"Softly"

This is a song that I recently wrote about the war. It's kind of a demo copy, so the quality is not great. When I make a better copy, I'll post it here. Until then, enjoy (or if you disagree with my point of view, at least enjoy the music!).

It's called "Softly" by Jeff Winget



Cheers,
Jeff

The Evangelical Quandary: Hillary or a Mormon in '08?

In his column yesterday for the Chicago Sun-Times, conservative columnist Robert Novak pointed to a startling revelation about conservative Evangelical Christians: they prefer Hillary Clinton as president in '08 over Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "Why?" you ask. Is Romney too liberal? No, he probably has better conservative credentials than Bush. Have the "evil" Bostonians converted him over to the gay-marriage camp? No. Is it that he's not religious? No, Romney is profoundly religious. The problem, however, is his religion. Romney is a Mormon, like yours truly.

Now, as far as my feelings toward Romney, he's a little too conservative for my taste, but he could talk me into voting for him; however, the reason I'm writing this post is that I think it is wrong to not vote, or to vote for that matter, for a candidate based solely on their religion. Especially if you're both Christians, which Evangelicals and Mormons are.

Here is a quote from the Novak piece:

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, but that is precisely what is being posed now. Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's just too bad. The evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.

Wait a minute. Evangelicals would rather have Hillary than Romney? Don't they think that the Clintons are led by the Devil? Let me list some qualities of Romney from a religious perspective that might be appealing to Christians.

1- Romney is a Christian. The first "Article of Faith" of Mormonism states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

The third article states: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel."

Sound like Christianity? I thought so too.

A verse from the Book of Mormon says, "we talk of Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins (2 Nephi 25:26).

Aren't Evangelicals into the same thing--Talking of Christ, preaching of Christ, etc.? You would think they would jump at the chance to elect this guy. Wait, I was wrong.

2- Romney is conservative. He is pro-life, as are most Mormons. He is against gay marriage, as are most Mormons. He is very pro-family, as are most Mormons. And, he is definitely for religious tolerance and acceptance in the country, as are most Mormons. What's the problem?

3- Romney is electable. Novak says, "To a growing number of Republican activists, he looks like the party's best bet." He has enough moderacy in him to appeal to centrists (like signing a universal health care bill in Massachusetts), but he is still a red-blooded conservative, who believes in fiscal discipline and small government. That stance would appeal to many voters who may be leaning left after 8 years of the Bush administration. Plus, he has financial backing from many wealthy Mormons--another plus.

I can't believe the hypocrisy of this group of religious zealots. They, who are suing for the right of hate-speech in the name of religious freedom, will not allow a qualified candidate who would support many of their issues to be president because of his religion. Wow!

Cheers,
Jeff

You Gotta Read This...

Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor wrote a scathing op-ed in the International Herald Tribune. It discusses Iran and the growing nuclear crisis there. It is well written and insightful.

READ IT

Enjoy,
Jeff

Straight Talk from the White House?

Tony Snow will take over for Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary, in my opinion, the toughest job in America.

Think Progress has a list of statements made by Snow about his new boss. I don't think they'll go over too well now. However, if Snow continues to speak the truth, we might get more candor out of the Administration than we have in the past.

Here are the statements care of Think Progress:

Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]

“George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]

“President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]

“George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]

Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]

“No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor now!” [9/30/05]

“When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

“The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

“Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00]

“Little in the character of demeanor of Al Gore or George Bush makes us say to ourselves: Now, this man is truly special! Little in our present peace and prosperity impels us to say: Give us a great man!” [8/25/00]

“George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]

“He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.” [8/25/00]

“On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat. He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [8/25/00]

I guess we'll see which Tony Snow we get.

Cheers,
Jeff

Vaya con dios, Greg Ostertag

Photo care of Rick Egan of the Salt Lake TribuneUtah Jazz center and 11-year NBA veteran (10 with the Jazz) Greg Ostertag announced last week that he would be retiring from basketball. While he is still young in basketball terms (31), Ostertag says he wants to spend more time with his family.

Ostertag was the Jekyll and Hyde of the Jazz. He was the type of player that could dominate the middle one night and play dreadfully for the next two or three. His fiery temper and feuds with coach Jerry Sloan led him to several ejections and suspensions, but they also helped fire up teammates and help the Jazz win. I, for one, will be sad to see him go.

My favorite Ostertag game was game 6 of the Western Conference Finals in 1996 when Ostertag and John Stockton took over the game in the fourth quarter for an exciting comeback to send the Jazz to their first Finals. Of course, the unforgettable moment of that game was Stockton's game-winning three over Charles Barkley, but Ostertag's 4th quarter performance was key in setting up the most famous shot in Jazz history.

Greg, we'll miss you although I won't miss some of your off nights. Vaya con dios, Tag.

Cheers,
Jeff

Democrats do have a plan...

This is my response to Garry about the Democrats and their plans for America.

MoonDawg's Den: An Epistolary Response to Garry

Cheers,
Jeff

New Neil Young Album

Picture care of Down With Tyranny


Neil Young's at it again. This time with a protest album with some provocative song titles such as "Let's Impeach the President." That should draw some attention.

I love Neil Young and I'm excited to hear the new album. There is an excellent review at the blog Down With Tyranny.

Cheers,
Jeff

Update: Young has just started a blog to promote his album, and--it appears--to talk about some of the issues. The web address is livingwithwar.blogspot.com. I haven't read much there, but it looks interesting.

Administration Shake-Up

As was widely reported today, Scott McClellan resigned today, and Karl Rove was moved back to a purely political role in the White House--instead of being a policy advisor as well.

My take on this is that the Rove story is bigger than the McClellan resignation. Most people liked McClellan and pitied him for the difficult job that he had. In my opinion, he had the hardest job in America--being the mouthpiece for a corrupt presidential administration. I don't envy him at all. As for things that he did, Al Franken did a montage of Scotty quotes that are rather good. Hear the audio here. Eric Hananoki also brings up a good point about McClellan going and Rumsfeld staying on Franken's website:

So Rummy stays, but Scotty goes. What does that tell us? The Bush administration doesn't see anything wrong with the way they're conducting the war in Iraq -- the only problem is the way they're communicating all their good work. Oy.

More interesting than McClellan's departure, which had been rumored for quite some time, is the changing role of Karl Rove. Rove, a Utah native (unfortunately), has been doing double duty in the administration since the 2004 victory, serving both as a policy advisor and chief political advisor. As of today, he has now been demoted. He will only be doing politics, which is what he does best.

I believe the motivation of this move for the administration is that they cannot afford to lose either the House or the Senate in the midterm elections. If they do, and Democrats are given subpoena power, the administration and its platform will effectively have to shut down. The investigations will push well into '08 and, in essence, ruin the last 1,000 days of Bush's presidency. Wouldn't that be a bummer?

The Rove move seems to come out of a sense of urgency to win in November. The problem is that he is now fighting a losing battle. Iraq is going poorly and is unpopular, the middle class is suffering from high gas prices and stagnant wages, and nothing--and I do mean nothing--of substance is happening in Washington. And, nothing will until there is change. Change in November, what a concept? As for Bush and Rove, I believe that it's too little, too late. They might consider a radical change--removing Cheney, for instance--in order to really shake things up, but none of the major players in Iraq are leaving, so the administration can't win.

Cheers,
Jeff

Am I the only one who sees the irony?

The Pulitzer Prize was awarded yesterday to Dana Priest of the Washington Post for his work exposing the CIA secret prisons in Europe and to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for their work on the NSA domestic spying scandal.

I think that these reporters have done good work that has exposed controversial programs that have been authorized by the Bush administration in the War on Terror. They have called into question the methods that we are using in that fight. I believe that they have performed the role that they should as reporters. They got a tip, followed up, and they are standing by their stories. They have received backlash, but they have also led congress to start asking questions about the administration and its tactics.

For this bravery in the face of power, they were awarded the Pulitzer, a great honor. However, they are now being vilified by right-wing talking heads who do not like the content of their stories. Bill Bennett said this about the trio on his radio program:

The reporters "took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others, that they not release it. They not only released it, they publicized it -- they put it on the front page, and it damaged us, it hurt us.

"How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program, so people are going to stop making calls. Since they are now aware of this, they're going to adjust their behavior . . . .on the secret sites, the CIA sites, we embarrassed our allies....So it hurt us there.

"As a result are they punished, are they in shame, are they embarrassed, are they arrested? No, they win Pulitzer prizes - they win Pulitzer prizes. I don't think what they did was worthy of an award - I think what they did is worthy of jail, and I think this investigation needs to go forward."

"Worthy of jail"? Puh-leeeze!! Once we begin prosecuting reporters for doing their job, we lose a free and independent press, and the country slips farther and farther from democracy. As for his reasoning that the reporting "hurt us," I find it extremely lacking. Al Qaida knows that we are monitoring our calls whether we put it in the papers or not. Garry and I debated this issue already on this blog, and I still fail to understand how the exposure of the program endangered national security; in fact, I believe that it aided the preservation of our civil liberties by exposing a breach that needed to be examined and remedied by congress. While I might disagree with the solution, at least congress is doing something. Knowledge leads to action.

As for the exposure of our CIA prisons in Europe "embarrass[ing] our allies," it should have embarrassed us, not that it was exposed, but that it was happening in the first place.

The type of criticism Bennett is leveling against the reporters is also coming from blogs. Powerline is also jumping on the bandwagon with a post titled "The Pulitzer Prize for Treason."

The irony in all this is that Bennett and Powerline would be giving a standing ovation if Bob Novak won the award for his article outing Valerie Plame. Even though Novak was asked not to release her name and the release potentially could have damaged national security, Bennett and the bloggers would have been silent.

I agree that there is a difference in the leaks. The difference is motivation: one was motivated by real concerns over the validity of a program and the other was motivated by political greed. No matter how the right tries to spin it, that was the motivation. If we're going to go after leakers and reporters with the vigor that Bennett advocates, let's go help Mr. Fitzgerald get to the bottom of the leak case that matters and let the Senate investigate the validity of the programs outed by the Pulitzer winners.

Cheers,
Jeff

Update: Glenn Greenwald has a good analysis of this at his blog, including the audio of Bennett.

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: A "Pulitzer Prize for Treason"

Nuke Iran?? I pray this isn't true!!

Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that not only is military action a very real possibility in Iran, but also that the administration refuses to take the option of a tactical nuclear strike off the table. I hope that they understand they really understand the problems that this will cause. Attacking Iran will be disastrous anyway, but nuking them could start Armageddon.

Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, called the thought of a nuclear strike on Iran "completely nuts." I completely agree.

I pray for sanity in our government, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jeff

PS- Bush called Hersh's article "wild speculation." I hope that he's being candid.

How long will it be until the Congress starts asking questions?

Yesterday, court documents were released of Scooter Libby's testimony in the CIA Leak Case. The documents say that Libby testified that the President and the Vice President authorized him to release classified information to the press in order to make the case for war. The White House has not denied the allegation.

Alberto Gonzalez, in his normal form, said that the President has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." I'm not sure about that, but it seems that every time a scandal comes up that is unexplainable, Mr. Gonzalez gets to the press and says that the President has the power to do whatever he wants. It sounds like Nixon saying, "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Do we really believe it?

How long will it be until the congress starts asking questions, using its subpoena power, and getting to the truth of this issue? When will they take carte blanche away from this President? When will they demand that he tell the American public the truth about this issue?

Although Bush and his White House have been riddled with controversy, I believe that this is the one we should focus on. It is despicable that a President can authorize the release of classified information in order to exact revenge on a political opponent. And, it is more disgraceful that our leaders in congress are not asking questions and being the check and balance on the President that they should be.

I'm frustrated,
Jeff

DHS Spokesman Busted in Child Internet-Sex Sting

CNN is reporting that Department of Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle was arrested for having a sexually explicit chat room conversation with a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl. The conversation included his name and position with DHS. He also sent the detective pictures of himself and promised to send explicit photos when the girl sent explicit pictures to him.

This incident underscores the necessity for parents to know what their kids are doing on the internet. Children should not have unfettered access to the web, and parents should be constantly monitoring all internet use in their house.

This story disturbs me on a number of levels. I'm glad that the police were able to nab this terrible man and to put him in his place.

Cheers,
Jeff