Not content with just a clash of civilizations, George W. Bush also wants a clash of generations. He asserted that his vetoing of SCHIP funding last week was in response to his administration's policy of "putting poor children first." You don't put poor children first by taking away the funding needed to pay for their health care.

One would have expected that the Congressional leadership would have jumped all over the absurdity of that claim. But... no... they walked straight into Bush's bait and allowed the Bush Administration and the neo-con talking bobble-heads to redefine the debate. I winced as I listened to Senator Chuck Schumer debunk the statistical claims conservatives were asserting that money meant to provide healthcare for poor children was being used, instead, for poor adults. He was very successful in debunking the claims. But the debate is now about poor children vs. poor adults and children of upper-middle-class families. Governor John Corzine of New Jersey walked into the same trap.

What is wrong with these people? And what is wrong with George W. Bush. Poor children are not hurting at the expense of poor adults. Nor will they be hurting at the expense of children of families with greater incomes. They are suffering at the expense of the Administration not being willing to do the right thing and properly fun SCHIP.

Nor is there a legitimate distinction between funding health care for children and funding it for adults. Both need health care and both are finding themselves unable to afford it. The very act of trying to get SCHIP properly funded was, contrary to the Administration's messaging, putting children first. But, by falling into this trap, our Congressional leaders allowed this President to set up in advance impediments to their own messaging if-and-when one of the Presidents proposing health care solutions get into office.

Pretty much everyone knows, by now, that Blackwater, the private mercenary firm hired by the State Department for duty in Iraq is under investigation for their activities.

I am trying to figure out how Blackwater and other mercenary companies have enjoyed so much immunity from accountability from their actions in Iraq? I am no Constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me these mercenary companies were in Iraq illegally from day one. By hiring these mercenaries, it seems the State Department and the Administration has raised a private army. The Constitutions give to Congress the authority

to raise and support Armies
-- U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

It seems to me the Administration has acted beyond its authority by raising a private army and that those operating in that army are committing crimes by just being in Iraq. No more investigation should be necessary.

George W. Bush has been very busy while I was away.

Rumors are increasing of an impending war with Iran. David Ignatius at Washington Post tries to put us at ease about those rumors with assertions from the State Department that the U.S. wants a diplomatic solution. But Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic asserts:

Sounds like some wishful thinking from State to me. The problem with these reassurances is the trust factor - or lack of it. After Iraq, this administration cannot say that it wants a diplomatic solution, while rhetorically prepping for war, and be believed.

I have to agree with Sullivan. The rhetorical pattern from both the Administration and the neo-con messaging machine is just too familiar to ignore. When this President asserts a diplomatic solution, even while preparing for a military solution, we know we are going to go to war.

Moreover, as Seumas Milne at The Guardian reminds us, this is part of a greater new strategy of the Administration. Personally, I think it was the strategy all along. The Administration had to spoon-feed us to get us to swallow the strategy.

The guy everyone loves to hate, Deal Hudson, is back in the news again; or at least in the blogosphere. Michael Miller, that would be our Michael Miller, got an action alert from Catholics United asking him to participate in a campaign to tell Deal Hudson to respect the Pope's teaching on caring for our environment. This "action alert" was in response to an offending blog post Deal Hudson wrote lamenting the Vatican's efforts to plant trees equal to the Vatican's annual carbon emmissions.

I do not really know, yet, what Micahel thinks about this; but I took a look at Hudson's blog. My thought is, "Give me a break!" I do not agree with Hudson's position in that blog post; but the post was innocent enough. Hudson was not challenging Church teaching on anything, he was merely rolling his eyes at the Vatican planting trees.

I could see where some might be offended at Hudson's having compared the tree planting with the medieval practice of selling indulgences. But that's not what the action alert is addressing. And, I think the comparison was merely for rhetorical effect.

As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of issues out there that merit action. Acting on this would be a waste of my time.

Of course, Deal Hudson is a conniver and I don't think we've heard the last of him. I'm sure there will be a more substantial reason to take action against him sometime in the near future.

One of the advantages of living in the same City where the U.N. is located is that I get to make phone calls without incurring long distance phone charges. So I did.

I spoke with Fr. Guerrera at the office of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations to get clarification about whether the Holy See can be signatory to U.N. treaties. Fr. Guerrera tells me that, in fact, the Holy See does not enjoy that right.. The rights the Holy See does have are enumerated on their website.

The Holy See now enjoys, among other things, the right to participate in the general debate of the General Assembly; the right of reply; the right to have its communications issued and circulated directly as official documents of the Assembly; and the right to co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions that make reference to the Holy See.

I asked Fr. Guerrera about the Mission's position on the matter addressed here, by borgheses. Fr. Guerrera directed me to the Interventions listed on their website. I have not read through all the Interventions. However, I browsed through them long enough to observe that the Mission has had plenty to say about trafficking in women and children. I invite you to take a look at the Mission's Interventions yourself.

* * * * * * * * * *

This gives me a new opportunity, though, to clarify the nature of the community at CfD. CfD is a web community of Catholics who are actively engaged in dialogue and debate aimed at promoting both social justice and the democratic order of our American society. Non-Catholics and others interested in engaging in dialogue are, of course, welcome to participate here as well.

John Edwards gave a speech, today, at Pace University outlining his strategy against terrorism. The strategy he outlines promises a renewal of our relationships with other nations that George W. ruined.

Here are a few excerpts of that speech that I found notable...

George Bush's approach to terrorism has not only failed to make the world safer. It has demolished the foundation of America's foreign policy: our relationships with other countries.

Tragically for America and the world, George Bush's "war on terror" approach walked directly into the trap the terrorists set for us. Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied.

We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism. That matches 21st century threats with 21st century tactics. That replaces Cold War thinking designed to defeat a single, implacable enemy with new world thinking that can defeat a multi-national, diverse, and often hidden foe—not just now, but for the long-term. That's strong, fast, and hard enough to stop terrorists cold, but also smart, honest, and prescient enough to draw people away from terrorism in the first place.

Most of all, instead of a reckless, solo pursuit of an ideological agenda that abandons our moral authority and disregards our allies, we need to reengage with the world and reassert our moral leadership.

For the sake of our nation's security, for the sake of building a safer America, we must take a new direction.

Fred Thompson is now campaigning for President as the conservative, social-values, pro-life savior of the Republican Party. I s'pose they need one.

But Fred Thompson seems to be as confused as the Republican Party right now. Despite Thompson's assertion he is pro-life, LA Times reported on July 7 and New York Times reported on July 19 that Fred Thompson lobbied The George H.W. Bush Administration for National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. The goal of the lobbying effort was to persuade the senior Bush to lift a "gag rule" on abortion counseling at clinics receiving Federal money.

Fred Thompson, of course, denies having lobbied for NFPRHA. But colleagues assert he did and NFPRHA has record of paying him. So... what's up?

It's possible, I s'pose, that Thompson could have had a Romneyan conversion experience. If that's the case, why not just say so? You know... be up front with the American people. That's been in short supply in recent years.

It appears to me one of two things is happening in the case of Fred Thompson:

1. Fred Thompson is lying to the American people about being pro-life, or
2. Fred Thompson is, in fact, pro-life; but he has no integrity, given that he would take money to lobby on behalf of an issue he publicly professes to adamantly oppose.

Of course, there is always option

A great new video produced by Robert Greenwald challenges the popular image of Rudy Giuliani in the national media and asks, "What did Rudy do right on 9/11?".

While we're on topic...

Nation magazine published an interview on the Mystery of Mother Teresa.

The thoughts produced in this interview make for the best reflection I have read, so far, on the meaning of the letters of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta recently published in a book Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.

Here is a great excerpt from the interview:

We are influenced by two things. We think our friends and villains are clearly identified. We live in a world where you are saved or unsaved. This is true on the political spectrum from right to left, believers and non-believers.

The other thing is that America is a deeply Protestant country founded by Puritans who believed that financial success was a sign of God's favor.

Manifest destiny.

That's right. Americans have always breathed in this value: The best thing to be is middle-class. There is something shameful about being poor.

And self-inflicted.

And self-inflicted. We discuss poor white people as "trash."

Forbes reported on a FEC complaint filed by blogger, Lane Hudson, against presidential candidate-maybe -- and, some are hoping, GOP Savior -- Fred Thompson.

Most candidates try to wait until they're officially running before running afoul of FEC regulations. Apparently, Fred's in a bit of a hurry.

According to the complaint, Fred Thompson raised $3.5 million dollars for his Presidential Exploratory Committee, but only spent $625,000. FEC regulations only allow an Exploratory Committee to raise funds necessary to "explore" the viability of a run. The regulations prohibit an Exploratory Committee from "hoarding the money for use during his actual campaign."

Now I know Fred only plays a prosecutor on T.V. He's not really a prosecutor. But he is a one-time Senator who's exploring a Presidential run. I have to believe he knows better. So if Fred, even before he officially declares a candidacy, is so blatantly attempting to skirt the law, what does that communicate about the integrity of his ethics?

Given more recent voting trends, though, I'm not sure voters much care about ethics. Let's hope that perception is not true. We really need people of integrity in our government in order to undo the incredible damage done to our government's reputation at home and abroad these past six years.

I got a "news" announcement in my email this morning claiming that Rude Giuliani is two percentage points ahead of Hillary in the polls. So I had a look. It seems Rude Giuliani is ahead of Hillary in a couple of the polls; as Hillary is ahead of him in other polls. Either way, they're essentially neck-and-neck.

Now I would take time to point out that not all the polls are from completely objective reporting agencies; e.g. Fox News. Fox News, however, reported Hillary as beating out Rude Giuliani. It might have helped, of course, that Rupert Murdoch donated to Hillary's campaign.

The point, here, is that this is a tight race, so far; and I don't see anyone pulling far ahead of the other any time soon. More work needs to be done on the part of those who know the evils of Rude Giuliani to make sure America knows what kind of ruler he is. President Rude will be the terrorist strike to Bush & Co's terrorist training camp.

Campaign ads have been airing already. You've probably seen a few of them. I thought I would post the two I like the best, so far. Actually, I don't think the John Edwards piece really counts as an ad. But I like it anyway.

John Edwards -- Who We're Fighting For

Hillary Clinton -- Invisibles

Obviously, the rating of these ads is subjective. So don't anyone email me a nasty-gram to the tune of, "That's your opinion." Post your own ad rating if you disagree.

This is a hilarious video; if for no other reason than it's based on true policy initiatives of the former mayor! Even more funny is the rumor that they will try to air this video on television in South Carolina and at least one other bible-belt state in the run-up to the Republican primary.

New York Post, on Saturday, printed a story from Times of London, about a second encyclical Pope Benedict XVI is currently working on. Key issues the article says will be included in the upcoming encyclical point to an effort, on the part of His Holiness, to make his own serious contribution to the body of Catholic social doctrine.

According to the article:

Pope Benedict XVI is working on a doctrinal pronouncement that would condemn tax evasion as “socially unjust,” Vatican sources said yesterday.

In his second encyclical, the pontiff plans to denounce the use of “tax havens” and offshore bank accounts by the wealthy, a tactic that reduces tax revenues’ benefit for society as a whole.

He intends to argue for a world trade and economic system “regulated in such a way as to avoid further injustice and discrimination,” said Vatican watcher Ignazio Ingrao.

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, a devout Catholic, began a crackdown on tax evaders this week and urged church leaders to address the issue.

Of course, we know Pope Benedict to be much more complex than to think he is focusing an entire encyclical on the practical matter of "tax havens." Moreover, this is a doctrinal writing; so I expect it will cover much more profound philosophical and doctrinal arguments about society and individuals' obligations within society. Given that we know in advance it will be condemning "tax havens" because it "reduces tax revenues' benefit for society as a whole," the expected philosophical and doctrinal arguments should posit to bring balance back to the politico-economic order of our American society; at the very least, in the popular ideologies of Catholic Americans.

Donna Hanover -- the legitimate wife of Rudy Giuliani -- and Hillary Rodham Clinton have a lot in common. Both are highly intelligent women who could garner respect in their own right, apart from their respective husbands. Both bore the title "First Lady," albeit at different levels of government. And both were publicly humiliated by the disgraceful acts of their wayward husbands.

That is where the similarities end, though. When Mayor Rudy Giuliani stood in front of City Hall and publicly announced that he was having an affair and that he was filing for divorce from his wife so that he could pursue that affair with the nod of civil law, Rudy selfishly took away from Donna any say in whether or not they would sustain their relationship. And Rudy did not even have the common decency to discuss the matter with his wife before publicly broadcasting his affair.

According to Slate, Rudy Giuliani can forget about support from his daughter Caroline. She's backing Obama! 8)

I guess that's one more Republican politician who won't be having his daughter up on the stage with him at the Republican National Convention.

She lists herself as a liberal. I guess fruits can fall quite far from the tree! I don't blame Caroline, though. If I had grown up in Rudy's household, I would probably have jumped from GOP to Communista Internationale. }:)

It's early, I know. And I could be wrong… or I could be right. But I now have a prediction about the match-up for the '08 Presidential general election race. It's not the lineup I wanted to see. But the stars are all coming into alignment, and it's becoming very difficult to envision a different match-up. This general election race will be a battle between the two contending titans from New York: Rudy vs. Hillary. And it's going to be an ugly battle!

Don't get me wrong. I was let down when Rudy Giuliani's colon cancer forced him to drop out of the Senate race in 2000. I was looking forward to Hillary creaming Rudy in that race (sorry... that was my payback wish for Rudy's cold-hearted, self-serving approach to ruling New York City and the arrogance with which he did it). But this is not a race to determine who will be the Senator from New York. This is a race to determine who will be the next President of the United States. The political dynamics are far different now and the consequences of the race's outcome so much more staggering. Rudy did not have the "9/11 card" in his hand in the 2000 Senate Race and could not have effectively played it if he did. New Yorkers already knew his track record in New York City; and Hillary would have easily spanked him over it. But the only thing the rest of America really knows about Rudy is his "9/11 mystique." Rudy is combining that mystique with some really convincing deception about his track record in New York City and the philosophical meaning of his claimed successes.

This is an appeal for you to call or write the Senators from your State immediately and tell them to join Senators Jack Reed, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and seventeen other senators in co-sponsoring S.1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007.

This bill, a long time coming and a significant improvement over the weaknesses in the prior McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, aims at moving away from managing the homeless and towards providing the necessary support to aggressively reduce homelessness.

Under the McKinney-Vento Act, considerable sums of tax payers dollars went to maintaining shelters to warehouse homeless people. In New York City, alone, a vast, multi-million dollar non-profit(?) homeless services industry has grown around doing just that, while the cost of housing in New York City was consistently ignored and allowed to sky-rocket.

This Bill proposes to help fund solutions to housing for the homeless and to hold local governments and homeless service providers accountable to route homeless to housing, rather than warehouse them in self-sustaining shelters.

Catholic League reported on Monday about a vociferous group of blow hards in San Diego calling themselves the San Diego Minutemen. True to the broader Minutemen movement, these folks engage in spiteful and xenophobic protest against undocumented immigrants to the United States. In this case, the group is opposing the work of mercy provided to day laborers, who need support to enjoy a sense of personal dignity, by St. Peter's Catholic Church in Fallbrook, CA. In conducting their protests, the group has turned its hatred towards immigrants to the parish community and its pastor; even to the point of disrupting First Holy Communion.

Apparently, the San Diego Minuteman heard Catholic League's complaint. Catholic League reported yesterday that the San Diego Minuteman accused the League of creating "hatred amongst Catholics nationwide against Americans standing up for what's right and legal."

The members of the SDM must be smoking something strong to accuse the League of fomenting hatred... after their obscene behavior!

I don't share William Donohue's surprise, though, at their behavior. Someone predisposed to hatred -- as those in this group demonstrate towards the day laborers -- is going to act out that hatred in as many ways as possible. I can say, though, that hatred cannot win out in the war of ideas. Justice and mercy must win out; and saner minds must prevail.

Vatican Information Service, July 11, 2007

Made public yesterday afternoon was a speech delivered by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples, during the Global Forum on Migration and Development, held in Brussels, Belgium from July 9 to 11.

Speaking English, the archbishop recalled how "migrants contribute to their host country's well-being, and also because of this their human dignity must be respected and their freedoms guaranteed: the right to a dignified life, to fair treatment at work, to have access to education, health and other social benefits, to grow in competence and develop humanly, to freely manifest their culture and practice their religion.

"But rights and duties go together," he added. "Therefore, at the same time, migrants have the duty to respect the identity and the laws of the country of residence, strive for proper integration (not assimilation) into the host society and learn its language. They are to foster esteem and respect for their host country, even to the point of loving and defending it.

"Unfortunately, among them there are immigrants in an irregular situation, who, however, independently of their legal status, have inalienable human dignity. Therefore their rights must be safeguarded and not ignored or violated. An irregular migration status, in fact, does not mean criminality. The solution is better international cooperation that discourages irregularity, with increased legal channels for migration."

Archbishop Marchetto concluded his talk by renewing the call made by the Pope in his Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees for "governments who have not yet done so, to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and the Members of their Families."

According to Reuters, Cindy Sheehan is challenging Nancy Pelosi to support Articles of Impeachment against the President or she will be running against Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional Seat in 2008. Here's a tidbit...

The 49-year-old, whose soldier son Casey died in combat in Iraq in 2004, told Reuters she would run for Pelosi's house seat in 2008 if the California Democrat fails to endorse impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by July 23.

That is the date when Sheehan and a group of supporters are due to arrive in Washington as part of a cross-country caravan and walking trip for humanity, set to begin from Bush's hometown of Crawford, Texas, on Tuesday.

"If Nancy Pelosi doesn't support articles of impeachment ... by the time we get there, then I will announce my candidacy against her," she said in a telephone interview from Crawford.

Sheehan said Bush and Cheney should be impeached for lying to the American people about Iraq and anti-terrorism policies that she believes violate U.S. law and international treaties banning torture.

It will be interesting which side of that fight the conservatives will attach to... since conservatives love to hate both equally.

While we're discussing Rudy...

Actually, I've been on the look out for this since Rudy threw his hat in the ring. After the incredible amount of energy spent attacking John Kerry during the last Presidential campaign, I had to wonder whether there would be any consistency among those Catholics in dealing with Republican Catholic candidates -- like Rudy -- with objectionable positions on life. Steve Dillard, and his coalition of blogs, has answered that question with Catholics Against Rudy, a new site being launched to challenge Rudy on his life position.

Personally, I thought we already had Catholics against Rudy. I know we have a unanimous opposition to Rudy among Catholics for Democracy's steering committee; and very many Catholics I speak to, frequently, oppose Rudy. But it doesn't hurt to have a website, consisting of a coalition of blogs, to get the word out that Rudy should not be the Republican candidate. Besides, I get the idea that Steve and most of the people among his coalition of blogs are actually Republican. That would be a little more helpful when speaking to the Republican debate. After all, I'm a Democrat (I think people know that already). I don't think too many Republicans read my blog; though they might read Michael's blog here, he's married to a soccer mom.

If Steve Dillard gets nothing else, he gets kudos for consistency.

It's apparently Washington Post's turn to pick on Rudy Giuliani. In today's paper, they highlighted the impact a potential Michael Bloomberg run for President would have on Giuliani's bid. In the article, Alec MacGillis contrasted the differences in leadership style between the two. More importantly, he points out that a Bloomberg run would shed light on the assumptions Giuliani would have the American electorate make about the quality of his leadership in NYC.

It's a good read; though I believe the article understates many the falsehoods behind Giuliani's claims to leadership. For example, the article demonstrates a continued drop in crime in NYC during the terms of the Bloomberg Administration, without the need for aggressive policing tactics that undermine the civil rights of people on the street. Alec should have gone further. After all, most of the crime-reducing busts in NYC throughout the 90s were carried out by ATF and the FBI respectively. The last I checked, those two agencies were Federal agencies, under the control, at the time, of President Bill Clinton, not Mayor Rudy Giuliani. So Rudy's storm troopers, while certainly contributing to those efforts, unnecessarily violated civil rights and antagonized communities without producing substantial results on their own. So of course Bloomberg was able to demonstrate that you could bring down crime without using Giuliani's tactics.

Sometimes, the Village Voice hits a home run. The cover story in this week's edition analyzes Rudy Giuliani's professed Catholic credentials. Rudy's credentials collapse on several fronts in this article; and his effort at embracing the label, "Catholic," is shown to be the politically cynical maneuver it is.

On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...

One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.

There are a lot more juicy bits about Rudy in this article. You should take time to read it. Warning, though, it's a relatively long article; so you might want to brew a pot of tea and be ready for a sit down.

Don’t you hate it when you go to a retreat or a seminar expecting a particular experience or objective; then when you get there you find that what the retreat or seminar is offering is far different than your expectations? Those occasions can be particularly frustrating when you feel as if you have a particular need to get something out of them; and what you’re getting is not what you felt you needed.

Father John D. Dreher from Rhode Island apparently had just such an experience during a retreat where he was introduced to centering prayer. His description of centering prayer as he experienced it at his retreat does not sound at all like centering prayer. He recounts that, at the retreat, the retreat director “conducted us into centering prayer.” Anyone who has ever studied centering prayer (I say studied, rather than practiced, intentionally; you can be introduced to the concept and practice of centering prayer without ever having engaged in it yourself.) knows that it is not something one is “conducted into.” There are exercises in centering prayer retreats to quiet down and focus, but that is hardly the totality of centering prayer; and it is hardly anything that could be described as hypnosis, as Fr. Dreher claims. That aside, Fr. Dreher describes his experience at the retreat as one of discomfort. Fair enough. Differing personalities approach prayer and communication with God through different means. That is why we have so many alternative approaches to prayer in our Church.

I had the opportunity to be re-directed to Petersnet.net -- now called, CatholicCulture.org -- again today. I haven't wasted my time with that site in quite awhile. For anyone who doesn't know about them, Petersnet.net is a website that presumes to rate Catholic websites on a number of issues, but mostly on the websites' fidelity to the magisterium.

CatholicCulture.org caught my attention today, more so than in the past, because they gave negative ratings to some very positive Catholic organizations and websites; essentially slandering them on their fidelity to the magisterium for no other reason than the organizations or sites have takes on issues that differ from those of CatholicCulture.org. Surprisingly, even Catholic.org got a negative rating from them; and I would have thought they would be on the same page. So I took a mosey around CatholicCulture.org to see if I could find a bishop, say, or a diocesan censor who could be weighing in on other people's fidelity to Church teaching

As listed on their site, they have nine staff members; none of whom are even clergy, much less a bishop or diocesan censor. Admittedly, they have a lot of programmers and web developers among the staff. I guess that qualifies them to analyze a web site's technology; and, by extension, a web site's fidelity to Church teaching. And of course their President and Founder, Jeffrey Mirus is especially qualified to evaluate other people's fidelity to Church teaching. He has a PhD, after all, from Princeton University in, of all things, Intellectual History! You couldn't ask for better credentials than that.

This is already a month old, but worthy of presenting anyway. Franciscans International published a speech given by Fr. Jerry Zawada, OFM to the presiding judge after having been arrested in John McCain's office for unlawful assembly. Apparently, like His Majesty King George III, Senator John McCain doesn't have time for dissenters.

Here are some excerpts of that speech....

Some of us there in Senator McCain’s office and here in this courtroom have been to Iraq during the sanctions, during the invasion, bombing and occupation which continues till the present.

We’ve witnessed the terrible cruelty, injustice and deceit perpetrated by our government and troops upon people who had no say in the invasion of their country.

We witnessed children dying in cancer wards, screaming in pain because there was no proper medication available due to the sanctions. Sickness and death were endemic caused by depleted uranium, contaminated water and destruction of power plants from the 1991 war. And today there are some four million displaced Iraqi refugees, two million within Iraq and the other two mostly in Syria and Jordan.

In 2003, shortly before the invasion in March, the Iraq Peace Team (which I was a member), camped out for some days across from where the weapons inspectors were situated. They continuously assured us that they’ve not discovered any weapons of mass destruction throughout their searches.

By December 2003, we became aware that there were thousands of Iraqis confined to lengthy stays in prisons…most were never found to be guilty of any crime. During that time we were also informed of the practice of torture, such as at Abu Graib, perpetrated by our military.

An interesting Op-Ed piece was published today, arguing that Democrats, should they want to win the White House in 2008, need to listen to and show greater respect for pro-life women and women of faith. The most intriguing part about this op-ed was where it was published... the New York Times!.

Here are some juicy excerpts from the Op-Ed...

Even in the real world, a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone....

Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.

The standard response from Democratic leaders has been that anyone lost to them over this issue is not coming back — and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done. But that is not what I heard from these voters.

Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, announced, yesterday, that the United States will restore aide to Palestine through the government’s fund for democracy and development assistance. The presumption of a fund, like the one Condoleezza Rice referred to, is that our government is promoting democracy. Yet this decision reveals an intentional effort, not to promote democracy, but to promote a unilateral policy agenda.

I am convinced of a few things. First, I am convinced that democracy in the Middle East is a positive objective, if it comes from among the people who the democracy is supposed to represent. But a democracy by the sword is not at all a democracy. It is a sham image of democracy. We, as Americans, are absolutely committed to democracy domestically (in theory, at least). We cannot imagine any other form of government, even if we domestically allow another form of government in the name of democracy's rhetoric. Moreover, it is not clear to me that the Palestinian people even want a democracy. I am perplexed about how one can claim that a democratic government a citizenry does not want is, in fact, a democracy. If the people do not choose democracy, then a so-called democratic government is not functioning according to the will of the people. And a government not functioning according to the will of its citizenry can hardly be called a democracy.

Second, I am convinced that nothing about the so-called new government of President Abbas of the Palestinians justifies it being called a democracy meriting support from an American government fund to support democracies. Don't get me wrong. If I had to weigh in whether I support Abbas or Hamas, I am much more sympathetic to President Abbas, especially given his desire to support stability and peace. But that is hardly the point when evaluating our own government's policy initiatives.

On Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI visited the Basilica of St. Francis to commemorate the 800th Anniversary of the conversion of Francis. Before praying the Angelus at the Basilica, Benedict spoke about the conflicts taking place in the world today, especially the conflicts in the Middle East.

"I consider it my duty to launch from here an urgent and heartfelt appeal for all the armed conflicts bloodying the earth to cease, for arms to fall silent and everywhere for hatred to give way to love, offense to forgiveness and discord to union.

"Here we feel the spiritual presence of all those who weep, suffer and die because of war and its tragic consequences, in all parts of the world, Our thoughts go out particularly to the Holy Land, so beloved by St. Francis, to Iraq, to Lebanon, to the entire Middle East. The peoples of those countries know, and have long known, the horrors of combat, of terrorism, of blind violence, the illusion that force can resolve conflicts, the refusal to listen to the other's reasons and to do them justice. Only responsible and sincere dialogue, supported by the generous support of the international community, can put an end to so much pain and restore life and dignity to individuals, institutions and peoples.

Ok folks, just for fun. I mean it, just fun... !

I came across some cute web-based parlor-game quizzes. One is How Republican are you? The other is How Democrat are you? Here is how I scored on each.

You Are 8% Republican

If you have anything in common with the Republican party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch liberal, and nothing is going to change that!

You Are 76% Democrat

You have a good deal of donkey running through your blood, and you're proud to be liberal. You don't fit every Democrat stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Democrat party.

Take the quizzes yourself and see how you score. And remember, they're just parlor games. Enjoy yourself, but don't take the quizzes too seriously. And hey... come back in and share how you score!

When I was a kid, there was a movement to route Federal tax dollars to parochial schools. The essential idea went something like this: parents (say Catholic) make a specific choice to enroll their children in parochial school. Those parents paid tuition for their children to attend Catholic school (mine among them... I was a student of Catholic schools -- all the way through Catholic college). Yet those parents also had to pay taxes (usually property taxes) to fund public schools. Essentially, it was felt that parents of parochial school students were unfairly taxed to pay for public schools while also paying out-of-pocket for parochial school tuition. It was considered only fair, then, that parents paying school taxes should have the option to route some of those tax dollars to the parochial schools where their own children are attending. Rudolph Giuliani is revisiting that issue in his Presidential campaign.

Media Matters for America conducted a study of news coverage of major religious figures to assess whether opinions of politically conservative religious leaders were represented more prominently and more frequently than the opinions of politically progressive religious leaders. Of course, the results of their study were not unpredictable. After all, Media Matters is a politically progressive site looking to document media bias and/or dishonesty in favor of politically conservative ideologies. They went into the study expecting such a bias would result in over-representation of politically conservative religious leaders. I'll take that to be what it is.

The results of the study were overwhelming. While 90% of Americans identify as religious, only 22% identify as belonging to traditionalist faith communities. Yet conservative religious leaders are represented in television media 3.8 times as often as progressive religious leaders; and conservative religious leaders are represented in major newspapers 2.7 times as often as progressive religious leaders.

Sidebar: I think the numbers identifying representation of the respective religious leaders informative and important in-and-of themselves. Contrasting those numbers with the statistics representing who the general population identify as is not entirely helpful. Here is why: I belong to what I presume Media Matters would identify as a traditionalist faith community; yet I self-identify as politically progressive -- though I most certainly mean progressive in a different way than Media Matters does. This contrast implies both a bias and a conclusion on the part of Media Matters that goes beyond what the numbers themselves convey.

Cindy Sheehan -- whose tireless efforts to pursue meaning and justification for her son's death in Iraq made her the face of the peace movement -- stepped out of her active role in the anti-war movement on Memorial Day.

Cindy signed out of her campaign in a letter she posted in her blog at DailyKos.com. To prevent loss of this letter, I uploaded a .pdf version of it to our server. It can be found here.

This is a letter written by a woman who has been through hell and back. Cindy comes across broken and disillusioned; and she deserves our prayers and support.

I am not upset that Cindy is stepping down from her active role in the peace movement. People often burn out in justice work; even without having sacrificed so much. Cindy has given up everything to be a standard-bearer of peace and accountability. How many among the peace movement can really say that? Cindy has galvanized the timid and moved the hesitant. Now she deserves her rest.

The vitriol which Cindy had to put up with -- and which still gets slung her way -- is reprehensible. The peace movement we see today consists of coalitions representing diverse ranges of groups; not all of which are solely or even primarily motivated by the desire to promote peace. There are groups which pursue justice at a broader spectrum. Then you have groups which have their own particular causes, and which find the peace movement to be an unprecedented opportunity to attract attention to those respective causes. And, let's not forget the young anarchist, neo-hippie wanna-be groups who simply want an excuse for excitement and rebellion. Then there are groups of ordinary citizens who just want what Cindy wanted: either justify this war or end it.

I did not respond, immediately, to the Supreme Court's ruling on Partial-birth Abortion. I avoided commenting because I first wanted a chance to read the ruling, as well as both the consenting and dissenting opinions.

I would be lying if I said I were not happy the Court upheld the Bill banning partial-birth abortions. I am thrilled at any check to the immoral claim that there is a right to murder infants.

Having said that, this ruling is, in my personal observation from reading Supreme Court rulings I care about, among the most boring and the most poorly-written set of legal opinions ever issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

To begin with, those who wrote the ruling opinion contradicted themselves by opposing partial-birth abortion while, at the same time, allowing abortion for the same victims, provided the victims were aborted prior to the partial-birth state. Using this Court's language, it is acceptable to murder the infant provided the labor of the infant did not reach a "particular anatomical landmark." What a crock! The infant is the same infant, regardless of what "anatomical landmark" is reached in any attempt of inducing labor.

So here we have Catholic judges attempting to sound as if they are Catholic who are the same judges arguing in such a way as to compromise all rational thought in terms of this debate. They would have done better, and would have been more rational in their legal argument, had they undone Roe v. Wade altogether.

Here they only established a political position; while undermining the legitimacy of their own legal thought. While I am not a lawyer myself, I am extremely disappointed in the weakness of the legal arguments presented by both the ruling and the consenting opinions of this Court.

I just finished watching an interview Rudy Giuliani gave on CNN. The interviewer presented a clip of Giulini from 1989 where he disagreed with Bush, Sr.' veto against provision to publicly fund abortion. In the clip, Giuliani said there should be public funding for abortion.

The interviewer asked Giuliani whether his position is still the same. Giuliani said he has to review his comments at that time and the circumstances in which he made them. He went on to assert that he is prolife and that "adoptions went up and abortions went down while I was mayor."

Ummm. Adotions propably went up and abortions probably went down while Giuliani was mayor of New York City. But that did not happen because Giuliani was prolife. In fact, Giuliani played very much the pro-choice or pro-abortion people in order to sustain his electability in NYC. While Giuliani was mayor, Bill Clinton was President. It had already been established that, during that time, nation-wide adoptions went up and abortions went down.

Can Mr. Clinton take credit for that? I doubt it. I think other social factors fortunately played into that statistical reality. But Mr. Clinton is not now running for President, Anakin Skywalker -- I mean, Rudy Giuliani -- is. He cannot take credit for a social phenomenon he had nothing to do with. More importantly, his words in 1989, and consistently throughout his political career prior to running for President, do matter.

Either he lied then; or he is lying now. Either way he cannot be trusted. [But I know that already. I am a New Yorker who lived under his emperial rule here].

There are so many things that seem important to blog about today. FBI misuse of Patriot Act powers; improper firings of US Attorneys; Halliburton deciding to pack up their tent and move it to Dubai, just as they face the prospect for investigations into allegations about their work in Iraq; and other things.

But I just can't get energized about it today. After all, it seems like we're rehashing old stuff. Most of the things being treated as "breaking news" have been debated about for at least six years now. Remember when you were called "unpatriotic" for questioning things like the Patriot Act?

We all knew these Congressional investigations were coming down the pike. Nancy Pelosi herself had said they were going to be a priority. We also anticipated the investigations would have an impact on the Administration. It's odd that we're acting like we're learning new things (though some people may be). We are just having things we knew were happening be proven.

I suppose I should finally be relieved that we have a two-Party government working again, and that our Congress is willing to hold the Administration accountable to the law and to the people.

That's not really the point for me, though. When we had a one-Party government working in Washington, it wasn't just the government that was the problem. Look at the vast array of conservative apologists -- not just the professionals, but the lay folk as well -- who absolutely defended the Bush Administration at all costs. Many apologists still are, in fact, defending the Bush Administration.

I want to say up front that I am not a fan of Al Sharpton. I have associates and colleagues who are absolute fans of Sharpton; and that is a source of conflict (especially in terms of my relations with colleagues who play on racial tensions to promote our social justice agenda). The truth is, (and I want it clear I am speaking for myself , not for CfD; afterall, I have already been accused of risking CfD's name for my own thoughts) I do not believe Al Sharpton is particularly concerned about social justice, either for himself, his community or anyone else. Al Sharpton is self-interested in his own ego. He's a nut case with a platform.

Having said that, he has placed himself into a position where people in politics want -- and, maybe, need -- his support. I think that is a problem for people really interested in social justice. We find ourselves having to deal with psycho-ego-maniacs like Al Sharpton in order to have a place at the table to promote real social justice. Don't get me started on that.

But now lets revisit the question of Barack Obama's "blackness"; since Sharpton brought it up, again. As most know now, there is a titsy between Sharpton and Obama. Sharpton is out viruently arguing Obama started a fight. Obama denies there is a fight. Guess who I believe.

It's an interesting fight, though. Most of my colleagues absolutely support and defend the work of Al Sharpton, while, at the same time, they are enamored with Barack Obama. Yet some members of the organization I work for are also members of Al Shapton's National Action Network. Aren't they in a bind?

I have been reading various blogs lately that are tending to create some confusion about what it means to be liberal vs. conservative; particularly as Catholics are concerned.

Reading them initially, I was momentarily confused myself. But I do try to think my issues through.

First, Bill Donohue reported on Frances Kissling's interview with National Catholic Reporter following her retirement. In the interview, Kissling spoke out, not only against conseratives, but against the "Catholic left" as well. Can I say, "duh"?

The Catholic left is not defined by Frances Kissling. It is defined by the faith of Catholics who recognize that our faith demands that we participate in transforming society to promote the common good. Contrary to Kissling's belief, no Catholic endorses abortion; and so the abortion question is moot to Catholics, conservative or liberal (or progressive) -- Catholics consider abortion to be gravely evil.

That does not mean I think Kissling was being disingenuous when she said she had Catholic colleagues who lie about not supporting abortion in order to sustain the formal support of the Catholic Church. I know it is very possible that there are those who call themselves Catholic, and try to promote themselves as Catholic, while supporting abortion. I was thrown into just such a batch last year when I went to a faith/politics conference in D.C. The fact that there are self-professed Catholics who support abortion is really disappointing to me, but I know they exist. Fine. Id est.

There go those tax-and-spend liberals again. Always wanting to fix serious problems when leaving them alone would be so much cheaper!

As CNN reported, both the House and the Senate promise a broader investigation into military hospitals and Veterans' Affairs medical facilities, and Army brass promise action. Even the Administration got CYOA syndrome, appointing a panel to conduct a White House investigation.

All needed, but too little too late. What did we expect? When we talk about closing military and VA hospitals and don't provide the necessary funding for those facilities to operate smoothly -- and when we talk about outsourcing the work to the private sector -- we had to know the quality of service would be cut at the very centers the Administration is trying to close.

Those in command knew Bush's operating political and budget philosophies and they knew his Administration's stated intents for the various facilities over which they were in command. Congress wanted to know of Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley why he had not asked for help or money to fix the problem. Do I really need to answer that for him?

I echo Congress' belief that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the lack of quality service and deliverance of medical care across a much broader medical delivery service in the military and VA; and that an investigation would prove scandalous. But I would take it a step further. It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of an Administration whose operating philosophy places priority for enriching private sector corporations over government delivering on its own responsibility to fulfill its mandate -- to the people who serve and to the common good.

Here is a clipping of the news story reported by CNN...

IPS News reports that Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice has appointed Eliot A. Cohen as State Department Counselor.

In a move that has surprised many foreign policy analysts here, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has appointed a prominent neo-conservative hawk and leading champion of the Iraq war to the post of State Department Counselor.

Eliot A. Cohen, who teaches military history at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here and has also served on the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board (DPB) since 2001, will take up the position next month that was left vacant late last year by Rice's long-time confidant and "realist" thinker, Philip Zelikow.

A close friend and protege of former Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and advisory board member of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Cohen most recently led the harsh neo-conservative attack on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton.

Like his fellow-neo-cons, he was particularly scathing about its recommendations for Washington to directly engage Syria and Iran and revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- recommendations which Rice herself has explicitly endorsed in the last few weeks.

Given Cohen's hawkish ideals, and his public thoughts about the Iraq Study Group that attempted to provide positive solutions to our Iraq problem, it seems forboding that Rice appointed him. What are they getting ready to stir up now?

There is a downside to multi-tasking the media. I had CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on TV while reading different blogs. Needless to say, my attention was not fully focused on either activity; and, admittedly, was more focused on the blogs. I was initially watching Anderson Cooper for his report on the ossuary that's all over the news right now. As the program progressed, though, my attention waned.

While reading a blog post, though, words of Anderson Cooper came through very clearly:

Whether you're Catholic or Protestant, the more literally you read the bible, the greater the chance you'll vote conservative.

Wow, what a claim. I really wish I had been paying closer attention to the show so I could have had a greater sense of the context of that statement (though I know it was a segway into a segment on Patriot Pastors) and from what source he is basing that claim. It reminds me of the Deal Hudson study that made claims about a church attendance vs liberal/conservative correlation.

Not knowing the source of that claim, it's difficult to respond. I can only say that Anderson Cooper would be hard-pressed to find any Catholic, liberal or conservative, who reads the Bible literally. We simply do not believe God sat down and dictated to scribes. That's beside the point, though.

I am disturbed that our mainstream media is still promoting the fallacy that people who tend to be more conservative religiously are also more conservative politically. It simply is not true. And all studies conducted -- including the one commissioned by Deal Hudson -- were unethically leading in the way they surveyed respondents and grossly misleading in the way they reported their findings.

Recently, I wrote a blog post, One Southern Baptist I Can Agree With.

Since I wrote that post, I got complaints via email from Southern Baptists who said I am over-generalizing my religio-political issues concerning Southern Baptists and inquiring whether I, myself, have a religious bias.

I need to answer that, yes, I have a religious bias. I am Roman Catholic, and my religious bias tends to my Roman Catholic faith.

Am I anti-Southern Baptist? Well... my personal experience with Southern Baptists has been greatly influenced by the radical right-wing politics of the public face of Southern Baptists; and so that has colored my understanding of who Southern Baptists are. I am willing to accept that my understanding of the faith of Southern Baptists is incorrectly influenced by the "political face" of Southern Baptists. I accept that because I know that, today, the face of Catholicism in America is often filtered through that same political paradigm.

So, to those Southern Baptists who are sincere in your faith and who do not meet the stereotype I blogged about, I am really sorry. I meant to challenge neo-con politics, not your sincere faith.

I also hope that you would agree with me, and all of us at Catholics for Democracy, that the human person -- as the image of God -- deserves not only life, but the opportunity to live life fully and to be free to discover who God is without compulsion from idaealogues or from the State.

Performing Urban Struggle

Performance by
Anu Yadav
DC-based actor and playwright of "Capers," a play developed with and based on the stories of families who protested the government-funded relocation and demolition of the public housing project

Discussion with

Willie Baptist Co-Coordinator of the University of the Poor and Poverty Inititiative Scholar-in-Residence at Union Theological Seminary	Ira Shor Professor of English at CUNY Graduate Center and author of a recent 3-volume siries on Paulo Freire
Picture the Homeless An organization of homeless New Yorkers dedicated to organizing homeless people to become an effective voice for systemic change	Stephen Pimpare Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University and author of the forthcoming The Indignant Poor: A People's History of Poverty and Welfare

Co-sponsored by The Martin E. Segal Theatre Center

Thursday, March 1, 6:30-8:30pm

Elebash Recital Hall
The Graduate Center, CUNY
365 Fifth Ave (between 34th St & 35th St)
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
No registration. Questions? 212-817-2055/ch@gc.cuny.edu

Wounded Soldiers Face Neglect at Walter Reed Medical Center - The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. But while the hospital is a place of scrubbed-down order and daily miracles, with medical advances saving more soldiers than ever, the outpatients in the Other Walter Reed encounter a messy bureaucratic battlefield nearly as chaotic as the real battlefields they faced overseas. [Catholic Media Report]

I commented on our old site, here, that one of our Presidential Candidates, Senator Sam Brownback, had voted multiple times in the Senate against increasing funding for healthcare for returning war veterans. I am certain others voted against increased funding as well. They should be held accountable for that as they pursue future political office; whether the White House or a return to their current elective office

This is a travesty, though, that cannot wait until the next election to be righted. It has to be addressed now. First, it is a grave injustice to send our young people off to war, while so many others make no sacrifices to support this war; and while some (*cough* Halliburton *cough*, for example) even profit greatly off this war we're making our young citizens fight. Then, when they return, we do not provide them with the medical and psychological resources they need to minimize the impact of the war on them and return them, as much as possible, to a normal life.

CNN aired a segment, today, about Mitt Romney having been heckled in a crowd by someone who suggested Romney is a pretender when he says he is Christian. The heckler will not be voting for Romney, of course; the heckler wants a Christian in office.

Can I question Mitt Romney's Christian credentials? [self-checking: oh, yeah... we're Catholic here] I do not recognize Romney's professed status as a Christian, given his Mormon faith; though I recognize his right to say he is Christian. We could debate that sometime if Romney and I ever have a private opportunity to engage in religious discourse (I haven't had an engaging sit-down with a Mormon missionary in awhile). Either way, that has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's ability to execute the office of President.

To use a Glenn Beck line, The Real Story Here (hope I'm not breaking any copyright laws using that) is the religious Right (emphasis, of course, on Right) is still reeling from two major defeats: one, George W. Bush was not the stalwart the religious right had wanted; and two, the religious right got their butts handed back to them in the 2006 mid-term elections. My prediction is that they are going to get very ugly this year, more so than in 2004; especially since the so-called religious left is finally starting to assert itself.

Mark Adams, over at Dispassionate Liberal (also see here) blogged on a recent statement by Christian Churches Together on the need to eliminate domestic and global poverty.

According to the CCT statement:

As Christian leaders in the wealthiest society on earth, we are called by God to urge our churches and nation to strengthen and expand efforts to address the scandal of widespread poverty in the United States and around the world. The Gospel and our ethical principles place our service of the poor and vulnerable and our work for justice at the center of Christian life and witness (emphasis added).

Given the growing problem of poverty here and abroad, and the obvious erosion of a middle class in our country, the question of poverty is becoming a pressing issue for a rapidly growing number among the American public. It shouldn't have taken this long for people to begin to think about this issue; not given that we self-identify, in very many circles, as a Christian nation.

I hope people pay attention to this statment of the many churches that signed on to it, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and take up this call to end poverty as a serious issue for consideration in the 2008 elections.

The word is out. The Senate will not follow the House in passing a non-binding resolution opposing troop increases in Iraq.

from Reuters...

Republicans stopped the Senate on Saturday from considering a resolution denouncing President George W. Bush's Iraq troop buildup that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the day before.

For the second time in two weeks, the Senate voted not to debate a non-binding measure that would repudiate Bush's recent decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Democrats wanted to debate the measure but failed to overcome Republican resistance, although there was less resistance this time.

The vote was 56 in favor and 34 against. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor for debate. Before the vote, Democrats argued in vain for minority Republicans to break with Bush and support taking up the measure.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said it was significant that a majority of senators, including seven Republicans, had voted for the debate.

"The majority in the U.S. Senate just voted against the escalation of the war in Iraq," he said.

The significant part about today's decision in the Senate was not that any Senator voted against the resolution. I think the jury is still out on the prudence of the resolution and so cannot overly-criticize anyone in the Senate who opposes it. The significant part about today's decision was that Senators voted against even debating the resolution.