illumined horizon

Article here.

Also Mike Wallace says he would grill Bush if given the chance.

Time for the fuhrer to go back to the ranch?

The idea that because the U.S. government is fighting terrorists and terrorism, and therefore the U.S. must change its long held policies and practices with respect to this fight seems deeply flawed. In fact, this argument is being proffered by the supposed party of moral values (Republican Party plus a dwindling number of conservative Democrats and liberal hawks). What can we say is the moral judgment on practices such as disappearing people and torturing prisoners? If the U.S. thinks of itself as a nation of moral values why would Americans change any moral or ethical practices at the behest of terrorists? The answer, of course, is that if America really was a nation of strong morals, it would not disappear people and torture 'enemy combatants'. To stoop to the level of the terrorists would be morally objectionable.

One would hope the American people can come to this same realization sooner than later, so that a new leadership can direct the country on a more moral course in dealing with the problem of global terrorism. If this is not America's future, America has surely lost its moral compass and probably its moral credibility to most other nations of the world.

Conservatives defend secret prisons: one, two, three.

This article raises the important point, are we free when we think we're free? I don't actually think we are very near a police state in the United States, but I think some of the violations of civil liberties that have been taking place since 9/11 could be placing us onto the beginning of a slippery slope in that direction.

There's a lot of sentiment out there about folks saying "Happy Holidays". Many on the right and the religious right act as if the apocalypse is immanent just because after you buy your Christmas goodies you might hear "Happy Holidays" instead of the old standby of "Merry Christmas". This seems to me to be the type of one size fits all thinking that can only be accurately described as a brand of neo-fascism. Why in a country that has a constitutionally codified separation of church and state that this would be such a pressing issue, can only astound an observer looking upon this situation with fresh eyes. Of course, I'm not looking upon this newly, (this debate arises year after year in the U.S. this time of year) so I think I understand why this debate is trotted out again and again year after year. It's difficult to say how much of this momentum is driven from the grass roots, but I think large scale conservative forces are at work here as well.

The conservative movement hiearchy views this issue as a winner and whips as many Americans into a frenzy over it as they can. The right loves this kind of issue because it takes people's minds (not that their minds are already on these issues as much as they should be) off health care, labor rights, economic fairness, the treatment of minorities in society, etc., and stirs up a controversy about something that will not likely hit the pocketbook of the wealthy and big business. I want to leave a quote for everyone to think about in relation to this phenomenon:

...it was the thinkers of the Enlightenment who imagined a balanced and civilized freedom that did not impinge upon the freedom of one's neighbor. Put in the simplest terms, my right to life means that you must give up your freedom to kill me. This may seem terribly obvious to decent people. Unfortunately, in our neo-liberal era, this civilized sense of freedom has, like the dangers of fascism, been all but forgotten.

This article provides some really interesting information. Even though it's kind of out there, it's really worth reading and thinking about. I have never researched the origin of AIDS, so this just seems like a conspiracy theory to me, but it was a good read, nonetheless.

Ann Coulter was on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. I only caught the last part of it, but there's a writeup of the appearance on News Hounds's website. It appears O'Reilly tossed her a few softballs, and also talked extensively about what O'Reilly called 'far left smear sites' (it's interesting that conservatives would raise objection to 'smear sites' when smear master Karl Rove is the brains of their man GW).

O'Reilly elaborated that the sites will 'bludgeon anyone who disagrees', and Coulter described the sites as 'a good use for George Soros money'. Coulter also mentioned that one particular 'smear' site hosted a debate about raping her. O'Reilly wanted details, but Coulter was coy. O'Reilly then changed the line of questioning asking if the liberals wanted her harmed. Coulter suggested all conservatives lived in danger of being harmed from liberals, who according to Coulter 'have no ideas'. O'Reilly topped off the segment by (like a good christian) judging the smear site liberals as 'bad people', 'bad human beings'.

One postscript: Gannon/Guckert has weighed in on the Coulter controversy of putting a woman's personal information up on her website. His comments here.

Has anyone heard of this group The Right Brothers (I really don't want to promote their website but if you haven't heard of them they really must be seen to be believed)? I just heard of/heard them today, and their 'hit' single "Bush was Right". This is one of the most disturbing pieces of music mine ears have ever experienced.

Apparently these guys are going around playing high schools. I pity the youth of this country, when I was growing up there were enough liberal/progressive influences out there to be able to develop the capability to think for myself. Unfortunately, from what I can see a lot of these influences no long exist or the light is going out on them. I have enough faith in people, though, that when they get beaten down enough they spring back. So hopefully all all of us on the left are doing is waiting for a revival of the values we believe represent the best of America.