Saddam! Saddam! So evil
that in the end you won.
Your ruthless taking of life
took our reverence and replaced it
with your own dead soul.
Saddam! Saddam! You were already dead
but we believed our murdering
is better than yours,
our revenge a strong but bitter pill
that would bring us peace.
Saddam! Saddam! It is not you who died today
but we.
- mario tosto
More resources
Read the rest at: LA TimesBy Sam Harris
December 24, 2006
The Los Angeles Times
SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.
Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”
That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.
Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.
The Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award. For the purposes of tonight and my own personal enjoyment, I'm going to yield to the notion that I deserve this. And in the spirit of that, tell you that I am very honored to receive it. And for this I thank the Creative Coalition and my friend Charlie Rose. It does seem appropriate to take this opportunity to exercise the right that honors us all - freedom of speech.
(Note for later: The original title for the Louis XVI comedy called "Start The Revolution Without Me" was one of my favorites. That original title was "Louis, There's a Crowd Downstairs." But I'll come back to that...)
Words may be our most civil weapons of change, when they connect to actions of sacrifice, or good will, but they have no grace or power without bold clarity. So, if you'll bear with me, borrowing a line from Bob Dylan, "Let us not talk falsely now - the hour is getting late."We depend largely for information on these issues from media industries, driven by the bottom line to such an extent that the public interest becomes uninteresting.
- Global warming
- Massive pollution
- Non-stop U.S. war in Iraq
- Attacks on civil liberties under the banner of war on terror
- Military spending - You and I, U.S. taxpayers, spend 1 1/2 billion dollars on an Iraq-war-'focused' military every day, while social needs cry out
- Health care
- Education
- Public transit
- Environmental protections
- Affordable housing
- Job training
- Public investment
- And, levee building
And should we speak truth, we stand against government efforts to intimidate or legislate in the service of censorship. Whether under the guise of a Patriot Act or any other benevolent-sounding rationale for the age-old game of shutting down dissent by discouraging independent thinking and preventing progressive social change.
The most effective forms of de facto censorship are pre-emptive. Systemically, we are encouraged to keep our heads down, out of the line of fire - to avoid the danger, god forbid, that someone in the White House, on Capitol Hill, or a media blow-hard might take a shot at us.
But, as a practical matter, most of the limits on creative expression and other forms of free speech come from self-censorship, where the mechanism of corporate clout offers carrots and brandishes sticks. We avoid a conflict before the conflict materializes. We reach for the carrots and stay out of range of sticks.
Decades ago, Fred Friendly called it a "positive veto" - corporations putting big money behind shows that they want to establish and perpetuate. Whether in journalism or drama, creative efforts that don't gain a financial "positive veto" are dismissible, then dismissed. We may not call that "censorship." But whatever we call it, the effects of a "positive veto" system are severe. They impose practical limits on efforts to bring the most important realities to public attention sooner rather than later...
We're beginning to see more revealing images of this war. But it's later now, isn't it? What we have to pay attention to are the results of these "practical limits." One, is that wars become much easier to launch than to halt.
I've got a feeling about how we can begin to change this process and I want to pass it by you. Children grow up in our country -- many by the way, under conditions of extreme poverty -- and are told from a very early age "You will be accountable!" "With freedom, comes responsibility!" And so the lecture goes...Democratic and Republican alike. Lie-cheat-steal, and there will be consequences! Theft will be punished. Actions that cause the deaths of others will be severely punished. The message, from leaders in Washington, news media, mom, dad, and church is clear. Criminals MUST be held accountable.
Now, there's been a lot of talk lately on Capitol Hill about how impeachment should be "off the table." We're told that it's time to look ahead - not back...
Can you imagine how far that argument would go for the defense at an arraignment on charges of grand larceny, or large-scale distribution of methamphetamines? How about the arranging of a contract killing on a pregnant mother? "Indictment should be off the table." Or "Let's look forward, not backward." Or "We can't afford another failed defendant."
Our country has a legal system, not of men and women, but of laws. Why then are we so willing to put inconvenient provisions of the U.S. constitution and federal law "off the table?" Our greatest concern right now should be what to put ON the table. Unless we're going to have one set of laws for the powerful and another set for those who can't afford fancy lawyers, then truth matters to everyone. And accountability is a matter of human and legal principle. If we're going to continue wagging our fingers at the disadvantaged transgressors, then I suggest we be consistent. If truth and accountability can be stretched into sham concepts, we may as well open the gates of all our jails and prisons, where, by the way, there are more people behind bars than any other country in the world. One in every 32 American adults is behind bars, on probation, or on parole as we stand here tonight.
Which is to say that, globally, the United States is number one at demanding accountability and backing up that demand with imprisonment. But, when it comes to our president, vice president, secretary of state, former secretary of defense...this insistence on accountability vanishes. All of a sudden, what's past is prologue. And we're just "forward-looking." But some people can't just look forward. Men and women stationed in Iraq at this moment, under orders of a Commander-in-Chief so sufficiently practiced in the art of deception, that he got vast numbers of American journalists and the most esteemed media outlets of this country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and PBS to eagerly serve his agenda-building for war. And the process also induced vast numbers of artists and performers (probably even some in this room tonight) to keep quiet and facilitate the push for an invasion in Iraq.
I'm sure many people who I met in Baghdad, both in my trips prior to and during the occupation, now similarly cannot just look forward. With lives so entirely shattered by a violence of occupation - an ongoing U.S. war effort and the civil war that it has catalyzed. All on the back of a crumbled infrastructure, following eleven years of devastating U.N. sanctions.
And, where is the accountability on behalf of the American dead and wounded, their families, their friends, and the people of the United States who have seen their country become a world pariah. These events have been enabled by people named Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice, as they continue to perpetuate a massive fraud on American democracy and decency.
On January 11, 2003, I made an appearance on Larry King's show following my first trip to Iraq. I suggested that every American mother and father sit down with a scrap of paper and pencil and scribble the following words: Dear Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so -- We regret to inform you that your son or daughter so-and-so, was killed in action in Iraq. I then asked that those mothers and fathers complete that letter in whatever way might comfort them should they receive it. When one considers what a bewildered continuation of those words a parent might attempt to write today, it seems inconceivable that this country could've ever bought into this war. Who were those mothers and fathers believing in?! We know it's not the administration alone, but a culture at large, cloaking itself in self-righteousness, religion, and adolescent hero-dreaming machismo. Would they have believed Rush Limbaugh if they'd known he was high as a kite on OxyContin? Would they have believed the factually impaired Bill O'Reilly if they knew he was massaging his rectum with a loofah while telephonically harassing a staffer? Hannity, had they known he was simply a whore to the cause of his pimps - Murdoch and Ailes? Or the little bow-tie putz, if they knew all he was seeking was a good laugh from Jon Stewart? Maybe our countrymen and women were listening to Ted Haggard while he was whiffing meth and boning a muscle-headed gigolo? Or Mark Foley seeking junior weenies? Joe Lieberman, sitting Shiva? And Toby Keith, singing about how big his boots are?
"Oh, there goes Sean...he had to go and name-call. They say he can't help himself." Or, did I name-call? Maybe I just quickly summed up 7 or 8 little truths. Oh, no, you're right - I name-called. I said, "putz". I take it back. Or, do I? Did I say "whore?" Pimp? These are questions. But, the real and great questions of conscience and accountability would not loom so ominously -- unanswered or evaded at such tremendous cost -- without our day-to-day failure to insist on genuine accountability. Of course we'd prefer some easy ways to get there. But no easy ways exist. Not a new Congress. Not Barack Obama. And, not John McCain. His courage in North Vietnamese prison makes him a heroic man. His voting record in Congress makes him a damaging public servant. We have gotta stand the fuck up and show the world how powerful are the people in a democracy. That's how we regain our position of example, rather than pariah, to the world at large. And that is how we can begin to put up our chins and allow pride and unification to raise our own quality of life and security.
They tell us we lost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Is that enough? We're about to match it. We're within weeks, if not less, of killing 3,000 Americans in Iraq. I ask Speaker Pelosi, can we put impeachment on the table then? Without former FEMA chief Mike Brown being held accountable, post Katrina (scapegoat though he may have been) we'd have had the same chaos and neglect when Rita hit Houston. Think about it. And, the same people who trumpet deterrence as a justification for punishment when we speak of "crime and punishment," will boast their positive thinking when dismissing the deterrent qualities of an impeachment proceeding.
What is impeachment? It's not a Democratic versus Republican event. Not if used responsibly. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach this president, is he thrown out of office? No, he is not thrown out of office. That is not what impeachment is. Impeachment is the opportunity to proceed with accountability and give our elected senators, democratic and republican, the power to pursue a thorough investigation. The power to put the truth on the table. Mothers and fathers are losing their kids to horrifying deaths in this war every single day. Horrible deaths. Horrible maimings. Were crimes committed in enlisting the support of our country in this decision to go to war? For the moment we're living the most spineless of scenarios; where the hawks abused impeachment eight years ago, now, the rest of us politely refuse to use it today. Let's give the whistle-blowers cover, let's get the subpoenas out there, and then, one by one, put this administration under oath. And then, if the crimes of "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides, and remove "the President, Vice President and...civil officers of the United States" from office. If the Justice Department then sees fit to bunk them up with Jeff Skilling, so be it.
So...look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a blowjob, yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a cum-stain on the flag we wave. You know, I was listening to Frank Rich this morning, speaking on a book tour. He said he thought impeachment proceedings would amount to a "decadent" sidetrack, while our soldiers were still being killed. I admire Frank Rich. And of course he would be right if impeachment is all we do. But we're Americans. We can do two things at the same time. Yes, let's move forward and swiftly get out of this war in Iraq AND impeach these bastards.
Christopher Reeve promised to get out of that chair. Well, I don't know about you, but it feels like he's up now and I wouldn't be standing here if it weren't on his shoulders. Let it be for something.
Georgie, there's a crowd downstairs.
Thank you and good night.
Santa's Clause
By Brent Rasmussen on Holiday Cheer
(Note: this post was written back in 2003. -Brent)
I have always tried to tell the truth to my children. That's not to say that there are times when I make the parental command decision to withhold information from my kids that I do not think that they can understand, or that I think will only serve to confuse them. All parents do that to a certain extent, I'm sure. It's part of raising kids and it comes from understanding how a human brain develops, and then using that knowledge to apply specific and selective choices towards your individual children because they are individuals.
What I have tried not to do is tell my children an outright lie.
However, many parents do not share my affinity for telling their darling little angels the truth. A case in point is Miss. Sandra Jolly of Miramar Florida. She became pretty upset when her six year old son D.J. told her that his teacher had told the entire class that Santa Claus was make believe.*
Now, before you go galloping off in all directions please consider the facts:
1. Santa Claus is make believe.
2. The teacher, Geneta Codner, did not actually say that Santa Claus was make believe. What she did was ask questions that encouraged critical thinking about obviously false things - like a fat man sliding down a chimney, or reindeer flying.
Now, if Miss. Jolly wants her child's teachers to lie to him, that's her business. She should present the school with a list of magical make-believe beings that she wants her little D.J. lied to about. Maybe they'll institute a special class for children who's parents want them to be lied to. This special class can spend their day wide eyed with wonder at the absolutely truthful (*nudge, nudge, wink, wink*) stories of Santa Clause and His Elves, Angels, Flying Reindeer, Tooth Fairies, The Easter Walrus, Fairy Godparents, Binky The Magic Space Clown, Spongebob Squarepants, Jesus, Allah, The Great Pumpkin, Spiderman, and President Bush and his Magic Bullet.
Wouldn't that be special?
Personally I think the rest of the students would be better off without fuzzy-thinking imbeciles like that polluting the classroom. I'd like my children to learn critical thinking and to be, well, told the friggin' truth about the world around them.
Golly. I must be some sort of anti-Christmas freak, huh?
No, not really. I just think that it's perfectly okay to let your children know that make-belief beings are make-believe. I don't think that it blunts their enjoyment of the fantasy one iota - any more than you or me would have trouble enjoying a novel that we know without a doubt is fictional.
I let my kids figure out the whole Santa Claus thing for themselves. They ask me, "Is Santa Claus real?" I respond, "Do you think that Santa Clause is real?" If they answer "Yes", then I'll ask them why they think he's real. After they get old enough to consider their reasons for believing, they'll start to answer "No."
Is Christmas ruined for the Inscrutable household? Of course not. Christmas is a wonderful time of family, giving, good cheer, good food. You know, all of that stuff that makes Christmas real and fun.
No lies, and no "real" make believe beings needed.
What then is the meaning of the whole world? We do not know what the meaning of existence is. We say, as the result of studying all of the views that we have had before, we find that we do not know the meaning of existence; but in saying that we do not know the meaning of existence, we have probably found the open channel – if we will allow only that, as we progress, we leave open opportunities for alternatives, that we do not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth, but remain always uncertain – [that we] “hazard it.” The English, who have developed their government in this direction, call it “muddling through,” and although a rather silly, stupid sounding thing, it is the most scientific way of progressing. To decide upon the answer is not scientific. In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar – ajar only. We are only at the beginning of the development of the human race; of the development of the human mind, of intelligent life – we have years and years in the future. It is our responsibility not to give the answer today as to what it is all about, to drive everybody in that direction and to say: “This is a solution to it all.” Because we will be chained then to the limits of our present imagination. We will only be able to do those things that we think today are the things to do. Whereas, if we leave always some room for doubt, some room for discussion, and proceed in a way analogous to the sciences, then this difficulty will not arise. I believe, therefore, that although it is not the case today, that there may some day come a time, I should hope, when it will be fully appreciated that the power of government should be limited; that the government ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that this is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do; that they are not to decide the various descriptions of history or of economic theory or philosophy. Only in this way can the real possibilities of the future human race be ultimately developed.
Joshua Scheer: Dennis Kucinich's Showdown With the Democratic Leadership
In an interview with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer*, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) criticizes the leadership of his own party for announcing Tuesday that it would support a massive increase in spending for the Iraq war.
Originally posted at Truthdig.com
Truthdig: What was the upshot of [Tuesday's] Democratic caucus meeting?
Kucinich: At this point the Democratic leadership--the speaker and the majority leader and Rahm Emanuel--are all recommending that the Democrats support the appropriation that is going to be brought forward in the spring, for the purposes of [continuing to fund] the war in Iraq.
Truthdig: Why do you think that is?
Kucinich: The leadership feels that they can bring about greater transparency [in spending], that they can bring special committees to look at what's gone wrong with the war, and that there's going to be improved oversight.
Truthdig: Were there dissenting opinions ... ? Do you think this will pass?
Kucinich: I think this is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction in Iraq. It goes without saying that they expect greater transparency and oversight, but they also expect us to do something to bring the troops home. Now, if Congress goes ahead under Democratic leadership and votes to approve what some are now estimating as an additional $160 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total for the fiscal year to $230 billion, the Democratic Congress will have bought George Bush's war. Now, who would buy a used war from this administration?
Truthdig: Weren't the Democrats elected because of the war in Iraq?
Kucinich: The Democrats came to power because of a strong desire on the part of the voters to get out of Iraq. That's why people voted Democratic. So now, with the Democratic leadership taking a position saying they're going to approve the supplemental budget in the spring, this could be seen by many as a breach of faith.
Truthdig: What can people do?
Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.
They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.
Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.
Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.
Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.
Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?
Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion. If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?
The Iraq Study Group recognized the perilous nature of this war, and there is no indication that the administration is going to bring the troops home. Every statement that the president has made has been very clear with respect to his intent to continue the U.S. presence. He has basically said, "No timetables," and he hasn't set any call for troop reductions. Now, we have men and women who are dying there, and for what? That's why it's more than disappointing that the Democratic Party is not standing up.
Truthdig: So, again, what can people do?
Kucinich: I think it's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word, because not a lot of people know about this. It's going to be important for people to organize. It's going to take a mass movement to change this situation. It's going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.
Truthdig: Thank you.
*Truthdig interviewer Joshua Scheer worked as an entry-level staffer on Kucinich's state Senate campaign and was later a summer associate in his congressional office. In this weekly interview series, Rep. Kucinich gives his take on the goings-on in Congress in the wake of the Democrats' victory.
Ah! I love the season! Every year on December 25th the church is lit with candles, priests in white garments celebrate the birth of the Son of God! The Savior was born on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was truly the "reason for the season".
Praise Mithras.
Unfortunately, the early Christians, acting in an eerily predictive manner, established the dominance of their religion by slaughtering Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, and burning His sacred texts.
