Since 9/11, the Republicans have become quite fond of calling anyone who doesn’t drink their particular brand of Kool-Aid some form of terrorist or another. The most recent example is Tom DeLay, referring to the fact that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was being removed:

“Mrs. Schiavo’s life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism,”

A number of thoughts went through my head when I first heard this. “How dare he desecrate the graves of those who died on 9/11 by equating the complex moral decision faced by Michael Schiavo with the butchery of the 9/11 hijackers?” “How disrespectful of the troops that his administration has sent into harm’s way as a part of the optional Iraq war who because of that ridiculous decision are now fighting actual terrorists.” And finally, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

The Republicans have long since lost their sense of decency. And the political hay they are making out of the tragedy which has afflicted this family is nothing short of shameful.

I can only hope that they reap what they sow at the ballot box, although after the last election, I’m none too optimistic about that.

Wolfie’s going to run the World Bank.

Mr. Bush gives the world his raised middle finger, yet again.

Harry Reid: “Wealth and power control most everything in this country. But one thing they do not control — wealth and power does not control the Internet.”

Yet. I’m sure the Republicans are working on turning the Internet into a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporate overlords.

Yes, after the ANWR vote, I have a pretty black perspective on things today. 3 years, 10 months to go…

The clear-cutting of America has begun.

Leave No Unspoiled Area Behind™.

Today, a California court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriages in the stage:

Judge Kramer swept aside the State of California’s argument that it was all right to define marriage strictly as a union between man and woman as long as same-sex couples enjoyed virtually the same rights as married couples.

“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal,” he wrote, alluding to the doctrine long used to justify racial segregation that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 had no place in public schools.

I’ve come a long way on this issue, and believe that this decision was the right one. Initially, I was a bit put off by the idea of legalizing gay marriage for one reason - I felt like it “de-sanctified the religious covenant I entered into with my wife.”

But then I realized that I was just being an ass.

What does NOT discriminating against people who want to enter into a CIVIL marriage have to do with the RELIGIOUS covenant I have with my wife?

The answer is nothing at all.

We don’t discriminate against divorcees. We don’t discriminate against people who get angry from time to time. We don’t discriminate against people who don’t tell the truth all the time. And these are issues that Jesus ACTUALLY talks about. Why then should we discriminate against a practice (and more importantly, people) that Jesus DOES NOT talk about at all?

The answer, of course, is that we shouldn’t.

I’m still grappling with understanding what the Bible has to say about homosexuality (I don’t believe it’s as clear cut as many religious conservatives make it out to be) and how that fits in with the grace Jesus showed us on the cross. But I AM sure where I fall on the issue of making sure that gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights as you and I - they should, and they must.

The day the Supreme Court rules (should they do so) that it is permissible to display the Ten Commandments on government property is the day that I start lobbying that we put the beattitudes up in the U.S. Capitol:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I suspect that the Right would be a bit less enthusiatic about this display, however. Mercy? Peacemaking? That’s not what Supply Side Jesus teaches us!

One reason for the high number of abortions in our country is the fact that we, as a country, seem not to give a damn about children once they are born:

The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world’s wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.

The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children’s agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty.

The figure is 22 percent of American children living in poverty. It continues to boggle my mind how the richest country the world has ever known has such a hard time providing even the basics for the least among its members.

UPDATE: Here’s how they define “relative poverty”:

The figures refer to relative poverty, which is defined as having an income below 50 per cent of the national median.

In 2003, the median income in the U.S. was $43,318. That means that poverty is defined as a family living on less than about $22,000 per year.

I recognize that many conservatives would argue that UNLESS we nominate right-wing judges, far more children will be killed due to abortion than would be killed by the death penalty. That is a fair critique, but I think the premise is flawed.

What would happen if the 5-4 majority in support of Rowe flipped the other way? The issue would go back to the states, where almost half of them are likely to keep abortion legal. It would also be legal in most of the rest of the world. Furthermore, many women would go underground for their abortions. The net effect is that we are unlikely to significantly reduce the number of abortions in our country simply by changing one justice, but we run the risk of doing irreparable damage to our country by having a court which is friendly to the Republicans’ “Constitution be damned” mentality.

The answer is not to do violence to the Constitution in order to make abortion slightly more difficult to obtain. Rather, the answer is to provide a safety net which prevents unplanned pregnancies from being a life sentence to poverty. And yes, the answer is also to have a realistic policy toward contraception which prevents unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

I just found out that until today, the United States and Somalia were the only two countries which executed children. I am thankful that today, Somalia stands alone. And I am thankful that once again, the courts are protecting the Constitution against those who would seek to choose what is expedient over what is right.

This is yet another reason to resist Mr. Bush’s right-wing judicial nominations - one day, the 5-4 majority may go the other way because of one of his hard-right nominees, and children will once again be executed in our country.

Salon has an interview with Elliott Currie, whose book, “The Road to Whatever: Middle-Class Culture and the Crisis of Adolescence” seeks to understand why so many middle class American teenagers are having such a tough go of it nowadays.

The interview is well worth reading, and I think Currie has some excellent insights. One thing he said which really resonated with me was the following:

One of the reasons these problems are getting worse is the hardening of the culture that lies behind this. Careless individualism has become our modus operandi. This behavior has roots in our individualist heritage, but it is sharpening in the 20th and 21st century. People are unwilling to take responsibility, unwilling to think about the consequences of their actions, whether it be barreling down the freeway in a Hummer and not caring about other drivers, other people, or the environment — it’s the same mentality.

There is a part of the gospels that we Americans have basically come to ignore (among others). It’s the fact that Jesus and the early church built a radically inclusive community which reflected the reality of the kingdom of heaven. 21st century Christians constantly talk about modeling their lives after Jesus, but when it comes to community, we tend to retreat into our reclusive American dream.

I certainly cannot claim to be guilt-free in this. Much of the idealism that I took out of my early days as a follower of Jesus in college have been replaced by a “real world” pragmatism as attempt after attempt at community has fallen short. In the end, my family’s life looks a lot more like 21st century America than the 1st century blueprint put forth by Jesus and the early church.

The question for me is this - how do we change this? Should we intentionally seek to live in the same neighborhoods as other members of our local Christian community? Is it practical to open our houses to our neighbors with the pressures of family and work? How can community form when we scatter in different directions each morning to work?

These are questions that I must grapple with again. Not only for myself and my wife, but most importantly for my children. For I believe that the blueprint put forth by Jesus is the blueprint for healthy families and healthy communities, the two things that are critical to producing healthy children, not to mention adults.