And use 13 dead (who knows of what diverse religions they may well have been) as further “proof” of the war that Islam has against this country and a war “they” are intent on winning.

Do I excuse Hassan being a fanatic?  I do not.  Would I disregard Hassan’s actions of violent extremism?  I do not.  Fanaticism and extremism is always something to be feared.  And yes, he should be held to account for the murders of his fellow soldiers.  But, let us not use his actions to condemn a country or a president, or even those of the opposing political ideology as Thomas prefers to do.  Until Hassan flipped out, he was defending Thomas’ right to disparage his Islamic belief.  How about that.

Wonder if Thomas would manage to remember something like that?  No?  So if he had been a man named Smith and was a devout “Christian,” and committed fratricide of his fellow soldiers about to deploy overseas; would Thomas then regale us with the dangers of fanatical Christianity?  Probably not.  So let us end this post by concluding, it was a terrible tragedy.  My greatest condolences to the survivors of the lives lost.  To the families of the fallen.  To those at Ft Hood, Texas who didn’t expect to find themselves in fatal conflict with a fellow American and soldier.  And let justice be served.

Watching “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” last week and his hilarious take on the off-season political races occurring in a number of states; one thing struck me about the district races for the state Senate or Governor race of New Jersey where the incumbent was trying to describe his Republican opponent and a darling of the religious new radicals  as essentially corrupt.  Christy had gotten caught up in something, threw his weight around, and got off easy.  That was the campaign ad by the Dem incumbent.  So what happened?  Between Fox News and CNN, the so-called “news anchors” to include Wolf Blitzer actually started complaining about the incumbent calling Christy fat.  Uh, excuse me?  But “throwning one’s weight around,” isn’t name calling.  What it involves, should be easy enough for anyone to understand given that it is an expression as old as 20 or more years.  Using one’s authority in a manner that can be called questionable.  Over a matter where the “dude” isn’t man enough to accept responsibility.  That has nothing to do with whether Christy happened to be chubby or not.  But that was the silly twist and turn that the “news media” put on this episode.  Which then led to the incumbent going on to describe his own baldness…  Hardy har, har, har, har.  With eyes rolling, what should the voter do?  Suggest they go find a few write in candidates for this election day, 3 November 2009 and put them in office instead.  Or vote, “none of the above.”

In other news, saw this today in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington.  Cal Thomas was back at it suddenly remembering what the 10th Amendment was all about.  At least, now that the Dems are in power and the GOP are among the decided minority.  Suddenly, it is in vogue again to argue the limits of federal power and proclaiming that the founding fathers actually did not want a strong central government.  Which, point 1:  That is a misreading of history, since the first try of a newly independent Republic to severely limit the powers of gvt and to grant all authority to the states turned into a disaster.  Which led to a constitutional Congress to write up the form of gvt that would have certain powers granted to it with a compromise that some powers would be granted to the states and the people by way of the Bill of Rights.  Without that drafted and ultimately approved U.S. Constitution that exists mostly intact today; we would not have a fairly strong and generally stable union of 50 states.  Point 2:  only when you are in a minority status do you then argue the need for a gvt small enough to drown in the bathtub.  When you are in power however, the 10th Amendment suddenly becomes “a liberal point of view.”  You are then no longer interested in remembering the limits to federal power that applies to your political agenda too.  Certainly, over the last 8 years, Thomas wasn’t interested in remembering the limits to federal power when the GOP were generally in control.  Which argues the inconsistency to be found in this new left radicalism of which Thomas is a face.

I went out and voted today, living where I do in Dalton Gardens, Idaho; I would not be in a position to vote in the Coeur d’Alene City council races where it would seem that idiocy has prevailed there too.  They are called “Reagan Republicans.”  They sent around a flier that slams the entire incumbent City Council plus GOP Mayor Sandi Bloem.  Apparently, GOP radicalism has reached the point that if you aren’ 1,000% with the “Reagan Republicans” you aren’t “Republican enough.”  Question:  who was that wise fellow of decades before who told the stridently anti-Communists among the GOP what not to do when pushing this political agenda?  Precisely, to not become the enemy by literally following in his foot steps or to adopt his language, behavior or conduct.  The “Reagan Republicans” attacks on fellow Republicans take on a more Marxian style of language, behavior and conduct that would have their hero rolling in his grave.  If you aren’t 1,000% in our corner you aren’t (Bolshevik) enough?  That worked during and after the Russian revolution and literally cost thousands to possibly millions of lives.  To see shades of Bolshevism living on in so-called GOP ideology is down-right more frightening given where it is occurring now, in a land of freedom.  So excuse me if I don’t find this particularly “right wing.”  Tells you a great deal about those who refuse to learn from history.

From my perspective, it is probably a good thing that I don’t live in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho any longer.  I’d find the “Reagan Republicans” so obnoxious I’d simply have to vote all the incumbents back in; even those incumbents I’d personally find obnoxious.

The ancient Celts/Gaels and the Druid priests who guided them called the day Samhain (Sowain).  For them, it was the gathering of the harvest, the changing of the seasons and a pleading to the Godsin ritual for a bountiful harvest of the next year.  Post Druidic history and with the advent of Christianity;  it was claimed by Christians that Druids would lead a party of fearful pagans around with lighted gourds (pumpkins) to scare off the spirits at this time of year.  Granted that with the changing of the seasons, it was indeed believed by primitive man that spirits could roam at will with the thinning of the walls between their world and the worlds that could be found in other realms, but that not all spirits were the ghosts of ancestral past.  And that some spirits came from realms beyond their ken.  Such as the Sidh.

The trick or treat saga has its beginnings with factually propitiating the Sidh so that they wouldn’t trick you at the time of Samhain.  By asking them to share in your bounty with gifts of food, they would honor your hospitality by leaving you and your household very much alone.  Just as gifts of bounty from your harvest was also left out for the prior dead as a remembrance for the family members who had gone before you.  Today, children who dress up in costumes and go door to door looking for candy are factually continuing the tradition of the Sidh who trick the people who refuse to share their bounty and honor the people who do.  That is the only continuing “pagan” relationship to Hallowe’en.

Today, Hallowe’en carries other more scary traditions; precisely, those created by Christians.  Samhain has become All Hallows eve, or the Devil’s night out.  It is no longer about the final gathering of the harvest but about the ghoulies and ghosties and all other things that go bump in the night.  In short, we could keep man’s fear of other realms beyond his ken and remember nothing about what this time of year was all about, the gathering of the harvest.  Until of course, politically speaking; Christians would turn to Samhain and try to claim a Druidic tradition as their own.  And only that part of the Druidic tradition that most pleased them, without of course adding visits from the Sidh or one’s dead relatives to the mix.  In the process; devaluing completely their own rich Hallowe’en tradition while creating an empty shadow of more ancient and “pagan” beliefs.

It has to be remembered that the werewolf, the vampire, and other demonic creatures that crowded mens’ fears of the dark could survive very well into the Christian era because the church itself found a great use for them.  If a frightened people led by Christian priests could search out graves and put stakes in the hearts of the recently buried  dead because it was feared that grand dad had come back and was now feeding on my kids’ blood; well, the church wasn’t likely to correct this violation of the sanctity of the grave or to presume that grand dad might have actually been a righteous man in his lifetime.  From the perspective of the church, you were suspect from birth to death and beyond.  And just how many indulgences could you proffer to the church coffers to take you off the suspect list?  No where in the bible do you find actual tales of the vampire.  But from the Christian tradition, you do find pre-Christian fears of the supernatural crowding the pantheon of Christian terrors.  It was quite remarkable really, a church that claims an association with a Jewish Rabbi that was supposed to lead them to a new light and a new hope would instead for centuries afterwards, walk the path of dark fear.  Just how many ordinary humans died by being mistaken for werewolves?  Just how many Christian women died by being mistaken for witches?  By some counts, in the thousands to millions.

Today, we make a fiction of these dark fears.  We write novels and short stories about werewolves and vampires; the terrors of dark powers from evil witches.  We even put our fears of the evil dead into such films as Chucky who becomes a murderous toy doll.  And when our demons out of our long past weren’t enough to scare us silly, simply try the absolutely demented human such as Hannibal the cannibal.  Slaughter films such as the Hallowe’en series or “Scream.”  Then go beyond twisted with “Saw…”

We like being frightened to death  We haven’t moved away as a human race refusing to  keep company with the many forms of demonic forces—both human and beyond human.  And so today’s Christianized version of Samhain would strive to do just that.  To sanitize us of our fears that Christians had themselves only exploited over many centuries.  Unless of course, Hallowe’en can be yet politically exploited to demonize “the other” who is the opposition.  And Christians produced the political “Hell Houses” where they could have those of their ilk cheering on the dragging into hell the woman who had an abortion (she might have miscarried and required a doctor’s care).  Whether Christians of today like it or not, they continue to carry on the ancient church tradition of putting their fellow man on the suspect list from birth to death and beyond.

So what indulgences should a person put in the church coffers of today to not only fund a harvest bounty that excludes hospitality and not be a caricature of the miserable hell bound in a church hell house?

Quite frankly, I’d prefer the company of the Sidh; they are far more predictable and delight in the hospitality that you provide them through your bounty.  The critters beyond our ken that are also easy to please.

If there is one thing I’ll agree with Leonard Pitts, jr about and that is having to shake one’s head at “conservatives” who would remake God’s word in their own image.  Right, republished in the Spokesman-Review of 19 October 2009, a description of a highly politicized “Conservopedia” and those of a very radical ideology who’d turn God’s word into a book of free market principles.  Uh, excuse me but I do believe that God was supposed to be opposed to people creatively interpreting the bible however they see fit.  And “Christians” who saw themselves as fundamentalists held a strict constructionist view of the bible.  God’s word was literally true as written.  So, you now have to wonder why guys who are supposed to be ideologically pro the institution would now challenge the institution, even the tenets of their own bibles?  That’s a pretty remarkable departure from where “conservatism” once stood.  That is, if it can in fact have the illusion of “conservative” any longer.

The one area that I can disagree with Pitts, if you are going to describe radical departures from an initial founding ideology in just the past two decades, why do you still describe this radicalism as conservative?  Conservative as a principle isn’t a buffet where people can select from a table of goodies and decide which will be more appetizing.  That would be like walking up to a buffet where you have your dishes of veggies and meats, breads and soups, salads and deserts; and then making your meal only of desserts and declaring that you just ate a healthy meal.  If the idea that the above described ought to raise eyebrows, then the radicalism that has replaced what used to be called “conservatism” in accordance with dictionary definitions one of which Pitts put into his column, that ought to raise eyebrows too, and be treated with as much disbelief.  If you believe in the bible and regard its historical lessons as having utter validity, there would be no cause to change the language and have God preaching the “invisible hand” or becoming a fan of Ayn Rand.  On the other hand, treating the moral lessons of the bible as a “liberalism” that can be simply dispensed with.  The God who’s prophets and other noteworthies such as King Solomon himself, writing in the name of God, didn’t exactly espouse “greed is good,” individual to the extreme, gvt is good when I want it and bad when it falls into the hands of the opposition, collectivism is a good thing when it is defined on my terms and “communism” when others may benefit.  God that can be rewritten to permit me to hold my fellow man in contempt.  To be noisy in my faith on street corners or in any other place of my choosing, regardless of what Christ that I claim association with actually thought about that.  Which actually, according to the bible I have, Christ was utterly opposed to that kind of thinking.  Shouldn’t conservative be to keep and value what you have?

Well then, if “conservatives” can’t even value a bible if it doesn’t carry the sort of language they would prefer, then it brings to mind what I am fully aware of that had their antecedents properly frothing over.  Multiculturalism, for example:  where American history must suddenly go through a process of revisionism because of the fact that standard history books tended to overlook the contributions of minorities to this nation.  That as a consequence of such revisionism, something “anti-American” existed at the base of such multiculturalism.  That the majority ought to take no further pride in being who and what they are or for that matter, who and what the founding fathers happened to be.  Or secular humanism:  Where faith no longer guided morality.  Evolution:  that was deemed to have taking God’s place and promoted by “atheist” scientists.  Marxism or Communism that put the faith of man into man and gvt.  But not into God himself.  Anything that could cause the youth of this nation to stray from the straight and narrow was deemed suspect.  Books, movies and videogames; could influence them negatively.  Songs, politicians and the next door neighbor; could make your child a total and uncontrollable stranger.  What passed for “conservative” even twenty years ago was actually a fear of the real world and also of one’s fellow Americans.  None the less, there was still a basis to believe that some of what was said did have elements of true conservatism in it.  Literally, why break what works well right now?  Why turn from the tried and the true?  Why revise what is literally acceptable right now into something that is unrecognizable and therefore unacceptable?  Why distort?  Why recreate something that departs from its original format?  Propaganda does not replace well, the truth.  A faith in God ought not be replaced by faith in the things of man or man himself.  That there should be throughout, a core of principles of values that should not be departed from.  But as Pitts has described it, over the past 20 or better years, radicals have been slip-sliding away from such sound principles.  In that, they have become much more like the “left” that they once derided than they ever were like their predecessors.  And that is quite a shame.

There is a lot to be liked about any Leonard Pitts, jr editorial (republished in the Spokesman-Review 12 October 2009) and this one is included. That being said, Mr. Pitts still manages to get a few things wrong as will be explained shortly.

First of all, Christmas isn’t the only federally recognized religious holiday, actually Thanksgiving is a federally recognized religious holiday and was celebrated long before Christmas was ultimately given a similar recognition.  And from what I can understand about the history of federally recognized religious holidays, James Madison had some open opposition to the U.S. Government giving Thanksgiving any federal recognition at all.  But, he was apparently outvoted.  At the same time, Thanksgiving is in fact the only purely “Christian” holiday that is celebrated in this nation today.  That is, one not drawn from far older traditions as all other “Christian” holidays are.  And Thanksgiving as celebrated in this nation today, has valid historical roots as well.  That being said, as someone not of the Christian faith; all Thanksgiving means is a day off from work.  I will decorate for it as I like to decorate for all holidays I am most familiar with.  But my decorating theme will not necessarily include Thanksgiving’s purely religious aspects, just who made it possible—the Pilgrims.

I will agree with Pitts, that a cross and a bouquet of flowers along side a highway, city street and etc. that was erected by grieving relatives of the latest in traffic casualties will not offend.  You know what it is for.  And it can be considered an implied reminder to all others who drive those same routes what one careless moment can mean as to what it cost—in lives; be careful out there, this could be you.  For that, I’ll thank those Christians for their concern for the welfare of other drivers and their passengers even as they grieve for their own.

However, when it comes to a cross erected in the Mojave desert for presumably all of the World War 1 dead, if I were traveling through that particular region and did not know what the Cross was for, I’d have my own thoughts about why it was erected, and not necessarily would they be nice thoughts.  I can think of far better markers to honor the dead of that war, a massive block of stone carved with the wording of, “In honor of those who died in World War 1;” where it would leave no doubts as to why it was erected and set out in the same place where the Cross exists now and truly be generic as to whom it included.  Justice Scalia would be entirely wrong on this but also for reasons that Pitts himself doesn’t even begin to address.  There is a history here in this country of bigotry, not only a bigotry of Christian to non-Christian, but also Christian against Christian.  Precisely, where it concerns the latter, who owns the Cross and for whom among the World War 1 dead was it truly erected to honor?  Because of that historical bigotry, even that Cross would have behind it, an element of coercion.  Sorry, Pitts.

Thus, a grave marker would be far more appropriate, and one made of stone would be far more lasting.

Yes, this is October, but I expect it is not too soon to discuss the latest salvos in the War on Christmas, which Pitts mentions briefly as someone suing over the removal of Christmas  as a federally recognized holiday.  Actually, they’d probably have some valid reason to, LOL! as banks don’t necessarily close on Passover, nor will mail not be delivered on Hallowe’en.  If most religious holidays don’t receive federal recognition, why should Christmas or for that matter, Thanksgiving, be the exceptions?

But as mentioned before, Thanksgiving is the only real Christian holiday celebrated in this nation today.  Christmas, on the other hand, beyond the story of Christ’s birth, derives most of its celebrations and traditions not on anything actually having to do with Christ himself, but rather on pagan traditions.  And Christ himself  who would be mindful of Jewish law that opposed the use of the “decorated tree” (Tanakh) would be, I think appalled that his erstwhile followers get hysterical if the “Christmas” tree isn’t called a “Christmas” tree but rather an Xmas tree or holiday tree.  Or if in the case of SeaTac international airport in Washington state, that would rather pull down all “holiday” trees rather than erect one Menorah; “Christians” would rather go on the attack over the loss of something both pagan and biblically verbotën with a lot of vitriol against the d–ned Jew who’d deny them a “Christmas” tree because he wants a menorah for God’s sake erected at SeaTac… How dare he!  Of what would Christ find more appalling, squabbles over symbols one of which is indeed pagan in origin or the failure of his erstwhile followers to obey his commandments?

As to the Cross itself, it has two divergent traditions.  One in which it is a device used for torture/executions by the Romans.  The second, in a similar form and encompassed by a circle, is a Celtic/Druidic symbol.  Therefore, the Cross has been made use of by “Christians” without a doubt.  Perhaps with some historical validity as per Jesus ultimately being executed as an enemy of the Roman state.  But when “Christians” make use of a Druidic symbol as a halo for Christ’s head… as far as I know, Christ wasn’t a Druid.  Hanging him on a variation of a Celtic/Druidic cross… to the best of my knowledge, the pagan Celts weren’t responsible for his execution.  But leave it to the “Christians” to pervert their faith in order to become more attractive to the pagans they wished to convert.  Why else celebrate a “Mass for Christ” in or around the same time as Saturnalia?  The bible gives plenty of clues as to when Christ probably was actually born, why then pattern him after Mithras, a winter demi-god?  When a people divorce Christ from his Jewish beginnings and render him in many ways pagan so as to be “attractive” to pagans, what does that say about faith?

Uh, excuse me, but there are only two types of people who actually “own” the Cross, Druids and Pagan Romans.  Now, go erect that more inclusive grave marker.

I am not about to second guess “Trunk” who tweeted her recent miscarriage. Nor why she appeared on CNN afterwards to discuss it with Rick Sanchez. But I do have a few statements to make about Kathleen Parker’s choosing to editorialize about it and offer thorough condemnations about “Trunk” making her miscarriage a public discussion.

Apparently, Ms. Parker thinks, like many uninformed about plain dictionary meanings, that there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion.  Actually, the dictionary definition of abortion includes miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.  Yes, actually, women who have spontaneous abortions where they desired to have a child do feel  heavy grief and even guilt at their loss of pregnancy.  For to them it is indeed a loss of a planned for child.  But, you have to thank “Trunk” rather than condemn her for shining the spotlight on this issue.  Miscarriages are a principle factor in the rate of abortions in this country today; especially if the woman who has a miscarriage must receive medical treatment.  It also informs anti-abortionists that not all abortions are desired, planned for and can be regulated against.  Miscarriage is in fact one of the medical conditions that results in a woman having to obtain an abortion procedure.  So, while Ms. Parker was passing judgment, she was overlooking “Trunk’s” contributions to a painful discussion.

Can you discuss the flu on Twitter?  Bet you can.  Could a heart attack that you survive become a general part of the conversation?  Most certainly.  But if you reduce an epic “loss of a child” to a mere 140 words; then condemnations must flow.  Why?  What if “Trunk” lost a young child to a car accident?  Would her grief be any less if she Tweeted such a loss in 140 characters or less?  No.  However, would there be MSM nannies out there asking her if she had no shame such as had Rick Sanchez if she Tweeted such a statement?  No.  That ought to tell you all about the politics of abortion; as opposed to what ever “moral” positions one may take on the issue.  Only in politics could a woman who Twitters about a miscarriage be taken to the woodshed.

Let us put it bluntly, miscarriage is the one medical condition that can not be prevented nor regulated against.  A woman who is happy that she did have a miscarriage probably had a number of reasons for why she had real doubts about getting pregnant at all.  And where she had doubts, then how would “the child” have fared if born?  Yes, it should have a far wider public discussion, as miscarriage is indeed one of the hidden aspects (when it comes to “religious” opposition to abortion) of why abortion procedures will always continue in this nation, they must.  For the people most uncomfortable having to discuss it at all; they aren’t uncomfortable discussing your last night’s dinner with you or if you had painful constipation afterwards; that isn’t too much information.  So, why would a miscarriage become taboo as far as a Tweeted discussion goes?  It isn’t as far as I am concerned.

Having ventured onto the Twitter board on more than one occasion, I am fully aware of the wide political spectrum of the people who comment.  Those who announce those cuh-razy Tea Parties; who make plain their “religious” opposition to this and that.  God pops up in political discussion on the Twitter board with astounding frequency as do biblical scripture.  If 140 characters reduces the significance of an abortion event to the point of being demeaned; I can’t think of a more demeaning act than to reduce God to 140 characters.  But, Ms. Parker isn’t going to pass judgment on the religious who reduce God to 140 characters but only on the people with whom she is politically opposed, people like “Trunk” for example.  That should say a lot right there.

Quite frankly, as the author of this blog, I am not opposed to discussing miscarriage or even planned for aborticides.  I would certainly invite “Trunk” to post comments here any time she wishes and I would certainly discuss with her more in-depth what she truly felt when the miscarriage took place.  Did Ms. Parker twist something when offering her condemnations?  Did Sanchez?  Miscarriages are a fact of life for a great many women.  When they are 20% of total medical abortions in this nation, that is significant.  It says what no anti-abortion law will ever prevent and why trying to force doctors who currently perform the procedure to turn from such a practice will only cause as to harm.  A woman who does have a miscarriage after all can actually be at risk of dying if she doesn’t have proper medical treatment.

Sorry Ms. Parker, but “Trunk” was not actually wrong.

Well over 200 years ago, one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stood in a city called Philadelphia and announced to the public at large that if an Imam wished to preach here, he could.  Cut to 29 September 2009, and a republishing of a Cal Thomas editorial in the Spokesman-Review , he presents Imams living in this country as “the scary other;” certainly in light of 9/11/2001 it can come as no surprise.  Almost 3,000 people died in a single day because of an Islam belief  that followed the course of radical jihad.

However, it is what Mr. Thomas has to say in the course of his editorial that has me shaking my head:  “Democracy is not a revelation, and democracy does not equal freedom, for in democracy you have apartheid, you have slavery, you have homosexuality, you have lesbianism, you have gambling, you have all the vices that are against the spirit of truth…”  If this had been written by a “Christian,” would Mr. Thomas go haywire?  The author of this Facebook excerpt Imam Abdul Malik is deemed an “enemy of the state” in Mr. Thomas personal opinion because of his “thumbs down” on Democracy and all the human failures it allows; esp. where Thomas freaks at the idea that Democracy can be “Islamized.”  OK?!?

Let us remind Mr. Thomas that Christians made decades of public pronouncements that this country wasn’t a “democracy” at all and instead a republic.  The evils to be found in a “democracy” IE demos, the people and the inherent socialism behind it.  —Effectively, any Christian has already made the argument that democracy doesn’t equal freedom long before the Imam Malik from Brooklyn, NY made his Facebook declarations.  And any “Christian” out there has discussed the vices of this society from gambling to gay rights and sought gvt intervention to oppose anything that would keep this nation from being next door to heaven.  In short, such activists only sought to Christianize democracy.  Quite frankly, beyond the Imam’s belief, I don’t see much difference between himself and radical activist “Christians” who have certainly turned out in massive numbers to either:  oppose abortion, oppose the Obama administration.  Or small “church groups” consisting of families who carry protest signs from one soldier’s burial to another condemning them for “defending” homosexuality in this nation and “Thank God for 9/11/2001.”  But, I guess as long as they are “Christians,” they can’t be the enemy.  Nor could they have the capacity for terrorism that is only possible in Islam.  Say again?

PBS had a special on Christian terrorists post the Dr. George Tiller death.  Radical anti-abortionists who do more than simply oppose a legal operation for its “immorality.”  They go so far as to engage in vandalism, threats of violence, create websites that have hit lists of abortion providing doctors to be eliminated, they have prayed for the deaths of judges who rule against them.  Surviving doctors who perform late term abortions have called them terrorists because of the safety precautions these doctors must now take in order to stay in operation.   Well, when you create a fear factor that literally changes how people conduct their personal lives; wouldn’t that be terrorism?

How about Timothy McVeigh?  How about the “militias” that suddenly sprang up proclaiming their utter opposition to the gvt?  How about “Christian Identity” that made common cause with racism?  Excuse me, but democracies do allow some extremely radical types to operate with a degree of freedom in this nation.  Mr. Thomas just doesn’t want to include Islam, however.

Seems Imam Malik does have a point about the history of this nation, whether Mr. Thomas wants to acknowledge it or not.  What is Jim Crow after all, but racial apartheid?  Who created Jim Crow if not racist Christians?  Democracy didn’t always mean freedom in this nation; the Whiskey Rebellion was one such example.  Civil Rights came only because of a long and intense struggle and ultimate sacrifices.  Democracy in this nation did allow slavery.  Slavery only ended effectively with a civil war and an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And those who had the most objections to minorities achieving an equal status put on white robes, pointed white headgear and white masks.  They burned crosses in a very twisted and radical perversion of how they came to see Christ.  In their time, the Ku Klux Klan were terrorists; as the Neo Nazis that came after them.

Thomas does have a point to make about that it only takes a few to wreak havoc.  But it always that “scary other,” not those who believe as I do.

Thomas then goes on to refute the “deceptions” of Muslims where it concerns the infidel.  Now that does sound a bit like Fundamentalist Mormons who engage in deceptions of their own because one shouldn’t actually tell the truth to one’s Christian neighbor deemed an infidel.  Never mind the commandment against bearing false witness.

Granted that Iran’s president Ahmedinejad probably does not care to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his nuclear ambitions.  And there is without question that he is a very scary guy.  However, Thomas goes to great and convoluted lengths to “tie in” Muslims living in this nation with the crazy guy who is president of a country who has been a declared enemy for more than 20 years.  Exactly why do these Muslims live in this country if Iran’s ruling party has long called us a Great Satan?  You’d think they’d make common cause with the purists and stay well away from “corrupting influences.”  Or is there another reason why they’d come to this nation?  Well, try economic reasons for one.  Try gvt oppression for another.  Try guys like the late and not so great Saddam Hussein who butchered his “enemies” except for those who got away successfully and sought refuge in this nation.  Never mind the very legitimate reasons that these people could be here, they are all now suspect terrorists.  And all because of a Facebook statement by a single Imam.  Or because of crazy dude Ahmadinejad.

And finally, let us even go a little further and posit that there must be something terribly wrong with the current administration that somehow (with very dark whispers here) makes excuses for Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions.  Uh, those nuclear ambitions were very much evident long before Obama ran for the presidency.  Exactly what excuses did GW come up with as to why he wasn’t prepared to resolve them over a period of 8 years?  Interesting that Thomas spent more time whining about “liberals,” Dems and abortion than he could find time for with regards to GW’s foreign policy failures.

Fear factor:  “Are we being infiltrated and surrounded by people who want us dead and our country destroyed?  Try a little experiment, Google “Islam near” and then type in the name of any city or town.  When I tried the small town of Bryn Mawr, Pa., 10 Islamic-related sites came up.  In larger cities, there are as many, or more.  Deception is part of the terrorist’s battle strategy…”  Or is what Thomas’ calling for in his dark heart of an editorial a new apartheid; a call to arms by racists; an xenophobia that could easily lead to violence against a people who surely don’t all agree with Imam Malik.

The wonders of democracy, Thomas; is that allows freedom of religion, precisely, freedom for all religions.  Even though the capacity for evil does exist in the hearts of men, men are still free within a democracy to change what they deem wrong in society.  To over time correct the social ills that can come endemic with the human condition.  In that respect, Imam Malik is wrong about what democracy is capable of.  It may allow social vices, but it also allows men to act for the greater good.  And that is how progress is made.  Thomas on the other hand makes clear that he wants to be part of the social ills rather than part of the solution to them.

Exactly what does it take for a nation to be perceived as “weak” before the potential enemies of this world? Cal Thomas thinks he knows, our foreign policies, especially those created by Democrats, put us in a “weak” position.  Remember, only Democratic presidents ought to actually be named, and their foreign policies in particular ought to be trotted out so that we can be “warned” against voting for them the next time.

But, isn’t it the partisan hack jobs that truly does make this nation weak?  In the full 8 years of GW’s presidency; he caved to Ahmedinajad (sic?) a great many times; changing the U.N. goal posts continually rather than drawing a line in the sand and declaring that  bullying dude would not cross here.  Must have been that Ahmedinajad felt he could use the exportation of foreign oil or even the lack of same as a leverage against the U.S.  And of course, the U.S. under GW was business profits over all.  The aftermath of GW’s refusal to stand firm?  The mistreatment by Iran’s gvt of a people who protest what they regarded as a fraudulent election.

The internet is great thing, isn’t it?  You can find an abundance of blogs, and plenty of places to park them where opinions can be generated across the political spectrum of any issue of the day, or of the hour.  It can also generate websites by people also across the political spectrum who use their websites as hatchet jobs against a political opposition, or even an idea, or a tradition.  While GW was in office, there happens to be this website, Townhall.com, run primarily by fringe new lefties who went on record after Spain pulled out of Iraq following an election in which the opposition party took over; in the aftermath of an 11 March terrorist attack on commuter trains; of attacking an ally who didn’t have much of a military presence in Iraq to begin with.  Spain had become “cowardly” for wanting to deal with its own internal affairs, including dealing with domestic terrorists, first.  The problem for Townhall.com; anyone at all can check out their website and read all the comments from some very juvenile people.  The sort of people who actually regard their most juvenile conduct and even more juvenile commentary (believe it or not) as conservative.  If an act of terrorism possibly changed the outcome of whom the Spanish people would choose for a gvt; then it was also probably a tipping point as well; the Spanish people might have seen terrorist acts against their nation as 1.  retaliation for investing in this war or 2.  they simply didn’t want in this war in the first place.  Whereby, the latter was the base reason for how they would ultimately vote and the terrorist act served as an excuse.  The vast majority of the world as to the populace of various countries did not support GW’s foreign policies on terrorism and Iraq.  GW could “stand firm” against opinion polls run by various news media; he would do as he chose regardless.  But when you looked at the full span of his over all foreign policies; especially when it involved Kim Jong Il; the man did more to cave in to gvts than show any sign of strength.

Cut to the pro-democracy rebellion by Hungarian civilians against a Soviet supported gvt.  Seems to me that a Republican administration was in place that refused to lend aid in what would become an humanitarian crisis.  Apparently, we either had some lingering fond memories of the Soviet Union as an “ally” during the second world war or we were still tangled up in the Korean conflict and the then existing administration concluded that to start another conflict before we had concluded the one we were embroiled in would likely drain our resources…  Or to lend aid to Hungary’s rebellion while still in tough negotiations with keeping the gvts of Korea from each other’s throats; would have been a grave mistake.  To put it bluntly, Thomas could trot out a lot of history in his column, without it would seem, caring to discuss anything in-depth.

While Reagan was in office; he made common cause with bullies who slaughtered in the thousands many of their own people (on the presumption that they were sympathetic to commie insurgents) as long as the bullies in those respective gvts weren’t communist themselves.  Just as he was more than prepared to make specific trade deals with communist gvts at the behest of business interests.  The same thing with Bush (41).  Preceding Iraq wars 1 & 2, we could make common cause with Saddam Hussein because of our extreme hatred of Ayatollah run Iran.  And that was regardless of Hussein the bully who was so ruthless where his own citizens were concerned that anyone could be deemed an enemy and killed by the thousands.

Only years later, would we bring up such “humanitarian concerns” (more than the presumption of harboring terrorists) that would serve as an excuse for GW to go to war in Iraq and forcibly install a new gvt.  But of course, “humanitarian concerns” didn’t factor into the Reagan/Bush (41) foreign policy considerations at all.

And in that same era; “hawks” who’d whine about our “weakness” on the foreign stage if Democratic presidents were in power, such as Charles Krauthammer; then turned about and made excuses for why we didn’t fight every war or topple every hated gvt as long as the administration was indeed GOP.  Apparently, foreign policy “weakness” was dependent on one’s political views.  Or the undercurrent was more in line with; as long as we could do business with the bullies, why would we want to topple their gvts?  And to put it very bluntly, our foreign policy of any administration was driven more by business $$$ than by “standing firm” ideologically on the behalf of democracy, or human rights, or other political considerations.  The fact that print editions of Time or Newsweek or other publications could be sold all over the world; appearing ultimately on line for the world to read what got presented; we could be seen as “weak” by potential enemies just because of what our talking heads, Krauthammer, Thomas, et al had to say about our foreign policies or even our respective administrations.  The more a Thomas or a Krauthammer engaged in strident partisan attacks of an opposition administration; the more likely “the world” would have cause to be dismissive.

In a democracy, and only in a democracy is it possible for a people to roundly and sometimes legitimately to criticize their gvt.  But to wax hysterical of the current administration goes a bit beyond the pale.  It is as though the past 60 years could be rolled up, packaged and tied in a bow and presented to the current Obama administration as the years of failure when the nation didn’t do the right thing and therefore submitted to the enemy who could then find us “weak.”

A Republican administration, Nixon; discovering that the vast majority of Americans were now turning against Vietnam; pulled out of that highly misbegotten war.  If Osama bin Laden could cite Vietnam as the reason why he thinks he can “out last us” in any war on terrorism as per Thomas’ opinion; Thomas could look a little closer to Iraq and the current polling about Afghanistan instead.  After all, GW had to whip up fears about terrorism to get this nation into a war with Iraq.  To use terrorism as a foil to bring a GOP majority into Congress.  Not that ultimately the GOP majority in Congress were ultimately to seek this nation’s safety from terrorism but rather the gift that terrorist acts had brought to try to keep themselves in power and the opposition a weak minority.  As a consequence, a foreign policy that was hit and miss and full of whimsy.

Remarkable, isn’t it that Thomas spent more time excusing the foibles of a GOP administration and wastes no time engaging in rancid attacks on the current one?  Oh and I’d like to remind one and all; that on CBS Evening News last night, Katie Couric let loose a fundamental flaw; did GW actually give the generals on the ground in Iraq everything they needed?  Or was that what he claimed while the war in Iraq went south?  And the generals were so busy sucking up to the GOP administration at the time that they were themselves proclaiming they didn’t need more troops while indeed the situation was going south in Iraq.  Was Obama honestly not wanting to give McChrystal carte blanche on more troops in Afghanistan the reason why Thomas would write his column?  Neither did GW, actually when it came to Iraq; and we didn’t get a history lesson of “caving in” to our enemies.  Partisanship wins out.