The Mahablog: Truth and the Bush Administration

Essential Links
Blame Bush for North Korea's Nukes
America -- What Went Wrong?
The Truth About Paul Krugman
Lies, Damn Lies, and Bush
The Big Picture
War and Profit
Remember September 11
Homeland Insecurity
Peaceniks of the Past
Is It Too Late?
Abe Lincoln, Peace Activist
What Are We Fighting For?
Better Than Teapot Dome!
Forgetting the Alamo
The Killer Mothers
Anti-Bush Graphics to Go
Bush Barf-O-Rama!
Type comparison
August 29
Partial Transcript, Abrams Report, April 5, 2005

  Home Blog of the American Resistance!
                                                         The Rove Clock
Archive Newer | Older

saturday, december 6, 2003

American Psyche


This past week I've been writing a series of essays for Open Source Politics on Why America Is Screwed Up. Most of these essays borrow heavily from stuff already written on The Mahablog so I didn't post them here, but this last one is mostly new, so here it is. This is a second draft of what should run in OSP on Monday or Tuesday. I welcome questions, suggestions, and corrections.




Throughout this series I’ve harped on the connections between the Great American Psyche and politics. Part I discusses our common masculinity memes and electability. Part II argues that George Bush’s unresolved Oedipal conflicts are driving his policies. Part III and Part IV explore the way Republicans make use of mythos and imagery to personify the unheroic Bush as a hero (so far, successfully).


We liberals can talk about policy and present data to support our ideas until we turn purple. Conservatives wave a flag, or a Bible, and win elections. Right-wingers make a mockery of democracy and pass laws that weaken, not strengthen, our nation, yet voters cannot see it. What is it in our collective unconscious that makes We, the People so screwed up?


Daddy Dearest. George Lakoff writes that conservative and progressive worldviews can be compared to “strict father” families and “nurturing parent” families. While the “nurturing parent” state values empathy, responsibility, and freedom, the conservative “strict father” state thinks citizens must be protected and controlled. The “strict father” state sees the world as a hard and dangerous place. It values success, and believes those who are not successful are not properly disciplined (or moral, or hard working) and must not be coddled. Pursuit of self-interest is moral, and worldly success is an indicator of moral strength.

This means (among other things) favoring those who control corporate wealth and power (those seen as the best people) over those who are victims (those seen as morally weak). It means removing government regulations, which get in the way of those who are disciplined. Nature is seen as a resource to be exploited. One-way communication translates into government secrecy. The highest moral value is to preserve and extend the domain of strict morality itself, which translates into bringing the values of strict father morality into every aspect of life, both public and private, domestic and foreign. [George Lakoff, "Framing the Dems," The American Prospect vol. 14 no. 8, September 1, 2003 ]

It seems to me that conservative “values” are a throwback to feudalism. The feudal nobility believed they had a God-given entitlement to wealth and privilege and a right to exploit common people. Today’s corporate lords see themselves as entitled to wealth and the protection of government without the obligation of paying taxes, and they think government exists to provide them with cheap labor.


It's important to understand that the corporate lords don’t think they are doing anything wrong. Most of them are not so much hypocrites as unconscious. In the neo-feudalistic view, wealth confers grace, and the blessed few are entitled by grace to more wealth any way they can get it. People who are poor; people who face long-term unemployment because their jobs moved to India; must not be as virtuous and as deserving as those who are rich. If the “serfs” suffer, it’s God’s will.


Disturbing, yes, but what’s even more frightening is the extent to which the “serfs” have bought into this rubbish. Working class Americans continue to vote for politicians who are on the side of the feudal lords, not the workers. We saw this in last month’s elections, particularly in the South. White working class people in particular deliver themselves “into the hands of Republican leaders who malign the federal government and are closely allied with giant corporations,” writes Sam Parry in Consortium News.


Fathers of Fear.  This is not new. I’ve observed my whole life how Americans can be frightened into stampeding off cliffs. Fear of Communism gave birth to McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the War in Vietnam. Today the Republicans are using fears of terrorism, foreigners, ethnic minorities, and various aspects of sexuality to keep the serfs in line.

Consider also the Religious Right. In her magnificent book The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong demonstrates that fundamentalism arose in response to modernity, especially to scientific rationalism. "Fear is at the heart of fundamentalism,” she writes. “The fear of losing yourself." This is true of Islamic fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden as well as our homegrown types. Liberals cherish tolerance, democracy, pluralism, and civil liberties; fundamentalists fear these values as weapons of (their) annihilation.

…It is important to recognize that these theologies and ideologies are rooted in fear. The desire to define doctrines, erect barriers, establish borders, and segregate the faithful in a sacred enclave where the law is stringently observed springs from that terror of extinction which has made all fundamentalists, at once time or another, believe that the secularists were about to wipe them out. The modern world, which seems so exciting to a liberal, seems Godless, drained of meaning and even satanic to a fundamentalist. [Armstrong, The Battle for God (Ballantine, 2000), p. 368]


I postulate that existential fear is at the heart of most “isms.” And although there’s no objective measure of angst that I know of, the world may seem scarier to We, the People,  than it used to, and not just because of terrorism. Collectively, our props are falling away. Compared to fifty years ago (as far back as I can remember), communities are fragmented, families are scattered, jobs are ephemeral. Across rural and small town America, communities that were once homogenous are becoming multiracial and multiethnic. “Givens” about God and Man and Sex and other big issues are being openly challenged.


Bad Dreams. Although the world must seem to be shifting beneath their feet, many people are so out of touch with themselves they may not be fully aware of their fear or capable of understanding what they are afraid of. We in America have grown a culture that discourages introspection. As Sam Keen wrote in Fire in the Belly (which is right up there with Iron John as an excellent piece of early male movement lit),


Men, in our culture, have carried a special burden of unconsciousness, of ignorance of the self. The unexamined life has been worth quite a lot in economic terms. It has enabled us to increase the gross national product yearly. It may not be necessary to be a compulsive extrovert to be financially successful, but it helps. Especially for men, ours is an outer-directed culture that rewards us for remaining strangers to ourselves, unacquainted with feeling, intuition, or the subtleties of sensation and dreams. [Sam Keen, Fire in the Belly (Bantam, 1991), p. 65]


My quarrel with this passage is that it leaves out women. But Keen corrects this mistake in later a paragraph:


The difference between the sexes is being eroded as both sexes become defined by work. … Economic man, the creature who defines itself within the horizons of work and consumption, is not man in any full sense of the word, but a being who has been neutralized, degendered, rendered subservient to the laws of the market. The danger of economics is not that it turns women into men but that it destroys the fullness of both manhood and womanhood. [Keen, ibid.]


In America today, the Economy defines us. It tells us who we are and gives us a place in society. We work and consume, therefore we Are. But such an identity gives us no context to understand or even acknowledge the un-ease gnawing inside us. So, we look outside ourselves for solace. We work harder and buy more stuff. We medicate ourselves with alcohol and other diversions. Even American-style religion is outer-directed, fixated on a God who is Out There instead of the Buddha who is In Here. And we allow propagandists to tell us that what we really fear are terrorists, or atheists, or liberals, or some other shadowy thing Out There, and our salvation lies in God and guns and George W. Bush.


And, in our fear, we give more and more power to the corporate monsters eating our souls.


Taking back America. The challenge for liberals is to break through the fear and denial and communicate our vision of America to all American citizens. And that won’t be easy, since the corporations own the media. Most of the “pundits” of the news media are just as lost and unconscious as the rest of America, and some are out-and-out corporate whores. I can offer only a few suggestions.


  1. We need to understand what "our vision" is. And I'm not talking about policy. What is America? Where do we want to go as a nation? How do we see our place in the world? What is the proper relationship between government and citizens?
  2. Defeat George W. Bush and as many Neocons as possible in the 2004 election. The Bush Administration is like an open, bleeding wound. America won’t begin to heal until the wound is closed and bandaged.
  3. The new Democratic administration must continue to investigate and make public the corruption of the Bush Administration. At least the Bushies must be brought to public disgrace, as Nixon was.
  4. Please don’t come to New York City during the Republican National Convention next year hoping to start a riot. We won’t win hearts and minds by being obnoxious and alarming.
  5. Although policy details are important, Democratic leaders need to speak in ways that touch our hearts and quiet our fears. Franklin Delano Roosevelt comes to mind.
And it never hurts to get to know yourself and whatever is lurking in your own subconscious. Meditation, introspection, psychotherapy — whatever it takes. We can’t wake up others if we’re not awake ourselves.

11:58 pm | link

saturday, december 6, 2003

Hot Links 8:32 am | link

friday, december 5, 2003

Let It Snow
One thing I love about winter is not going out into snow. There's something about watching snow fall from indoors that makes home seem more homey.
I don't know anything about Richard Morrison other than he's planning to run against Tom DeLay in Congress. That's good enough. Click here if you want to help him with his campaign.
Today's Outrage.  Joe Conason writes that the U.S. State Department insists Wesley Clark's testimony at the genocide trial of Slobodan Milosevic be closed to the press. "In the absence of any convincing explanation, this appears to be a matter not only of harmful judicial meddling and unwarranted censorship, but a gross abuse of diplomatic authority for domestic political advantage as well."

1:33 pm | link

Hot Links 7:01 am | link

thursday, december 4, 2003

Hot Links 7:58 am | link

wednesday, december 3, 2003

Funny Money
You'll love this. Eighty members of Congress have co-sponsored a bill to remove the profile of Franklin Delano Roosevelt from the dime and replace it with the face of Ronald Reagan. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.

"It is particularly fitting to honor the Freedom President on this particular piece of coinage because, as has been pointed out, President Reagan was wounded under the left arm by a bullet that had ricocheted and flattened to the size of a dime," Souder wrote to colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Sure, that makes sense. Not. 

"FDR believed the federal government should spend your dimes. Ronald Reagan believed the people should spend their own dimes. I think it's clear that the dimes in your pocket should bear Ronald Reagan's image," co-sponsor Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., said, according to the Los Angeles Daily News. ["Congressmen Want Reagan's Face on Dime," World Net Daily, December 3, 2003]

The fact is, of course, that FDR became President because in 1932, after four years of the Great Depression, too many people didn't have dimes to spend (or other forms of currency, either). This was in large part the fault of the economic policies of the two prior Republican administrations.  

Republicans are still pissed at FDR about the New Deal. FDR did not throw large amounts of federal money at wealthy people and Big Business in hopes that some small part of it would trickle down to ordinary folks in the form of jobs. Instead, he bypassed the rich and directly applied federal money to put people to work. The effects of his policies put money in people's pockets and actually saved some from starvation.

For example, click here to find out what the New Deal did for people in one small town in Alabama.

On the other hand, if you want to see the final economic results of the Reagan years, go to your video store and rent Michael Moore's film "Roger and Me."

As for Reagan being the "freedom president," who was it that guided the ship of state through World War II and helped save the whole world from the Nazis? And exactly what did Reagan to for "freedom" beside deliver some good speeches (mostly written by Peggy Noonan)?

So keep FDR on the dime, I say.  Dimes jingle in purses and pockets of ordinary working people. They pile up on top of dressers and night stands. They help fill up kids' piggy banks. Good ol' ordinary dimes are a part of everyday American economic life and therefore are a fitting tribute to the great Franklin Roosevelt.

If the Republicans want to see Reagan's face on a coin, mint up a special commemorative Reagan gold coin that investors will buy and hoard in vaults. Such a coin would be a fitting tribute to Reaganomics.

Unrelated Link

It's time to hunt the haggis!

12:53 pm | link

Hot Links 7:58 am | link

tuesday, december 2, 2003

Hot Links 6:26 am | link

monday, december 1, 2003

The Mahaknowsitall Sutra
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says that religious people tend to vote Republican and non-religious people tend to vote Democratic.
Pew is a respectable organization that does a lot of good work, but I have a problem with this particular report (The 2004 Political Landscape: Part 8, Religion in American Life).   
America remains an intensely religious nation and, if anything, the trend since the late 1980s has been toward stronger religious belief. Eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, and just as many believe there will be a Judgment Day when people will be called before God to answer for their sins. Even more people (87%) agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."
The implication is that people who don't go along with these dogmas are not religious, which is of course nonsense. People who believe in Judgment Day and God and whatever might be called "conservative monotheists," but all sorts of religions and religious people don't subscribe to those doctrines. 
The Pew report continues:
Religious commitment has increased substantially among self-identified conservatives (81% agree with all three statements on faith and belief, compared with 73% in 1987-88). Liberals, on the other hand, have become somewhat less religiously oriented. Just over half of self-identified liberals (54%) agree with all three religious statements, down from 59% fifteen years ago.

In other words, Pew has decided that conservative monotheism is the One True and Only Religion. There are devoutly religious liberal and progressive monotheists who don't believe in a literal Judgment Day. According to Pew, however, these people are not devoutly religious liberal people, but actually less religious than conservative monotheists who do believe in a literal Judgment Day (and, unremarkably, are political conservatives as well).

In other words, Pew has discovered that conservatives are conservatives and liberals are not conservatives.

It may astonish the Pew people to know that there is a whole cosmos of beautiful religions that are not based on monotheism at all -- Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc. These are minority groups, to be sure. But there are Buddhist monasteries and Dharma centers all over the United States, and men and women who have shaved their heads and taken the robes and monastic vows, and not one of those people believes in Judgment Day. Or God. Some of them (i.e., Zennies) don't say prayers. Yet religion is their lives.

(Note to self: Create bumper sticker that says, "I'm Buddhist, and I Vote.")

While attitudes toward prayer and faith have remained very stable over that period, the number expressing strong agreement has increased slightly over the past decade-and-a-half. Today, 51% completely agree that prayer is important in their lives, up from 41% in 1987. And the percentage who completely agree that they never doubt God's existence has risen from 60% to 69% over the same period.
This may or may not reveal an increase in true religious devotion. Given the current oppressive social climate, I postulate that larger numbers of people are too intimidated to admit they don't say their prayers or that they have doubts about God.
As a rule, Democrats are more respectful of the variety of religious traditions and keep their own religiosity private. But conservatives wear Jesus on their sleeves and equate public declarations of religiosity with devotion. Steven Thomma of Knight-Ridder newspapers writes,

President Bush is a churchgoing Christian who often mixes theology with public policies ranging from the war on terrorism to a ban on a specific type of late-term abortion. By contrast, most leading Democratic candidates for president keep their campaigns secular, seldom mentioning God, religion or attending church, except for the occasional well-publicized visit to an African-American church.

The most notable exception among top-tier candidates is Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Jew who frequently invokes God, casts policy issues in moral terms and refuses to campaign on the Sabbath.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is religious too, of course, but polls show he's favored by fewer than 1 percent of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire, the first primary state.

In contrast, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, said recently that he prayed privately, but quit being an Episcopalian in a dispute with his parish over a bike path, recently linked God with guns and gays in a list of issues that shouldn't influence voting and doesn't regularly attend church. Nor do most of his chief rivals. [Steven Thomma, "American Voters Increasingly Split Along Religious Lines," The Macon Telegraph, November 30, 2003]

FYI: Abraham Lincoln didn't attend church regularly, either.

Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs. While he read the Bible in the White House, he was not in the habit of saying grace before meals. Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell noted that the president "seldom communicated to anyone his views" on religion, and he went on to suggest that those views were not orthodox: "on the innate depravity of man, the character and office of the great head of the Church, the Atonement, the infallibility of the written revelation, the performance of miracles, the nature and design of . . . future rewards and punishments . . . and many other subjects, he held opinions utterly at variance with what are usually taught in the church." It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances, a personal life marked by tragedy (the early death of two sons) and difficulty (the occasional mental instability of his wife). And he took to heart the carnage of war over which he presided. [Mark A. Noll, "The Ambiguous Religion of President Abraham Lincoln," A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992)]

Any value system that says George W. Bush is a better Christian than Abraham Lincoln is just, well, way ****ed up. There's no other way to put it.

10:02 pm | link

Views from Left Blogistan
Keeping Score. Yet another Bush scorecard from Cowboy Kahlil. A series of pointed commentaries on the Turkey's flight to Baghdad can be found on WTF Is It Now??? And Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo says, "On the homefront, the president is shaping his political campaign around the notion that we shouldn't show weakness and we can't cut and run. Meanwhile, it's clear to pretty much everyone in Iraq that we're doing both."
Culture Score. Pen-Elayne on the Web discusses girls in comic books. Calpundit is giving away a sofa, cat not included. Rittenhouse Review takes a look at what's wrong with Wal-Mart. In a major tour de force, Body and Soul explains what's wrong with Iraq and why it's hard to maintain a blog during the holidays. Vandals glued shut the doors of several Starbucks, according to The People's Republic of Seabrook. Sesquipedalian says the film Bad Santa is "****ing hilarious." I guess that makes it a four asterisk film!
Money Score. Congress is spending like a drunken sailor, says Rush LimbaughtomyDemocratic Veteran explains why we shouldn't be getting too excited about the recent economic "stimulus."

1:28 pm | link

Hot Links 7:22 am | link

sunday, november 30, 2003

Oedipus Prez
Somewhere in Shrink Heaven, Sigmund Freud is looking down at the White House and saying, "I told you so."
Yesterday I wrote, "George W. Bush's entire presidency is little more than an acting-out of his own unresolved Oedipal conflicts." Even if his desires to defeat his father and win his mother are subconscious to him, they are painfully obvious to many others.
First red flag --Bush's administration consists of people who used to work for his Old Man. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc. etc. -- all came out of the Bush I Administration. Isn't it remarkable that the son, eight years and a generation apart, had developed so few working relationships with competent, capable people on his own, but had to borrow his Dad's old staff?
Second red flag -- Bush I's biggest mistake as president, according to conservatives, was to raise taxes (after the "read my lips" pledge not to).  And the son is monomaniacally bent on cutting taxes.
Third red flag -- the Iraq War, for several reasons. The neocons were obsessed with Bush I's "mistake" of not taking out Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War.  "Armchair Freudians believe that in going to Baghdad and toppling Saddam, George II was playing Oedipal tennis with George I," wrote Michael Kinsley. "If so, junior has lost. The elder Bush's most notorious decision as president looks better every day."
But at the same time, the build-up to the Gulf War, when President Bush I pulled together a real international coalition to oppose Saddam Hussein, is praised as a major diplomatic accomplishment to this day. The Bush II Administration's contemptuousness toward diplomacy points to a son wanting to show up his father (and failing).

The Oedipal struggle of the Bushes -- a father who was an ambassador to the U.N. and an envoy to China, a globe-trotting vice president and an internationalist president, and a son who was a Texas governor with little knowledge of the world -- was bound to be aggravated by an invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the U.N.

Here was a son acting to correct his father's "mistakes" in the first Gulf War, when his father did not think he had made a mistake but rather a great contribution to history. [Maureen Dowd, "An Oedipal Struggle in the House of Bush," New York Times/ Times Union, April 2, 2003]

Armchair Analysis. According to the Joseph Campbell/Robert Bly hypotheses mentioned in yesterday's Mahablog, in our culture boys grow up lacking contact with men, even their own fathers. Therefore, they are uninitiated into true manhood and tend to remain stuck in a prolonged adolescence. Clinical psychologist Alvin Walker speculates that, at a critical point in his emotional development, young George was cut off from both mother and father.
As the first-born child, he spent much of his early childhood in an essentially single parent home since his father was frequently away on extended business trips. To exacerbate matters even more, he had a younger sister who died of leukemia just two months shy of her fourth birthday when "Shrub" was just seven years old. The sister's illness probably took up much of the mother's time, energy, and emotional focus making her less available to her other children. I also suspect that his mother may have been reactively depressed during this arduous and traumatic period making her even less emotionally available during a crucially important, developmental period of "Shrub" Bush's life. [Alvin Wyman Walker, Ph.D., " 'Shrub' Bush's Pathological Focus on Saddam Hussein," The Black Commentator, February 6, 2003]
Walker goes on to explain why this is significant:
Lack of parental availability typically leads to lack of parent-child attunement. And lack of parent-child attunement often makes for deficient empathic ability and a relative inability to identify with others. Frequently, such youngsters become rule busters or rule breakers as adults in the psychopathic sense. Clinicians who have studied attachment have noted the similarities between the behavioral manifestations of insecure attachment and disruptive behavior disorders. Antisocial behavior is seen, in part, as a covert communication to an unresponsive, emotionally distant parental figure. Perhaps this perspective illuminates, in part, the dynamic of "Shrub" Bush's unilateralism, his disavowal of treaties, and his seeming proclivity to violate international law with impunity. It is as if he thinks rules do not apply to him. [Ibid.]

So, little George got a double-whammy of mis-parenting. He's not only an emotionally immature weenie; he's a cold-hearted emotionally immature weenie. Myriam Miedzian saw a streak of cruelty in George Bush linking his childhood game of blowing up frogs with firecrackers to his callousness toward executions. (Including making fun of the condemned Karla Faye Tucker.) "Mr. Bush's much-vaunted religious conversion seems to have done little to encourage Christian mercy," Miedzian wrote.

I shall never forget former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who played a major role in one of our greatest foreign policy mistakes -- the Vietnam War -- speaking regretfully of errors he and others made during the Cold War. In a 1988 interview, he told me that "the necessity of looking at your actions through the eyes of your opponent -- that is absolutely fundamental, and we don't do that." [Myriam Miedzian, "Growing Up Is Hard to Do," The Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2000]

Miedzian wrote this in 2000, back when going to war was unthinkable except on Saturday Night Live skits. But it amounts of a prophecy of how the Bushies would misjudge an invasion of Iraq -- they are incapable of seeing their actions through the eyes of others. (They saw themselves as glorious liberators; therefore, the Iraqis would see them as glorious liberators. Wouldn't they?)

Voice of God? Bush says that God wanted him to be President.

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.' [Paul Harris, "Bush Says God Chose Him to Lead His Nation," The Observer, November 2, 2003]

As anyone who's dabbled in mysticism knows, such "heavenly" messages are usually from one's own subconscious. Only the very wise and the brutally introspective can tell the difference, and Bush is neither. And given that Bush is remarkably insensitive to the needs of citizens, as well as unconcerned about protecting America and its resources for the future, one wonders why he wanted to be President. He doesn't want to serve the country or the people. Clearly, he became President for the glory of the thing, and to show up his old man. And we're stuck with him for at least another year.

From time to time, the Old Man sends out signals that he is displeased with his son. Most recently, the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service went to Iraq War and Dubya opponent Senator Edward Kennedy. But if the son has noticed these slights, it has not registered publicly. According to the Boston Globe, Bush the younger has

...embarked upon a policy designed to counter, or even to wipe out, his father's entire political legacy. The father lived his life in the service of moderate and intelligent internationalism. His manners were always meticulously courteous, as he wooed even critics overseas to see the American position. He was even-handed in the Middle East and thus brought the area to the verge of peace for the first time in history; he was capable of using force but preferred to do it supported by coalitions of friendly states, thus cementing international cooperation.

The son seems to have made posturing against his father's accomplishments and beliefs his life's work. [Link]

The greatest test of Bush's Oedipal urges will come with the 2004 election. Many have said he was deeply angry about his father's loss to Bill Clinton in 1992. If he wins re-election he finally will have utterly defeated his father. And you know he will stop at nothing to do that.

1:19 pm | link

Hot Links 8:25 am | link

Archive Newer | Older

Regarding the RSS Feed: My web host insists it works. Cendron J. at Tech Support wrote me the following:
"I was able to subscribe to the using rss/xml blog reader from
as the blog reader by entering the url
The blog link should work as long as your blog reader can read xml."

Good luck.


Buy This Button!

Buy This Book!

Blogroll Me!

PLEASE NOTE: If you send me an email I assume the right to quote you anywhere I want
unless you specifically request otherwise.  
ALSO PLEASE NOTE that I am a slug about reading and answering email.

About Me




Air Maha

Radio Archive

Ben Merens, "Conversations with Ben Merens,"
September 9, 2004, WHAD Milwaukee, 90.7 FM

Guy Rathbun, KCBX San Luis Obispo,
September 15, 2004, 90.1 FM.



Best Blogs


Brad DeLong
Informed Comment
Political Animal
Press Think
Talking Points Memo

Hot Shots

Dr. Atrios

Group Effort

American Street
Big Brass Blog
The Blogging of the President
Crooked Timber
Daily Kos
League of Liberals
The Left Coaster
Liberal Oasis
Preemptive Karma
Running Scared
Shakespeare's Sister
Talk Left

Great Literature

Body and Soul
James Wolcott
The Rittenhouse Review

Great Dames

Alas, a Blog
Baghdad Burning
Bitch Ph.D.
Broad View
Democratic Veteran
Echidne of the Snakes
The Hackenblog
Heart, Soul, & Humor
Julie Saltman
Just a Bump in the Beltway
No More Apples
Peevish...I'm Just Sayin'
Pen-Elayne on the Web
Politics from Left to Right
Rox Populi
Suburban Guerrilla
Trish Wilson
What She Said!
World o' Crap
WTF Is It Now??

Abundant Attitude

Angry Bear
Cup o'Joe
David E's Fablog
Daily Howler
Democratic Veteran
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time
The Heretik
Kidding on the Square
Liberal Avenger
Mark Kleiman
Michael Bérubé
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Opinions You Should Have
People's Republic of Seabrook
The Poor Man
Public Domain Progress
The Rude Pundit
Seeing the Forest
Small Flashes
Steve Gilliard's News Blog
Talk Nation
That Colored Fella
Yellow Dog Democrat

Beyond Blogs

Black Box Voting
Blog Bites
Crooks and Liars
The Daily Kitten
The Daou Report
Democracy for America
Democratic Underground
The Drudge Retort
The Huffington Post
Iraq Revenue Watch
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Make Them Accountable
Media for Democracy
Media Matters
News Hounds
Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
Swing State Project
Think Progress
TPM Cafe
United for Peace and Justice
Utility Cats


The Loyalties of George W. Bush

Terror Alert Level






"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1918


The War Prayer

I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!... He has heard the prayer of His servant, your shepherd, & will grant it if such shall be your desire after I His messenger shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause & think.

"God's servant & yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused & taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken & the unspoken....

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed, silently. And ignorantly & unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is completed into those pregnant words.

"Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended through wastes of their desolated land in rags & hunger & thirst, sport of the sun-flames of summer & the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave & denied it -- for our sakes, who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask of one who is the Spirit of love & who is the ever-faithful refuge & friend of all that are sore beset, & seek His aid with humble & contrite hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord & Thine shall be the praise & honor & glory now & ever, Amen."

(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! -- the messenger of the Most High waits."

·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·

It was believed, afterward, that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

[Mark Twain, 1905]

Who Links Here


Powered by:

Search Popdex:


Weblog Commenting by

Technorati Profile

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Sister Numchuku of Reasoned Discussion.

Get yours.

Copyright 2003, 2004 by Barbara O'Brien

Reliable Alternatives net ring
This site is a Reliable Alternatives net ring member.

Thanks to RingSurf | Join? | Nominate? | Questions? |


Listed on BlogShares

Site Meter