Last night I got into a bit of a dust-up on Facebook. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I don’t go looking for confrontation. In general, I’d rather run than fight. Actually, I don’t run, but I try to “work things out.” I just hate fighting.  But last night a woman who is really only a “Facebook Friend” (friend of a friend, I’ve talked to her several times at parties, and she requested to be my FB Friend), posted something last night, I couldn’t ignore it. Basically,  she wrote in her status that she wouldn’t be losing any sleep over John Allen Muhammad’s execution scheduled for last night

John Allen Muhammad was “The DC Sniper” who was executed in Virginia last night.

I am always surprised at the number of otherwise intelligent Americans who support the death penalty. But then again, lately Americans have been really astounding in their stupidity, so I guess this shouldn’t surprise me too much.  To me, this statement by Amnesty International could not be more clear or to the point:

The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.

John Muhammad was convicted of murder, and the argument of my “friend” and the mob who backed her up was that he lost his rights when he killed. However, I don’t think you ever “lose” your rights. Not in America.  Your actions — no matter how heinous, as Muhammad’s terrorizing of the the DC area was — these actions do not give the state the right to violate the most basic human right.

I don’t defend anything that Muhammad did — he murdered several people and terrorized and entire region of the country. He terrorized me, as well.  I was in my second year of teaching in Baltimore, my parents were down the road in Northern Virginia. We all looked over our shoulders, we all scanned the buildings and other parked cars nearby. I actually zig-zagged as I walked when I couldn’t avoid parking in an open area.

But no one deserves to be killed. Muhammad’s victims didn’t deserve it, and neither did he.

There are a few things about Muhammad that the mob calling out a virtual “hang him!” conveniently ignores:

(1) There is evidence that John Allen Muhammad suffered from serious mental illness, including severe brain dysfunction probably stemming from a childhood of abuse including “beatings with hoses and electrical cords, denial of food, clothing and basic necessities, and suffering on a scale difficult to imagine.”

(2) Muhammad was a Gulf War veteran, and his mental illness certainly was made worse as a result of what is known as “Gulf War syndrome, from which he suffered as a result of his “service as a sergeant during the first Gulf War, the lawyers said. They said a juror in the case would not have sentenced him to death had she known he was severely mentally ill.”

(3) State and federal prosecutors shopped around potential states in which to hold the trial, and chose to prosecute Muhammad in Virginia rather than other states where he was convicted of murder because of Virginia’s record as an “efficient” executions state, and because “Prosecutors relied on untested Virginia terrorism laws that allowed them to seek convictions even if they couldn’t prove which of the two suspects fired the gun.”

Which  means that even though he was convicted and put to death, this nasty truth remains:

“Law enforcement officials … cannot say for sure who specifically fired the fatal shots.”

This is a sad and painful story, all the more so because it comes on Veterans Day, and because we have just witnessed the horrors done to innocent people by another of our veterans, who also suffered from mental illness. There is so much pain and suffering in this world, we must not perpetuate it by allowing government executions to continue in the United States. Our soldiers fight all over the globe under the mantel of bringing liberty and justice for all. Not, as one commenter in the Facebook fiasco last night wrote “Civil justice is for civil people.”

We tell children that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” It’s really as simple as that.

There was an Old Man of Thermopylæ

I think Edward Lear deserves to be highlighted today, if for no other reason than the fact he was able to rhyme with the word “Thermopylæ” !

There was an old man of Thermopylæ,
Who never did anything properly;
But they said, “If you choose, To boil eggs in your shoes,
You shall never remain in Thermopylæ.”

– Edward Lear

Abortion is an issue that people feel very strongly about. I mean, I don’t know anyone who thinks “meh, whatever.” Personally, I feel very strongly that it is the right of any woman who finds herself in the position to have to make that difficult choice. However, I respect those who believe differently, based upon their religious beliefs, and I’m not going to try to convince an anti-choice person to become a pro-choice person.

What I do not respect, however, is having anyone else’s religious beliefs rule my life or the lives of anyone else in this country. That, my friends, goes against every principle upon which this nation was founded. So this has got me outraged:

As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.

But the speaker’s decision — like so many others she made during the drafting of this bill — showed Pelosi, a Roman Catholic and committed supporter of reproductive rights, to be more ruthlessly practical than her frequent caricature as an activist, upper-crust liberal from San Francisco would suggest.

It wasn’t just that she was disappointing some members over a last-minute change they disagreed with. She had to take on her closest and senior-most lieutenants on an issue that for many of them is like an article of faith, a defining tenet of what makes them a Democrat. And when she needed the votes, that’s what she did.

The same people who have no problem decrying those Muslim that societies that operate under sharia law will sit back and let the Catholic Church lobby on the issue of abortion here in the United States. Some Muslim societies require women to wear a headscarf, as well as live under restrictive and unequal laws; some Bishops lobby to deny women their rights established under Roe v. Wade. How is that any different? It’s not: same problem, different church (or mosque).  Here’s the response from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

Barry Lynn, who heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he’s been “horrified” by the church’s influence on the sweeping health care bill.

“What we saw over the weekend was an act of unparalleled arrogance on the part of church officials,” he said. “Basically, they were claiming they would kill health care for the sick and the poor if the Democrats didn’t give them the votes to impose religious doctrine into law.”

“It’s scandalous that this religious group has such extraordinary control over the fate of women’s lives in this country,” Lynn said.

On Saturday, I  attended a dinner put on by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington DC. You know when you read about some city council plastering the walls with the 10 Commandments, or a church that has gotten involved in an election (think Prop 8, think Question 1), and  you know how you scratch your head and say to yourself, “They can’t do that, can they?”  Well the good folks at A.U. are the ones who stand up for our rights and say, “No, they can’t.”

The importance of their work — and the importance of all of us standing up for this basic principle, which just happens to be in the First Amendment — was reinforced Saturday night. Less than a mile from where we sat eating our lovely “pecan-encrusted chicken” (just as aptly described by Dr Zaius’ as “chicken covered in nuts” ED: Here’s Dr. Z’s excellent write-up of the evening, complete with pictures!), Congress approved restrictions on a woman’s right to choose abortion that has not been seen in this country in decades. According to FireDogLake:

The Stupak amendment would effectively ban insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market. It would be one of the most far reaching national restriction placed on abortion in decades. It could also potential be used by insurance companies to allow them to legally discriminate against low income Americans.

You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions about abortion. (That’s also guaranteed by the First Amendment.) But the fact is, abortion is legal in this country and it is not up to the federal government to decide who gets to access this legal right. It is not the business of any religious group to lobby for or against providing access:

[The Stupak Amendment] emerged as the leading alternative, with the strong backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It is simply outrageous that our Democratic majority Congress has passed such an amendment. It is a disgrace. Allison Kilkenny points out that 19 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment (essentially voting “No” on women’s rights) also voted “Yes” on authorizing the U.S. to invade Iraq. She lists the 19 Congressmen (why yes, as a matter of fact, they are all men), and further notes:

All of these representatives are male, and with the exception of Sanford Bishop and Solomon Ortiz, they’re white, and ten are from southern states. None of them are poor. This is the kind of unrepresentative, elite club that gets to vote on sending our soldiers to possibly die after killing many innocent people in distance lands, and this Rich Boys’ Club also occasionally votes to steal rights from poor women.

What’s even sadder is that southern states have historically high rates of unplanned pregnancies, which makes the need for women’s health alternatives, including contraception (also not terribly popular in religious areas of the south) and abortion, all the more great. The Stupak amendment only ensures that poor, desperate girls will have to resort to terrible measures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)  has vowed to keep the Stupak Amendment out of any final bill:

Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment — enough to block passage.

“There’s going to be a firestorm here,” DeGette said. “Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We’re not going to let this into law.”

Call your Representative. Congress must be reminded to preserve a woman’s right to choose.

image from RadicalRags.com

I won’t presume to know exactly what drove Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to suddenly open fire on his colleagues.  But from news accounts so far, we know this about him: as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he witnessed daily the very real effects of war.  And we also know (and Maj. Hasan certainly knew) that he would probably be deployed to either Iraq of Afghanistan in the coming months, if President Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan (and I do think he will probably do that.)

I’m going to post some pictures to remind us of the ravages of war. Of course, the images below are G-rated compared to what is actually happening on the battlefield and in the streets. Bartblog has an entire post of those, which he is posting because he feels we should see the reality. It’s horribly gruesome and not for the faint-hearted. But it’s the truth.

Meanwhile, while people who call themselves “Patriots” and “Freedom Fighters” spend their time on Capitol Hill trying to stop the federal government from the providing health care to all Americans, these brave souls must wonder why no one’s marching on the Capitol and fighting for them:

Busy weekend coming up, so it doesn’t look like there will be any time for Rock Band for me. But here’s one of my favorite songs to play drums on, “Alex Chilton” by The Replacements. (If you play Rock Band, you know what I’m talkin’ about!) I must say, though, it is just about the stupidest video I have ever seen, so I recommend not even watching it– just turn the volume up and do a little air drumming with me at your desk! (Depending on where you work, maybe put your headphones on ….)

more about “Friday Music Video: Rock Band edition“, posted with vodpod

 

This video from the ACLU about several released Guantánamo detainees breaks my heart. The BushCheney legacy lives on, and what are we doing about it?

more about "Meanwhile, look what’s been done in o…", posted with vodpod

Tea Baggers To Attempt Sit In at Pelosi’s Office

From TalkingPointsMemo:

Josh Marshall | November 5, 2009, 12:39PM

We’re watching to see what comes of it. But there are apparently a group of Tea Partiers organizing a sit-in in Speaker Pelosi’s office at 1:45 PM. Only they’re telling people an office number that isn’t Pelosi’s office. So it’s hard to say how well that’s going to come off. And presumably, if the Capitol police know in advance what you’re trying to do that might put a bit of a damper on things.

Many thanks to Donald for sending me this one — it’s perfect for this time of year!

November

No sun–no moon!
No morn–no noon!
No dawn–no dusk–no proper time of day–
No sky–no earthly view–
No distance looking blue–

No road–no street–
No “t’other side the way”–
No end to any Row–
No indications where the Crescents go–

No top to any steeple–
No recognitions of familiar people–
No courtesies for showing ‘em–
No knowing ‘em!

No mail–no post–
No news from any foreign coast–
No park–no ring–no afternoon gentility–
No company–no nobility–

No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member–
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds,
November!

– Thomas Hood

Lately I’ve begun to seriously wonder if we as humans have reached our limits of information intake and/or processing. I say this because I realize that there are many important issues in the news and in our lives, but I cannot for the life of me think of any other reason to explain the lack of interest or concern by the American public about the situation in Afghanistan.

In the past few days, I ‘ve read the following articles which, when put together, form a picture of a disaster in the making:

Maternal mortality across the world

U.S. official resigns over Afghanistan war

Karzai declared winner after Afghan rival withdraws

Reading the first article, one gets a shocking glimpse into the desperate living conditions in which the  average Afghan woman lives:

In the other corner, Monisa is fighting for her life. In her early 40s, she is in her 14th pregnancy. Five of her children have already died.

Later that day, her five-month old foetus is delivered, dead. But Monisa pulls through despite a weak heart.

Changing the fate of women in childbirth means changing so much of life here. There is no electricity, no running water, no paved roads.

Outside the capital, a trip to the clinic – if it exists – can mean walking for days, traveling by donkey, or if the family can scrape together enough money, by car.

Many women are carried on wooden planks or ladders supported by four men, including an anxious husband.

Matthew Hoh resigned his position with the Foreign Service because he understands that the average Afghan citizen is more concerned with life in their own remote village than with the Afghan “nation” fighting the Taliban. So he resigned in protest of what he describes as:

… doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.

Why and to what end.

And when I read yesterday’s news of Hamid Karzai’s “win,” it did not take much to read between the lines. He was declared the winner after his opponent withdrew from the race:

The commission acted after Karzai’s challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, dropped out of the race Sunday because he said the vote would not be free or fair following a fraud-marred first round.

The people in the villages, the women traveling by d0nkey — or worse — to deliver a child, they already view Karzai as a corrupt ruler put into place by the American forces. How does this declaration make his validity any better?

Again from the Washington Post article on Matthew Hoh:

But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there — a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

Emphasis mine.

As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because “I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, ‘Listen, I don’t think this is right.’ “

With “multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups,” he wrote, the insurgency “is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”

This week, Hoh is scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden’s foreign policy adviser, Antony Blinken, at Blinken’s invitation.

If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces.

He also would suggest providing more support for Pakistan, better U.S. communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda, and more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption — all options being discussed in White House deliberations.

“We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath,” Hoh said. “But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve.”

Sending more troops is not the answer to this situation. President Obama needs to end this violence being done in the name of us, the American people.

Image from gregmortensen.com. If you have never read Three Cups of Tea, go now — run — and read this book.