Catholics Enter 20th Century

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

Church05Wow.  This is pretty amazing, when you think about it:

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

Another New Low

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

President Bush’s job approval rating "has slipped to 39%, the lowest measure of his presidency," according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll.

"At the same time, job approval for Congress, which has a Republican majority, has fallen to 29%. That is its lowest level since 1994, the year Democrats lost control of the Senate and House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years."

Looks Like TOO MUCH Democracy, If You Know What I Mean

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Iraq’s electoral commission said Monday it intended to audit "unusually high" numbers in results coming from most provinces in Saturday’s landmark referendum on the draft constitution.

The commission’s statement came after Sunni Arab lawmaker, Meshaan al-Jubouri, claimed fraud had occurred in the vote — including instances of voting in hotly contested regions Saturday by pro-constitution Shiites from other areas — repeating earlier comments made by other Sunni officials over the weekend.

Election officials examining the ballot boxes said they were particularly baffled by the presence of hundreds of thousands of "yes" votes apparently cast by Republican voters in Ohio and Florida.

Chris Allbritton at Back to Iraq 3.0 does the math:

What’s truly eyebrow-raising is that the number of constitutional "yes" votes – 326,774 – is more than the total increase in votes over January’s turnout. That suggests that not only did all of the Sunnis in Ninevah province, who largely boycotted the January elections turn out, but that they all voted for the constitution. That’s a very strange idea to me, as I’ve not met a single Sunni who voted for it here in Baghdad.

It’s Coming

Ken AshfordPlamegateLeave a Comment

Tn_storm_clouds2_7180Plamegate is about to bust wide open.  The storm clouds are gathering.

First, there’s this Financial Times story informing that Fitzgerald’s probe has widened.  He’s apparently looking at pre-war intelligence handling, including a majority of the WHIG membership. So the political use of intelligence information has now become a matter of interest for Fitzgerald — especially given that it may have been used as a weapon against the critics of the Administration.

Then, there is the NY Daily News reporting that a "senior cooperating witness" within the WH has flipped and has been helping Fitzgerald. And that all eyes are absolutely on Dick Cheney.

UPDATE:  The Bush turncoat?  It’s John Hannah says the grapevine.  He’s a Cheney aide.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  It really looks like John Hannah.

A CLARIFICATION:  No, not John Hannah, the actor.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE:  WaPo reports that Fitzgerald has “assembled evidence that suggests Cheney’s long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame,” and reiterates that Cheney was the ringleader of the White House campaign to “convince Congress and the American public that invading Iraq was central to defeating terrorists worldwide. Cheney, a longtime proponent of toppling Saddam Hussein, led the White House effort to build the case that Iraq was an imminent threat because it possessed a dangerous arsenal of weapons.”

AND STILL YET ANOTHER UPDATE:  Rumors of Cheney resignation reach fever pitch

Harriet Miers – Slumlord & Privacy Lover?

Ken AshfordSupreme CourtLeave a Comment

About the only good thing anybody could say about Bush’s No. 1 fan is that she was "a meticulous, detail-oriented attorney who is always well prepared."

Except, perhaps, when it comes to being a landlord?

The year Harriet Miers began work as a senior presidential aide in the White House, the city of Dallas slapped three liens in three months on a property she controls in a low-income minority Dallas neighborhood, records show.

It was not the first time the city had to take action. Records show that since Miers assumed power of attorney for her ailing mother in 1995, the city has issued seven other liens on vacant lots that Miers controls in the same neighborhood around Tipton Park.

But the true flap is Miers on the issue of privacy:

As the White House renewed its attempts to rally backing for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, her views — or non-views — on a key privacy case appeared to ignite more controversy.

Miers spent much of Monday on Capitol Hill visiting with senators, among them Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter.

After their meeting, Specter told reporters that Miers said she believed the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut — a landmark ruling establishing the right to privacy — was "rightly decided."

But when the White House took exception to Specter’s comments, the Pennsylvania Republican released a statement saying Miers later called him to tell him he had "misunderstood" her answer.

Specter said Miers, in the later phone call, told him she had not taken a position on either Griswold or the right to privacy, the legal underpinning for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Now, I can understand why Miers might avoid taking a stance on Roe v. Wade — it is controversial and the issue of abortion may come to the Supreme Court.  But Griswald was a case about contraception — specifically, whether the state can outlaw contraception for married couples.  It astounds me that in this day and age, any person would think the answer should be "yes". 

Griswald is settled law.  The fact that Miers is refusing to take a stand on it is like her refusing to take a stand on Brown v. Board of Education.  Yes, the Court in Griswald recognized the right of privacy as the basis for its ruling (it did not "establish" that right), but there’s a very good explanation:

THERE IS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!

If buttinsky big government conservatives think otherwise, fine — please send me your credit card number, or an explanation of why you won’t.

But back to Miers.  It looks like a document has surfaced:

The 1989 questionnaire was designed to gauge candidates’ views on the drive to ban most abortions, either by constitutional amendment or by state law in the event the Supreme Court overturned a 1973 ruling that established abortion rights.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group’s questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

So let’s be clear about this.  Miers was running for political office, and she gets a questionairre from an pro-life group.  Of COURSE she is going to pander.

I think this does not necessarily reflect Mier’s true views about abortion, which (to me) remain a mystery.  I do, however, think it says something about the go-with-the-wind nature of her character.

Pentagon Gives Up In Corruption Fight

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

They aren’t even trying these days. Or in the days of 2004.

The chief Pentagon agency in charge of investigating and reporting fraud and waste in Defense Department spending in Iraq quietly pulled out of the war zone a year ago – leaving what experts say are gaps in the oversight of how more than $140 billion is being spent.

The Defense Department’s inspector general sent auditors into Iraq when the war started more than two years ago to ensure that taxpayers were getting their money’s worth for everything from bullets to meals-ready-to-eat.

The auditors were withdrawn in the fall of 2004 because other agencies were watching spending, too. But experts say those other agencies don’t have the expertise, access and broad mandate that the inspector general has – and don’t make their reports public.

That means that the bulk of money being spent in Iraq doesn’t get public scrutiny, leaving the door open for possible waste, fraud and abuse, experts say.

Democratic Ideas – No. 8

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries.  Democrats will take the special interests out of the Medicare law by repealing the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors and eliminating the slush fund for HMOs. We will also improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current doughnut hole where seniors pay a premium but get no benefit.  We will buy down the Part B premium so premium increases are not too steep.  We will address incentives that encourage employers to drop retiree benefits and we will ensure that no seniors are forced into HMOs while helping seniors in their transition to the new benefit.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Still Cracking Me Up

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

CallsenatorsI don’t know how Harriet Miers nomination is going to turn out, but I will certainly miss her blog.  It gets better every day.

Right now, Harriet is launching a logo/slogan contest, urging people to "Call You’re Senators".  (Yes, Harriet tends to confuse "you’re" and "your", "it’s" and "its", and "their" and "they’re").

She’s also agog about her recent instant messaging interview with The New Yorker’s "Talk of the Town" (or "TOTT"):

Talk of the Town: Let’s do word associations: “Constitution”—what’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Dallasharriet44: Of the United States!!! Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers. John Hancock, that’s how it got its name!! . . . I’ve been cramming but it’s hard to find time. . . . Can you bring notes to confirmation hearings?

TOTT: We read in the Times a story about your note to G.W.B. in 1997: “Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are ‘cool’—as do the rest of us.” . . . What was that all about?

Dallasharriet44: George and Laura . . . well, basically they’re really cool but their daughters don’t know it!! I mean, they have figured it out since 2000, but back then they were Too Cool for School and way too cool for mom and dad. You know that age. If you think J&B are party animals, you should hear some of the stories about G&L . . . not from recently, of course.

TOTT: Not being judgmental or anything, just objective, the way all reporters should be, how would you be in a position to define or recognize “cool”?

Dallasharriet44: Well, you don’t know all the sides of Miss Harriet Ellan Miers!!

TOTT: This appeared in a Times editorial: “Ms. Miers’s record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the President, not her legal qualifications.” Care to comment?

Dallasharriet44: Well, did the New York Times pick me? Or did the President of the Entire Country, who DOES know all my qualifications?

TOTT: Last question. The Times reported: “White House officials said Mr. Bush formally offered Ms. Miers the job on Sunday night over a dinner of fried shrimp and polenta with Laura Bush at the White House. Scott McClellan, the press secretary, said . . . ‘I don’t think this was something that she expected.’ ” Is that true?

Dallasharriet44: Being Staff Secretary in the White House was an amazing experience. I thought that was going to be my High Light. So I guess I wasn’t wearing a poker face at dinner . . . it was truly the biggest night of my life. . . . I didn’t expect the polenta . . . and I REALLY didn’t expect the Supreme Court Justice nomination!! I knew there would be shrimp tho. . . .

Do I get to see the story early? I PROMISE I won’t blog it.

TOTT: In a word, no.

Dallasharriet44: O.K., then I won’t tell you how I’m going to rule in cases that come before the Court.

TOTT: Bye, Harriet (a.k.a. Ms. Maybe-Our-Next-Female-SC-Justice!).

Dallasharriet44: Well, I have to say, New York gets a bum rap—you’re a good ambassador! Unless you’re “the exception that proves the rule.” Thanks!!! Oh, one thing. TELL YOUR READERS CALL THEIR SENATORS TO SAY “VOTE FOR HARRIET!!” I forgot to say that before. O.K. good night.

The Bush Photo-Op: The Rest Of The Story

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

A soldier appearing in the Bush photo-op conference (discussed here) gives the soldiers’ side of the story on his blog:

Yesterday, I was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID’s Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, "A Staged Event."

First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President.

We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it’s the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go. . . We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

Well, that’s all well-and-good, but it sounds like he is justifying the staged photo-op, rather than denying it.  And it overlooks one fact: the White House had told reporters it would be freewheeling with no screening.  Clearly, it was not, and this soldiers’ account confirms it.  If officials selected who got to talk and Bush got to choose his questions and the people who got to talk him had advance warning it’s hard to say that its unscreened and unscripted.

But my favorite line from the soldier’s blog post is this:

We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn’t choke someone on live TV.

I don’t know what they’re training our soldiers to do these days, but if there is a significant risk of them choking each other with a microphone while passing it back and forth, maybe we shouldn’t be giving guns to these guys.

Walter Has A Good Idea

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

In a letter to the NY Times:

To the Editor:

Re "Democrats See Dream of ’06 Victory Taking Form" (front page, Oct. 13):

The key to a Democratic success in next year’s Congressional election is clearly in the party leadership’s coming up with a campaign that does not concentrate on the Bush administration’s failures but offers alternative programs to fix what it believes is wrong with the Republican agenda.

A suggestion by which the Democratic Party could command the greatest public attention for its positive agenda: It could within weeks call an extraordinary midterm convention to draw up its platform.

The convention would not need to be expensive. The delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press.

In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform.

Although local issues might cause some candidates in next year’s Congressional election to veer from the platform on comparatively minor issues, the basic principles of the party would be clearly apparent.

The voting population would for the first time in many years have an unobstructed view of those principles that differentiate the Democratic Party from those of the Republican Party.

Walter Cronkite
New York, Oct. 13, 2005

It’s a very good idea, especially since the public perception (rightly or wrongly) is that the Democrats have no plan.