Floods are Judgment on Society, say Bishops

Apparently some bishops in the Church of England have borrowed some of the Kool-Aid so widely consumed in Evangelical Christian circles in this country:

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops. One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless. While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want," he said, adding that the introduction of recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination to undermine marriage.

Increasingly, when I see suspect "institutional power," the imminent danger is the institutional church that has set itself up to control people and their morals. The civil laws of a nation should be seeking to govern only civil legal rights, not the morals and/or religious beliefs of the citizens. These bishops are obviously falling into the theocratic mind set of the Christianists in the USA.

My Readers - Part 8

I would like to introduce another of my readers: Marc from Raleigh, North Carolina. Marc describes himself as I'm an exercise enthusiast, particularly in respect to Ashtanga yoga. He has started keeping his own blog at http://wrapyourworriesindreams.blogspot.com/, which he says grew out of his Myspace blog, since he has such a fun time writing that he thought he should expand his blogging out of Myspace. Marc has a Master's in English and specialized in Latin and folktales and says he is an accomplished visual artist, and hope to sell some drawings for supplementary income.

More Monday Male Beauty

Four Years since "Bring'em On"

The national Security Network (http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/165) has a report on the state of affairs four (4) years after Chimperator Bush stupidly told the anti-American elements in the Middle East to "Bring'em on." Here's a summary and some highlights:

It has been four years since the President declared “bring’em on” in response to the budding insurgency in Iraq. Since that statement, more than 3,300 American troops have been killed and 25,000 have been wounded. Iraqi civilians have suffered tremendously, with four million fleeing their homes and an estimated 35,000 killed. The security situation has only deteriorated further, with the initial insurgency morphing into multiple civil wars and sectarian violence. Incredibly, there are more American troops in Iraq today than were there four years ago when the President made his reckless declaration.

The Middle East is facing its largest refugee crisis in a generation. More than 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq and another 2 million are internally displaced.

America has been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II. It has been 52 months since military operations in Iraq began. As of July 1, 2007, American troops have been in Iraq for 1,565, days the equivalent of 222 weeks.

Four years later, oil production is 21% below prewar levels. Despite the assertion that Iraqi oil production would pay for the war, production is down to 1.97 million barrels/day from 2.5 before the war.

Baghdad is still averaging only 5.6 hours of electricity per day. This number represents only 20% of prewar production levels. Unemployment remains between 25-40%. For the last two years, the unemployment rate hasUnemployment remains between 25-40%.

And our Chimperator and Darth Vadar Cheney think democracy will prevail in such an environment? Both are either utterly insane or complete delusional idiots.

Monday Male Beauty

Two More Held Over UK attacks

While information is still not complete, it appears that at least some of the bombers in the UK bomb plot were in fact foreign born Muslims. As with the 9-11 terrorist, at least some appear to be educated, making such action all the more disconcerting. The BBC is reporting in part, in fact, that two are believed to be doctors:

Two of those being held by police are believed to be doctors. Dr Mohammed Asha, 26, who worked as a junior doctor at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford, was arrested on the M6 in Cheshire on Saturday night along with a 27-year-old woman thought to be his wife.

And one of the men suspected of the attack on Glasgow Airport worked as a doctor in Paisley, BBC Scotland understands. It is believed the man was employed as a locum doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, just two miles from the airport building attacked on Saturday.

One has to wonder how educated individuals succumb to religious fanaticism. Although given the tens of thousands needless civilian deaths that have occurred in Iraq as a result of the hubris and crusade mentality of George W. Bush and his poodle, Tony Blair, it is equally likely that perhaps these individuals merely sought revenge for the deaths of their countrymen and fellow Muslims. As time goes by, it will be interesting to see what actually motivated these individuals.

Final Sunday Male Beauty

The Supreme Court is divided not merely over how to interpret the Constitution. It’s divided over the meaning of American history.

As an attorney and as one who believes in equal rights for ALL citizens, I was appaled by the Supreme Court decision last week that struck a blow to allow creeping resegregation of the nation's schools to occur. Having read countless Supreme Court opinions in law school and in private practice since, this decision underscores how important a single justice can be and that their opinions can have huge consequences. Fortunately, Justice Kennedy , while agreeing with some of the majority, stopped the worse of the decision's potential fall out:

Kennedy typically swings more conservative than O’Connor; and, as was expected, he agreed with the conservative majority this time. But he could not accept some of the assumptions in the decision authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

As Kennedy made clear in his own opinion, he was uncomfortable with his conservative colleagues’ acceptance of “de facto resegregation,” as he was with the idea that the state was barred from making racial distinctions in the pursuit of educational equality. Nor was he happy with their approach to the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of emancipated slaves. “This Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children,” argued Kennedy. “A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue.”

Gary Orfield, codirector of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, tells NEWSWEEK that the result of resegregation is far from race-neutral. “Blacks and Latinos end up in neighborhood schools that are inferior, with fewer curriculum choices, lower graduation rates and less experienced teachers,” he says. Based on his research, Orfield has no doubt that Louisville’s school system will end up more segregated—and that black students will pay a price—when the desegregation program ends.

The other lesson from the Court's decision is that the far right of the GOP, including the self-proclaimed "Christian" element care little about the rights of minorities. While the GOP has always had an element within it that wanted to preserve the status quo and white privilege and preference, never during the period I was involved in the Party did the dominant element in the party clearly oppose equality under the law and equal rights for all citizens. For more on this issue, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19511718/site/newsweek/

More Sunday Male Beauty

More Potentially Bad News for the GOP and Christianists

Andrew Sullivan has a column that dove tails in with the Economist story I referenced earlier. A shortened version of Andrew's London Times column appears here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/the-kids-are-al.html#more. What it finds is good news overall for gays and not such good news for the GOP and the anti-gay Christianists. Here are a few highlights:

Does this make the next generation more conservative? On some issues, the answer seems to be yes. Take abortion. The underthirties are marginally more opposed to abortion than their parents: One in four want it made illegal altogether. Thirty-seven per cent of the underthirties are pro-choice, compared with 39% of the population; 38% of the underthirties want more restrictions.

The young are also slightly less likely to support gun control than their elders, even in the wake of the college shootings at Virginia Tech. A solid 43% of the underthirties, moreover, believe being gay is a choice, compared with only 34% of the general population.

So are they a more Republican generation than Democrat? Here’s where the surprise is. Despite their marginally more conservative views on the war and Iraq, the underthirties are strikingly more committed to the Democratic party than at any time since the high-water mark of young Republicanism in the Reagan Eighties. Bush has turned out to be a reverse-Reagan.

Hopefully, the Democrats can capitalize on this and totally rout the GOP in 2008. As I have said many times now, I believe that a 2008 election disaster is key to any chance of the GOP returning to its historic principles. Time seems on the side of those wishing to undo the damage of the last seven years.