It’s been a little while, dear reader, since I posted links about the U.S. abusing prisoners of war (April 30, May 11) . This story has been all over the news, so it’s not like you need me to point you to relevant information. However, I would like to draw your attention to this story in today’s Washington Post, which reports that “Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, … approved letting senior officials at a Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and water on detainees whenever they wished.” Some have argued that the abuses of prisoners were the actions of a few rogue soldiers, but surely this revelation demonstrates that the tone was set at the highest levels.

Meanwhile, according to CNN U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress that

[T]he Bush administration had determined that al Qaeda operatives were not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they did not belong to governments that had signed the agreements and did not meet other requirements, such as wearing of recognizable military uniforms.

Am I wrong in concluding from this statement that if you’re a civilian from a country that has not signed the Geneva Convention agreements, the Bush administration thinks its acceptable to torture you? ‘Cause that’s what it sounds like Ashcroft is saying.

Now, you would think that people like George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, both of whom claim to have strong Christian beliefs, would believe that what’s right is right all the time, no matter what the lawyers say. However, when it comes to the really important issues, we now know that they subscribe to the kind of disturbing moral relativism that conservatives like to claim for those of us on the left-hand side of the political spectrum.

You might remember that the U.S. State Department announced some good news on April 29:

We … saw the lowest number of international terrorist attacks [in 2003] since 1969, and that’s a 34-year low.
There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003. That’s a slight decrease from 198 attacks that occurred the previous year, and a drop of 45 percent from the 2001 level of 346 attacks.

Well, it turns out that the report might need to be adjusted just a tad bit. But it’s nothing major. No need to get worked up. You see – funny story, you’re gonna chuckle when you hear this – there was actually a “sharp increase” in terrorist attacks in 2003.

Now, it’s true that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said at the time that the April 29 report demonstrated that the U.S. and its allies in the war on terror were “successfully waging this campaign.” However, only the Bush-hating, blame-America-first crowd would dare to suggest that the sharp increase in terrorist activity should be taken as a sign that the campaign is not going well. As Secretary of State Colin Powell wisely stated, “The president has made it clear that it is a war that continues and that we have to redouble our efforts.”

It may look to the untrained eye that the president has no idea what he’s doing. Yeah, he’s incompetent, all right. Incompetent like a fox! Don’t you see? He’s lulling the evildoers into a false sense of complacency. By letting them kill and maim people, and destroy property, and spread fear, the president is drawing them out into the open, where they can more easily be apprehended, making the world safer for you and me.

So just to be on the safe side, go ahead and vote for him in November. If you think the “sharp increase” in 2003 was impressive, just wait until you see next year’s figures for 2004!

It’s a slow and insidious disease. There is no cure, only expensive palliative care. It takes you away from yourself bit by bit. Death may take years. Your mind doesn’t work the way it used to. Your family has to watch you shrink from the healthy, robust person you once were into a mere shell of yourself. People don’t know how to act around you, and you don’t fully understand what’s happening.

I’m not talking about Alzheimer’s, though. I’m talking about AIDS, a disease that grew and grew and grew in the 1980s, while Reagan was president, refusing to address it publicly until 1987. He did nothing to advocate for adequate funding to research its causes or its cure.

Do you feel compassion because of what Ronald Reagan and his family went through in his last decade even though you disagree with the way he lived his life? If you do, then you’re a better person than he was.

[Edit: the following is a rhetorical ploy:] It turns out I have a serious, life-threatening heart problem. It’s probably genetic, as members of my family on both sides have had a similar problem. However, I’m not going to consult a doctor. I don’t trust the American Medical Association insiders with their fancy “medical degrees,” and their slick rhetoric about “health.” I want someone who knows how to connect with the people, who’s not an elitist, who hasn’t been tainted by the AMA, who isn’t afraid to break some rules instead of always doing what some committee tells him to do. It might surprise you to learn that I’m consulting a faith healer, instead. Granted, there are no studies that demonstrate faith healers actually do any good, but those who ask for such empirical evidence are not the kind of people I want to associate with. I question their commitment to my wellbeing.

Continue reading →