JUDGMENT AT CRAWFORDBERG!

Would John McCain Be As Good As The Texas Torquemada?

George Bush's legacy, if he's lucky, will be that he'll be the most righteous president ever to attend a war crimes tribunal.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," the president said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it." "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record for keeping America safe," the president said.

A Painting of Torture by Mosquitos at a Russian Gulag

Of course, those prissy panty-waist sissy-pansy liberals are at it again in their response to the veto:

"The president has once again compromised the moral leadership of our nation." _ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh torture techniques undermines our nation's moral authority, puts American military and diplomatic personnel at-risk, and undermines the quality of intelligence." _ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"The president's veto sends a message to the world that despite Congress' actions, our country will continue to engage in this inhumane and heinous conduct when we should be affirming unequivocally and in one voice that torture and abuse will stop and never happen again. No one is above the rule of law, including the president." _ Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world." _ Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

"I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack. And I have heard nothing that makes me think the information obtained from these techniques could not have been obtained through traditional interrogation methods used by military and law enforcement interrogators." _ Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"President Bush will go down in history as the torture president. He has now defied a majority of Congress to allow the use of interrogation techniques that any reasonable observer would call torture." _ Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.

"...proven track record of keeping America safe." If it's from people like George Bush than I guess waterboarding doesn't sound so bad. If you recall, Bush was the governor who saved all those Texans from well over 150 already incarerated prisoners. Why I think he put Texas into the Guiness Book of World Records! Texas and Torquemada - sorta go together don't they?

Senator John McCain voted against the bill. "Maverick McCain," lest we forget, is one very tenacious hawk and may, like Caesar, cross the Rubicon into Iran. (All the apocalypticists certainly want him to.)

Sage advice from Bush to "Maverik McCain":

"Now remember, John, if you find out that any of those liberal gooks might vote against your funding, I have one word for you: waterboarding."

What Are The Odds on God?

Paul Crouch:
What Part of "Non-Profit" don't you understand?

"Accountability" is not in the lexicon of some televangelists. Oh, we know the ones targeted by the ongoing (and going on - and on - and on!) investigations, but just how many people know about the Crouch family and their lifestyle? They own TBN - Trinity Broadcasting Network.

How could Senator Grassley forget this one (from that wicked wikipedia!):

TBN generates nearly $190 million in revenue annually. The network does not make its finances available and Crouch family members control the boards of all Trinity network entities, which makes Trinity "ineligible to join" the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, an evangelical self-regulating group. It does not air commercials (excluding TBN Italy); rather, two-thirds of its revenue comes from viewer contributions and one-third from other televangelists' payments for running their programming. Its $120 million donation revenue is larger than any other television ministry. It has posted average annual surpluses since 1997 of about $60 million. It holds two week-long fundraising telethons per year, as well as numerous other solicitation drives. It maintains a direct mail database of 1.2 million names.

As of 2002, TBN boasted $583 million in assets, including $238 million in government-backed securities and $31 million in cash. Also among its assets are a $7.2 million Canadair Turbojet and thirty houses in California, Texas and Ohio with values ranging up to $8 million. The elder Crouches and their son Paul Jr. earn an estimated combined annual income of $900,000. In September 2004, the Los Angeles Times characterized their personal lifestyle as a "life of luxury." According to Charity Navigator, TBN earned $188,152,079 in 2007 and has a 2 out of 4 star rating (47%).

THIRTY houses? How many relatives do the Crouches have?

Of course, these guys are big in the "name it and claim it" circles. Just like Ken Copeland (who broadcasts on TBN), the Crouches tell viewers that giving to TBN will result in 100-fold returns. Better odds than the lottery for sure.

"if you have been healed or saved or blessed through TBN and have not contributed to (the) station, you are robbing God and will lose your reward in heaven."

And, like some Christian Casino gangster, Crouch lays odds on his connections with The Man:

"God, we proclaim death to anything or anyone that will lift a hand against this network and this ministry that belongs to You, God."

So is Paul Crouch the Godfather of Prosperity Theology? I don't know, but he's managed to evade the IRS and Senator Grassley so far. Will his luck ever run out?

Does Las Vegas look like Heaven or Is it the other way around?

Match 'em up!

One is the entrance to the casinos at The Venetian in Las Vegas.

The other is the entrance to the Sistine Chapel.

(Hint: the Pope wishes he could see "Phantom" but can't. Damn!)

Should We Walk to Montgomery or Park Place, Barack?

Is Obama Black Enough? or better yet:

Was "Bloody Sunday" Bloody Enough?

The current Presidential race is a case study of "how much" the candidates must be to gain endorsements and votes:


How Christian John McCain must be.

How un-female Hillary Clinton must be.

And how Black (and blue) Barack Obama must be.


Some of us are pretty clear about the first two but still wondering about the third. Obama just doesn't seem to fit the profile. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly seemed fit, but then again he was also against type in many ways: he was a Baptist minister with a doctorate in systematic religion. It is important to note, however, that HE WAS NOT A SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER. No SBC members (I think) ever took part in Bloody Sunday or the other Montgomery marches (unless, of course, they wore police uniforms). When MLK took the last march into his own hands, he was still playing against type because respectable ministers in the Deep South did not challenge Jim Crow no matter what their affiliation or denomination was.



I was bothered about Obama until I read the speech he gave exactly 1 year ago today:


"It's because they marched that we elected councilmen, congressmen. It is because they marched that we have Artur Davis and Keith Ellison. It is because they marched that I got the kind of education I got, a law degree, a seat in the Illinois senate and ultimately in the United States senate.


In response to the question of his "blackness":

"'... well, you know, your father was from Africa, your mother, she's a white woman from Kansas. I’m not sure that you have the same experience.'

And I tried to explain, you don't understand. You see, my Grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. Grew up in a small village and all his life, that's all he was -- a cook and a house boy. And that's what they called him, even when he was 60 years old. They called him a house boy. They wouldn't call him by his last name.


Sound familiar?"

What Would Uncle Walter Say? McCain and the Media!

Cronkite might recuse himself

When he was anchoring for CBS Walter Cronkite never injected the news with any inkling of a personal opinion. So how would he cover today's presidential race?

He wouldn't. The application of today's religious views to politics would have forced him to defer to another anchor. The man who covered Viet Nam and the assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would have loathed today's politial scene - too much to appear unbiased:

(In his endorsement of InterFaith Alliance)

When I anchored the evening news, I kept my opinions to myself. But now, more than ever, I feel I must speak out. That’s because I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson on our nation’s political leaders. Like you, I understand that freedom of speech is a founding principle of our nation, and I respect people with the courage to speak their minds. As a concerned person of faith, however, I have watched with increasing alarm as Religious Right groups manipulate religion to further their intolerant, political agendas. Over the years, they have gained considerable influence at every level of government...on local school boards, in the Administration, the courts, and in Congress. They have shrewdly twisted the traditional healing role of religion into an intolerant, political platform.


He wouldn't have thought much about John McCain's reversals either, from "agents of intolerance", to speeches at Liberty Uniersity and endorseents by televangelists. McCain even did an about-face yesterday involving the press itself:

Think Progress: McCain Hosts His ‘Base’ for a BBQ: The ‘Maverick’ and the Press Are Back Together Again (3/3/08) by Benjamin J. Armbruster

When the New York Times reported on John McCain’s "unethical relationships with lobbyists, McCain banished reporters... to the back of his campaign airplane." But in an attempt to "woo the reporters" back, McCain invited campaign journalists to "a 'thank you' cookout on Sunday... at his vacation home." According to Armbruster, his "latest 'charm offensive'... may have paid off."

The senator always chalks his reversals up to "not holding a grudge." But who else is he pulling off a "charm offensive" on (or for)? Key words in his speeches and communications to watch out for: Bible, apocalyptic, sinful, grace are just a few. And for the hawks our country there will be more military rhetoricc than could ever possibly hope for.

ANOTHER Cowboy President?

How will they remold John McCain?

(sssshh)... Very Quietly

Three hours ago (9:00PM PST) Mike Huckabee abdicated from the campaign of the Christian Right (most of whom didn't think he had his heart in it - not Reconstructionist enough) and withdrew from the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Conservatives and Hillary- Haters now have only one person to vote for in November: Arizona Senator John McCain, a hawk who sometimes acts like a Democrat.

"He's a maverick." I looked up the etymology of the word "maverick". The word originated in the name of Sam Maverick, a leading name in Texas history and politics (1803-1870). He was a land baron who refused to brand his cattle, hence the association with lone cattle outside of the herd.

So J.M. is going to don a white stetson and try to save us from those heathen Al Queda Muslims? ... AGAIN?!

McCain's supporters and campaign staff will need to start divesting him of any cowboy image - and that inludes the adjective "maverick". And what kind of candidate he is molded into will depend on who is molding/controlling him.

Gasp! Do you think he'll be steered by any special interests?

Yes. But whoever does the steering will need to be quiet about it. So that leaves out Pastor John Hagee. But let's put aside John Hagee for a moment (ah, figuratively). A Christo-Fascist with a brain (admittedly not a very large gene pool there), money and influence could call the shots if he's discreet. Remember: McCain's association with the "Keating 5" scandal (1989 - failing S&L campaign contributions) will be dug up again. McCain's also known for admitting lapses in judgment - a luxury he won't be allowed as President (or shouldn't be allowed - we've had waaay too much of those under Dumbya).

And, make no mistake, McCain will curry favor with any people on the Religious Right. His 180 with Falwell raised some eyebrows. After his speech at Liberty University:

If McCain's outreach succeeds, the effort could pay off not only in South Carolina, where the senator's defeat in the 2000 primary doomed his presidential bid, but also in Iowa, a state with many politically active Christian conservatives and a crucial role once again in the next election. In short, Liberty University could help make John McCain the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.*
(Washington Post.com, McCain - Can He Be a Falwell Republican? May 7, 2006)

So, John, what's it to be? An apocalyptic super-hero? A moralizing military man? You might not tell us, but your campaign might.

65 years ago, the Nazi Party took control of Germany.

Who will take control of John McCain?


*How prophetic can you get?

P.S.: The above photo is not James Garner in Maverick. It's Clint Walker as Cheyenne. I posted it because of all the cowboys on TV, he provided me with the best eye candy.

It's America's World War III! Granny Clampett vs. Matthew Bourne!

What Culture War?

Almost everywhere we turn we're faced with war or the possibility of war: Iraq, Iran, Isreal, Darfur, Equador, Colombia, Venezuela - on only three of seven continents of course: Europe is too old and too tired, North America would rather fight on foreign soil (except when it comes to the Mexican border), Australia doesn't have enough people for a good one, and Antartica's emperor penguins have a hard time walking with their eggs on their feet.


But then, there's our very own "culture war."


Pat Buchanan tried to define it at the Republican National Convention in 1992:


"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." In this war, Buchanan said that the forces of goodness (of course) were battling: "environmental extremists", "radical feminism," abortion, sexual orientation, popular culture, as well as clashes over the Confederate Flag, Christmas and taxpayer-funded art.


Culture war. I'll attempt to define it in one of the ways I see it (hey this IS my blog!). Whenever the conversation (or ecommunication) gets around to the subject, I usually say: "The culture war with the right-wingers? They're waging the war, but we've got the culture."



I know it sounds contrived and silly, but I can't help but think there's a grain of truth in it. Why are gays envisioned embracing culture while so many people in America embrace the pop culture of the American Dream? I wish there were a study of tabloid demographics. I looked up "Checkpoint Bonnie (Fuller)" on the web. She's the queen of taboids in the sense that she knows what sells and what doesn't. According to Kein Hyson (CMO of American Media Inc - parent company of Enquirer, Star, et al), Bonnie has adhered to this demographic (which admittedly hasn't changed much over the years):


The typical reader of the Enquirer and Star, according to Mediamark Research, Inc. (MRI), remains a grocery-shopping mom in her late 30s to early 40s with a high school education and household income in the upper 30s to mid 40s. In its pitch to advertisers, AMI boasts that readers of the Enquirer and Star "know everything about the big stars" and "watch a tremendous amount of TV." The tabloid audience "has gotten a little older over the years, as is true with all the 'Seven Sisters' and other titles creating the front end of supermarkets," says Hyson.



Yes I know, I'm making an attempt to justify stereotyping but I just can't help it. For the last 20 years, I've winced when someone in the supermarket line picked up a National Enquirer or Weekly World News - because I ouldn't believe anyone would be that starved for celebrity sandals or, dare I say it, that stupid.




My personal favorite:

Bigfoot's Baby Found Abandoned on the Grounds of Neverland Ranch!
(sorry, couldn't scan that one in, but it's for real )


So, who's currently in the front lines?

On one side: Britney Spears, The Olsen Twins (either one), Pastor John Hagee, Prince Harry, WalMart.

And on the other side: the rest of us.

Not a fair fight, is it?

So, guys and gals, what'll we watch tonight?

Should we watch our favorite show? Get a little culture? ...Or a whole lot of culture?

Obama and the "Why Can't We All Just Get Along" Race Card

...Yeah, But Will It Play With Skinheads, Neo Nazis,

Southern Baptist Ministers and the KKK?

And just how many Sister Souljah moments is McCain going to have? Sure the Senator has responded vaguely to the Hagee endorsement, but there will be a lot more of them down the road.

Race will be the word of the day beause 17 years ago, the initial cause of the 1992 Los Angeles riots ocurred: the videotaped beating of Rodney King. The aquittal of the police involved triggered the massive 4-day riot, one of the most intense civil disturbances in U.S. history. By the time the police, Us Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, there was nearly $1 billion in damage and 53 deaths; 2,383 injuries; more than 7000 fire responses; and 3,100 businesses damaged. (Wikipedia)

And while Obama's cheered stateents of change and hope resonate through many American hearts, he still can't break through the wall of anger and distrust built by many conseratives. Here's what ardent conservative David Limbaugh (leaning on the celebrity of his brother Rush) has to say about Obama's words of hope:

When I see Obama proposing a number of genuinely conservative ideas, I'll reconsider the ludicrous possibility that he values bipartisanship and getting along more than advancing his liberal vision for America. (from TownHall.com).

I would characterize that statement as a "cc" - couched and careful.

We'll see just how many Sister Souljah moments McCain can handle.