Convention planners, the White House and the McCain campaign are wrestling with how to choreograph a proper send-off for Mr. Bush — sure, his poll numbers are in the tank, but he is still the party leader and president of the United States — while hustling him out the door in time for Mr. McCain to look like his own man.

“It’s a very delicate situation,” said Brian Jones, a former communications director for Mr. McCain’s campaign who also was a top communications strategist during Mr. Bush’s 2004 run for re-election. “Even though the president is the president, this is going to be John McCain’s convention, and you want it to be about John McCain and what his presidency would be.”

. . .

“The president’s approval rating among Republicans’ base voters who are needed for a successful McCain campaign is relatively high,” Mr. Portman said.

That is the crux of the Republicans’ 2008 convention quandary. If the imagery coming out of St. Paul looks like a McCain-Bush hug fest, the Arizona senator will turn off voters who are through with Mr. Bush and want to move past him. If the imagery looks like Mr. McCain is trying to file for some kind of Republican divorce, it will turn off party conservatives who are already skeptical of Mr. McCain.

So Republicans may just have to grit their teeth.

“The assumption would be that there will be some kind of physical handoff,” said Mr. Jones, the former spokesman for both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain. “I think there is a sense that they would appear together. He is the sitting president; he’s still popular among hard-core Republicans; McCain has some issues with hard-core Republicans. Some people will say this was a bad way to play it, but I think it’s one of those things where you have to run through it, and do it, and embrace it.”

I’m betting that every moment that Mr. Bush spends onstage at the GOP Comvention is a moment where the GOP Senate candidates are going to grit their teeth, wishing fervently they were in their own states denying they were ever associated with Bush. Indeed, Gordon Smith of Oregon might not show for the convention, if he follows his pattern of allying with Barack Obama. Alas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota doesn’t have the option to bail from the convention, given that it is being held in his home state. All Coleman’s successful efforts to distance himself from Bush and the GOP may come to naught as Al Franken takes advantage by tying Coleman to Bush during the GOP convention. For more on the Senate problem for the Republicans, see this article in the Los Angeles Times.

So, what does John McCain decide to do in light of all these electoral problems posed by the Bush failures of the last eight years? He decides to focus on Bush’s biggest failures, or so it seems by McCain’s hiring of Rudy Guiliani’s Campaign Manager. Steve Schmidt is the former Guiliani Campaign Manager, and he exited that campaign having painted Rudy as someone who could only speak on 9/11. Let’s hope he brings the same kind of astute skills that resulted in Rudy winning ONE delegate to the GOP convention — that delegate sure is going to be lonely in Minneapolis, isn’t he? Maybe he could go to the Ron Paul convention instead.

Why would he hate me? Well, I didn’t go all gooey when Rudy Guiliani mentioned 9/11 in every other sentence. I’m not about to do so when John McCain does the same. Well, the story is that McCain is hiring Guiliani’s Campaign Manager. How many milions did Guiliani spend for one electoral vote? How effective was that 9/11 all the time campaign strategy? Not very, and it ain’t going to be pretty. I’m thinking this is a case of McCain incompetence that rivals that of President Bush hiring and praising Brownie.

But here he was. On Independence Day. Marching in a parade. Hosting a picnic for hundreds. Trying to rally support for his Presidential run. Trying to show that he can appeal to voters of every political, social, and economic demographic. His web site tells us he “shook hands, kissed babies, signed autographs and posed for pictures.” Patriotism just oozed out of his every pore.

Barack Obama is now as patriotic as the electorate wants him to be. During most of the primaries, he didn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel. He didn’t think wearing pins makes one patriotic, or not wearing one makes someone unpatriotic. But, the right-wing lambasted him for that. Now he wears a flag pin.

And every speech he makes, he is now flanked by several American flags. Just in case anyone thinks he isn’t patriotic. Or is a foreigner. Or worse, a Muslim.

Barack Obama has changed in other ways. Once he said he would pull the U.S. out of Iraq. End that war. Now, he’s calling for a phased withdrawal.

Once, he opposed innumerable pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the Bush-Cheney Administration—and which a Republican Congress rubber stamped. Now, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, he voted a bill that granted immunity to telephone companies that violated both established federal law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution when they voluntarily gave personal data about subscribers to the government.

Once, he said he would accept government restrictions and decline the excessive private contributions that have muddied politics. Now, with a campaign war chest at least two or three times greater than John McCain’s, he changed his mind and is taking whatever he can get—and doesn’t have to report who gave what.

Barack Obama isn’t the only politician to forsake some of his principles for the greater principle—do whatever it takes to get elected. Hillary Clinton moved more to the center when she began to think she could be the next president, and even voted for the renewal of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act. John McCain, by any standards a conservative, began playing even more to the right-wing when the evangelical Christians challenged some of his beliefs and voting record. Every politician, even the most maverick ones, say they need to get elected to do whatever it is they want to do. But, once in office they continue to do whatever is necessary to stay in office and get re-elected.

Barack Obama, like every other politician, needs to reflect upon the principles of what the Founding Fathers wanted. And maybe every politician should decide that on this Independence Day weekend, it is time to declare that once and forever they will follow their convictions, their beliefs, and declare themselves to be independent, now and forever, not only of special interests, but also of pandering for votes.

[Walter Brasch has covered politics and presidential campaigns more than 40 years. He is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, a syndicated columnist, occasional contributor to ASZ, and author of 17 books. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com and other stores.]

I don’t usually check in with ASZ while “downashore,” as they call it in Philly. Only something momentous could cuase me to do so, such as a casual meeting with Michael Smerconish at the ice cream shop, or with outgoing State Senator Vince Fumo on the beach (I’m not moved by Vince’s last speech in the State Senate.) Yeah, they both frequent this town, and I’ve written extensively about their lapses in the past. But we had momentous news this 4th of July, the death of Jesse Helms, and two comments by the Killer Bs, Greorge Bush and Pat Buchanon, have driven me to break out the laptop.

Jesse Helms has been retired since 2002, and, frankly, given what divisiveness and racist tactics have brought to the Republican Party, I expected few in public life to lend the press some kind words for their obituaries. Helms’ advertising campaign against Harvey Gantt in 1990 was a bald use of racism, and he kept his seat, not caring one whit for African American voters, while just a few years later the GOP was wondering why its stances are not attractive to African Americans. Perhaps they should have looked to North Carolina. Helms led the way in denying funds for AIDS research in an era when the main spread of AIDS moved from the gay community to the African American community, thereby insulting two groups of voters. (Helms wouldn’t even speak to Ryan White’s Mom.) Still the Republican establish stood in wonder at why some constituencies simply wouldn’t vote for them.

Wonder no more, Republicans, why so many constituencies in America have turned against you. Sure, the criminal involvement in the Iraq War is doing no good, but statements from President Bush yesterday, and from Pat Buchanon, show pretty conclusively why there’s just not much support nationwide for Republican leaders anymore. (Maybe there would be in North Carolina, though this year’s Presidential race might prove that worng.)

Without further ado, here’s President Bush’s words about Senator Jesse Helms, from this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Jesse Helms was a kind, decent and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called ‘the Miracle of America.’ So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July,” President Bush said in a statement.

I can find many words for Jesse Helms. Some of them might be complimentary. For instance, Mr. Helms was a staunch and reliable supporter of conservative causes, no matter how immoral and outdated. To be “staunch” is a good thing, no? But I could not use the word “kind,” given Helms’ treatment of the mother of Ryan White, an innocent young boy who suffered from AIDS, for it is clear Helms snubbed the boy as a political move so as not to show a chink in his anti-gay armour. A disgraceful move by Helms, that was one that should disqualify anyone from using the word “kind” in referring to him.

Pat Buchanon went one better than President Bush with his line in the same article:

Commentator Patrick J. Buchanan, speaking on MSNBC, put Sen. Helms in the company of the late President Ronald Reagan, calling the former senator “the second most important conservative of the second half of the 20th century.”

I suppose Pat Buchanon believes in his statement, and I might agree with it if what he meant was that Helms helped lead to the ruin of the conservative movement in the Republican Party. That would make Helms “important,” surely. But let’s take Pat Buchanon at face value. Other than the Bush campaign smear campaign in South Carolina in 2000, one racist enough to match Helms’ life work, I’m thinking Republicans generally steer away from anything that could be thought to form Jesse Helms’ legacy. Isn’t that the notion of “important” you’d think Buchanon means, that Helms is a model to Republicans? Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m betting there is nobody, not even Mitch McConnell, who would say they model themselves after Jesse Helms. Indeed, while Republicans fall all over themselves to mention Ronald Reagan in their speeches, I’m betting none refer to Jesse Helms while campaigning. Buchanon thinks the most poisonous figure in American politics in the last 60 years is the second most important conservative? No wonder conservatism is rejecting Republicans.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

These words come from the American Declaration of Independence.

Read them and understand.

This document was signed by our forefathers in order to declare their independence from the English crown. These were people who fought and bled and died for the idea that liberty and freedom were as essential to human beings as air and water.

We have disgraced their legacy.

There is a section of this document referred to as “The Indictment”. It contains an enumeration of the crimes committed by the King of England against the people of America. These crimes were so offensive that the signers risked life, limb, family and property to fight against them.

The whole indictment is a bit long to post in its entirety. You can read it easily enough on your own. However, I will include a few of the charges as they directly relate to the current situation in our nation.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Our President has done one better. He has signed bills, making them law and then used signing statements to equivocally state that he has no intention of actually following them because he views them as a ‘limit’ to his inherent power. A concept that our fore bearers would not have approved.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This sounds strangely like August of 2007 when, in a fit of petulance George W. Bush demanded that Congress remain in session in order to strong arm them into writing up a a bill to modify FISA to grant him the ability to violate the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens without repercussions. Additionally he threatened to keep them in session until they gave him a bill he “could sign”.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Like the King, our President has also obstructed justice. He used the power of commutation to insulate his political allies from justice while ruining the career of a loyal agent of the United States government. He denied investigators the security classifications required to conduct their investigations as mandated by Congress. He has stated this ‘his’ Justice Department will not pursue Congressional citations of contempt or inherent contempt. He has used the President’s power to classify information specifically for the purpose of preventing investigations into his criminal violations of federal law.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

In our case, the President has founded the Department of Homeland Security a monolithic federal umbrella agency with minimal oversight and unprecedented levels of power. Agents of the DHS, for example, the Transportation Safety Administration, have committed numerous abuses of power against Americans, including searches and seizures without court approval and have never been held accountable. There is documented evidence, for example that the Federal Bureau of Investigation abused national security letters in order to collect evidence in cases that had absolutely no connection to terrorism and in which they were unable to obtain legal warrants from real judges. He has also stepped beyond his constitutional authority when he ordered telecommunication companies to break the law, effectively creating another branch of government unaccountable to the People or to the Congress.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

Our President on his own authority has indefinitely incarcerated what may well be hundreds of innocent people without charges, thus violating of the prohibition of the suspension of habeas corpus ensconced in Article One Section Nine of the Constitution. Additionally, the President has admitted to authorizing the use of torture, directly violating both the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on the use of cruel and unusual punishment and the federal statutes outlawing the use of such practices.

When arrested in June of 2002 Jose Padilla, a native of Brooklyn, New York, was guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to have a speedy, public and fair trial by a jury of his peers. Yet he was held for almost four years. First as a ‘material witness’ and then as an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ until public pressure finally forced the administration to surrender to the civilian courts. He was found guilty in August 2007, rendering any argument by the administration that civilian courts were inadequate to try cases in the War on Terror to be fallacious. Guilty or innocent and irrespective of whatever else Jose Padilla was or had done, he was first and foremost an American citizen. His rights under the US Constitution were ignored.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

While the President has not outright suspended the legislature, he has used the unconstitutional tradition of executive privilege, state’s secrets, signing statements and executive orders to effectively neutralize any power the Legislative branch holds. For example, preventing Congress from exercising it’s powers of oversight by outright ordering Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers to ignore Congressional subpoenas and refusing to allow Karl Rove to testify under oath with a transcribed record. This effectively blocks the Congress of any ability to investigate the criminal behavior exhibited by the executive.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

In our case, our President has hired mercenaries to do the work of loyal American soldiers. These soldiers are not accountable to our government nor are they accountable to the government of the nation we are occupying. As such they have on at least one occasion exterminated unarmed civilians and have never faced any form of justice, American or otherwise.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Every time Congress or the American people have attempted to redress our grievances either through the courts or through Congressional oversight the President has used political maneuvers, propaganda and legal trickery to block us. We can see this in the unwritten and unconstitutional exemption of the office of the Vice President from the oversight of Congress. We can see this in the use of ‘Free Speech Zones’ during the 2004 election cycles. We can see it in the constant blocking of investigation into over three million lost emails. We can see it in the effective elimination of the Freedom of Information Office by moving it under the already corrupt Department of Justice. We can see in the blocking of investigation into the corruption and fraud ongoing in military contractors in Iraq and we can see it in the constant attempt to immunize telecommunication companies from lawsuits by American citizens.

This is not an exhaustive list and I do not adequately address the violations of federal anti-torture laws, the use of fraudulent evidence to make the case for war or the persistent violation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The President, the Vice President, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. All of these institutions were created by our forefathers in order to serve and protect the Constitution and by extension, the citizens of the United States of America. Yet they have forgotten that they are all merely civil servants. Not emperors or kings or prices or dukes or dictators. They are no better than crossing guards or librarians. Yet instead of doing the jobs that they were elected to do they have instead turned against us.

With few exceptions, they serve only themselves. Seeking only financial gain and to increase their own power. This is obvious to any thinking person who has bothered to investigate on their own. There is no such thing as ‘inherent executive power’ or inherent power of any other kind. Our founders stated that the power to govern is granted by the consent of the governed and by no other agency. Over 70% of our nation of over 300 million believe that we are on the wrong track, that we are not safer or more secure, that we are wasting lives and treasure and that our government has ceased to meet it’s obligations.

Yet despite all of this, we sit complacent and compliant. Like good little sheep. We gather around our barbecues and our pools and our lawn chairs and launch fireworks into the air in celebration of a holiday we obviously do not understand. We stand idly by while our rights and freedoms are summarily ignored. There are no major protests. No national strikes. No real indictments and no end to a war the majority of both Americans and Iraqis oppose. Even impeachment has been illegally and unconstitutionally declared ‘off the table’ by a coward who sits in the chair of the Speaker of the House.

So enjoy your burgers. Shoot off a few fireworks. Sit and watch your 97inch plasma screen. Relax while the President laughs, your nation crumbles around you and the Constitution that founded this government continues to be ignored.

But know this:
To ensure our freedom and liberty our forefathers risked not just everything they had. They risked everything and everyone that would come after them as well. They stood ready to die upon the principals in which they believed. Without their sacrifices we would still just be a large province in the British Empire. By our complacency and capitulation we have disgraced their memory and everything that they accomplished so many years ago.

We as Americans should be marching on Washington DC and demanding justice, not sitting around eating hot dogs. We should be out there every day banging pots and pans as Molly Ivins suggested. “We are the deciders” she said. Every single one of us should be out there making sure that the rights our founders secured for us with their own blood do not vanish with this generation.

Controversial former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms has died at the age of 86. The following two quotes from Jesse Helms are not, on their surface, offensive…which is why they are so important.

I believe they provide insight into understanding the motivations behind all of the other reprehensible Jesse Helms quotations. You see, what you will find in the hearts of many who are outspoken is an unfortunate and misguided righteousness derived from their religious beliefs. He had every right to his beliefs. Unfortunately, some of his actions suggest he didn’t support the same for others.

“I want our government to encourage and protect freedom as well as our traditions of faith and family.”

“I have tried at every point to seek God’s wisdom on the decisions I made, and I made it my business to speak up on behalf of the things God tells us are important to Him.”

Note in the first quote how the protection of freedom is modified by the need to support traditions of faith and family. In other words, freedom should be available to those whose notions of faith and family comports with his own. The inference is that those who do not support his notion of faith and family may not deserve the same freedoms.

In the second quote, we see the certainty to enact the beliefs expressed in the first quote…and to do so unabashedly. Again, this Helms quote implies that God spoke to him…which entitled him to speak his mind…regardless of who it injured.

Further, I suspect he was convinced that it also granted him the authority to pass legislation to abridge the rights of those who didn’t follow his interpretation of God’s edicts or to block the passage of measures intended to grant equality to those he deemed inferior.

Helms’ legacy is therefore a testament to intolerance and intransigence. Rather than see himself as a cog in the wheel of humanity, he saw himself as the pilot designated to steer the course of his fellow man. In the end, his legacy is steeped in arrogance and wholly lacking in the ability to demonstrate the very humanity he must have believed his actions were upholding.

And now the quotes that the history books will undoubtedly use when defining Jesse Helms…

“I’ve been portrayed as a caveman by some. That’s not true. I’m a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners, or niggers.”
- Jesse Helms, North Carolina Progressive, February 6, 1985, quoted from the Democratic Alliance.

“There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.”
(States News Service, 5/17/88)

“I’ve never heard once in this chamber anybody say to the homosexuals, ’stop what you’re doing.’ If they would stop what they’re doing there would not be one additional case of AIDS in the United State.”

“To rob the Negro of his reputation of thinking through a problem in his own fashion is about the same as trying to pretend that he doesn’t have a natural instinct for rhythm and for singing and dancing.”

“The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.”

“Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches.”
- 1995 radio broadcast

“She’s a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine.”
- Explaining why he was opposing the appointment of a woman for a cabinet post.

“They should ask their parents if it would be all right for their son or daughter to marry a Negro.”
- In response to Duke University students holding a vigil after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, 1968

“We’ve got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaged in unnatural acts.”
- Arguing for reduced AIDS funding, The New York Times, 1985

“These people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say,”…. He added, “They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It’s sickening.”
- From Variety

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Apparently, the hostages were freed without a shot being fired in a coordinated raid. There’s never been any news on whether militants were captured during the raid - and it’s doubtful that any were detained - because they left the hostages right where the military knew to find them.

Was it an intelligence coup of some sort, aided by the Bush administration? It’s not looking that way. In fact, it’s looking like a standard payoff to kidnappers; a $20 million ransom.

Forbes has the story:

Leaders of the Colombian FARC rebel movement were paid millions of dollars to free Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages, Swiss radio said on Friday, quoting ‘a reliable source’.

The 15 hostages released on Wednesday by the Colombian army ‘were in reality ransomed for a high price, and the whole operation afterwards was a set-up,’ the radio’s French-language channel said.

Saying the United States, which had three of its citizens among those freed, was behind the deal, it put the price of the ransom at some $20 million…

Seems cheap to me, for 15 hostages. But maybe FARC didn’t think it was going to do any better, and needed some cash.

Again, it’s not the release of the hostages which is bothersome. That’s a good thing. $20 million was a small price to pay to secure their release. It’s the timing of the events and the accounts of the release that have been suspect.

…and, on this day that the Founders declared their independence, it’s very appropriate to revisit the quaint little document that they produced.

My antipathy toward clowns has mellowed over the years, though, and I suppose that’s why I really enjoy any Simpson’s episodes in which Krusty the Klown plays a prominent role. (I’m sure that a shrink could dissect the whole thing for me.)

Anyway, Bozo died today.

There’s not much of a personal need for me to mark the passing of a clown. I had no ties to or fond memories of Bozo, even though he was a cultural icon during my formative years. Then again, maybe that’s the only reason that Larry Harmon’s death resonates with me just a bit.

I lost my own mother and father within six months of each other. The anchors from our childhood years leave us faster than we’d like. From a melancholia perspective, it’s probably more of a sense that with each passing, I’m closer to my own mortality. So even though I have no direct connection to Bozo, in a sense, I do. Everyone in my generation does.

For the most part, those of us in my age demographic are now the next in line for the grim reaper’s scythe.

It’s depressing sometimes. At other times, it’s liberating. All in all, I try not to dwell on it too much.

The following video discusses the latest efforts to promote intelligent design as a scientific theory, which is frankly little more than deliberate deception…and that seems to me to be contradictory to fundamental Christian values. Unfortunately, many of these zealots believe the end justifies the means. I doubt their creator sees it that way. Then again, I’m of the opinion that they created god in their own likeness so I’m sure they can give him any of the attributes they need to justify their actions.

Funny how that works…when they need a compassionate god, they cite the good works and kindness of Jesus…and when they need fire and brimstone, they conveniently pull from the Old Testament. Perhaps that’s the beauty of the Bible…it’s malleable enough such that most actions can be justified.

Anyway, the latest effort is a two pronged attack. The first, as discussed in the video is to argue that the academic freedoms of instructors are impinged when they are prohibited from teaching “the controversy”. In other words, since science, by its construct, is rarely offered as an absolute certainty, the creationists argue that the debate remains open as to the origins of the universe and should therefore be a legitimate component of science education. The following excerpt is an explanation of the issue from the religious perspective.

From Baptist Press:

BATON ROUGE, La. (BP)–In a first for any state, Louisiana has adopted an academic freedom law giving teachers greater protection and freedom in teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, something supporters of academic freedom in science call a significant step forward.

The law allows “open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” A statement on Jindal’s website June 26 said he had signed it along with dozens of other bills.

Robert Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, cited two reasons the law is needed.

“First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it,” Crowther wrote on Discovery’s science and culture blog June 27.

“Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do,” Crowther wrote.

Yes, proponents of these bills are careful to avoid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design as religious concepts in conflict with evolution. Instead, they want to open the door to teaching them by contending that evolution is just one theory. That brings us to the second component of their argument…which contends that the fundamental issue is a question of “strengths and weaknesses”. The New York Times provides a good explanation in the following excerpts.

From The New York Times:

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

” ‘Strengths and weaknesses’ are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists,” said Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that promotes religious freedom.

The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file “academic freedom” bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country.

As you can see, there is no limit to the effort to undermine science and substitute Biblical doctrine. If these folks can’t succeed in the courts, they try the legislature. If they can’t succeed in the legislature, they seek to stack the school boards. Regardless, at each juncture, they refine their arguments to overcome the obstacles that have previously precluded the implementation of their absolutist ideology.

Sadly, those who are promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible are willing to exploit the uncertainty that comes from a commitment to scientific integrity…a commitment that is clearly the backbone upon which academia has been structured. Instead, those who believe they already have all the answers are not constrained by humility and frequently demonstrate a disregard for the complexity of all that exists. Such is the nature of absolute intransigence.

Below the video, I’ve included a graphic I found on the web a while back. I’m posting it because it provides a level of reason and rationality that is so often absent in the efforts of those who are intent on undermining science. Please click on the image to view it full size.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

“We’re at war!” he shouted, hyper-kinetically upset.

“Of course we’re at war,” I said. “Bush diverted resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Been at war five years.”

“Not that war,” said Marshbaum. “This is bigger. China invaded our homeland. We’re under attack. And thanks to a 5–4 decision by the Supremes, me and Ole Betsy will defend my home from the Commie invaders.”

“You been watching too many recycled Cold War films?” I asked. “China is our trading partner. They loaned us billions to reduce our exorbitant unbalanced budget. Their factories are producing goods for the American consumer almost as fast as Washington politicians have been producing verbal diarrhea.”

“The Chinese have launched rockets at us. We don’t have much time.”

“I didn’t see anything on the 24/7 news channels about an invasion.”

“Of course not,” said Marshbaum, “they’re too busy tracking celebrity weddings, break-ups, and drunk driving arrests.”

“Even the worst journalist would pick up on an invasion of the U.S,” I said.

“Yeah,” he replied sarcastically, “like they picked up on the PATRIOT Act violating a half-dozen constitutional amendments? Like they figured out the Bush–Cheney Oil and Screw Corp. lied to them about Iraq, the environment, the housing crisis, the economy, and how to make barbecued burritos?”

“But war with China?” I asked skeptically…

“China!” he said authoritatively. “Largest Communist country in the world. More than a billion people. Largest Army in the world. While the politicians focused on being nasty to Cuba, which has only 11 million people and hardly any weapons, the Chinese have been getting ready to invade us. It’s been a sneak attack that started years ago. Some of the best students in American colleges are Chinese. They’re the cadre for the take-over, and it’s less than a week away!”

“I assume you have evidence,” I asked, playing along with Marshbaum. After all, I had no idea how deadly a blunderbuss could be, especially if I was in the same room with one.

“Tents,” said Marshbaum. “Thousands of tents have been set up the past two weeks on every major road in America. They’re ammunition depots. Come July Fourth, the Chinese students will stop getting perfect scores on their SATs, join their comrades from all the Chinese buffets, go to the tents, activate the weapons and blow us all sky high with Roman Candles and Multi-break Shells. Dahlias, Willows, and Rings. An arsenal of destruction!”

“They’re fireworks!” I told my naive friend. “Fireworks! Jefferson, Madison, and the patriots started the revolution so we could eat hotdogs and potato salad, then shoot off a color spectacular and get a three-day weekend.”

“For a journalist, you’re even denser than I thought.” And so he walked me through his logic. “Ninety-Eight percent of all fireworks we use for July Fourth are made in China.”

“I see no evidence of war here,” I said. “The Chinese also supply most of our toys and just about anything that winds up at the Dollar Store.”

“Do you think the largest army in the world would be content to stay in Asia and eat sushi all day?” I disregarded the anomaly that sushi is a Japanese dish, but when Marshbaum is on a roll it’s hard to divert him with logic. “Come July Fourth, they’re going to shock and awe us with their fireworks, play a Tchaikovsky overture, and then take over the rest of America.”

“The Olympics are only about five weeks away,” I reminded him, “why would the Chinese attack us when it’s hosting the leading display for unity and peace?”

“Because they need more emaciated squeaky-voiced gymnasts,” he said, “and we’ll be so grateful to get rid of them and those snooty equestrians as well that we’ll wave flags to honor China.”

“Americans are going to wave Chinese flags? That’s ridiculous!”

“American flags,” said Marshbaum. “Most flags and flag pins—you know the ones the semi-patriotic American politicians always wear—are made in China.” Marshbaum thought a moment. “Maybe their Army won’t need to invade us. They’ve already defeated us.”

[Dr. Brasch, an award-winning syndicated columnist, is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, president of the Pennsylvania Press Club, and occasional contributor to ASZ. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush (November 2007), available through amazon.com and other bookstores. You can contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com.]

Here’s a bit of the story from the New York Times:

A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

I’m no expert on constitutional law, but this looks to be a case that could challenge the immunity many Senators are trying to give telecom companies for bending over backwards to the Bush Administration spying on ordinary Americans. Sure, a court in California allowed free speech for people who were talking very ugly. It seems to me appropriate that they should protect citizens from being spied upon at the same time.

A federal appeals court gave an anti-abortion group the go-ahead Wednesday to drive trucks with enlarged photos of aborted fetuses past California schools, saying the Constitution protects the display of disturbing messages.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies interfered with free speech by ordering the driver of one such truck to move away from a middle school, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The deputies had cited a state law barring disruptive activities near public school grounds.

“The government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear or even anger,” said a panel of three judges - Harry Pregerson, Marsha Berzon and William Fletcher, all considered liberals.

To be constitutional, the state law can prohibit speech that is disruptive because of the way it is expressed - for example, through a blaring loudspeaker - but not because of its content, said Pregerson, the author of the ruling.

Free speech is a fundamental right, no doubt. But there has to be something wrong in the head for people to present this ugly and gory message to school children. It surprises me not that these radical right wing Christian conservatives think this is just OK.

Still, I applaud the Court. It is not their fault that some people in this country can be so ugly and distasteful.

Santorum’s column concerns the conflict between the City of Philadelphia and the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America. As an Eagle Scout, I’ve been concerned about this issue for a long time, writing about it here, here, here, and here. Of course, for Santorum the Boy Scouts are the saviors of the Inner City against the combined forces of the ACLU, radical feminists, teachers’ unions and pornographers. I’m quite surprised Santorum did not throw in welfare queens, Islamofascists and liberal activist judges legislating from the bench into the mix here — it’s almost like a formula for this guy to just throw blame at these groups without need to put forth one bit of evidence. Oh, Rick Santorum probably thinks he has put forth evidence, but assertions are not evidence, and neither is the referencing of a book title. From Santorum’s Inquirer column, “The Elephant in the Room: Boy Scouts could ease city woes; leave them alone:”

Are public schools “the answer?” Thanks to the ACLU, liberal feminists and teachers unions, our government-run bureaucracy, as Christina Hoff Summers’ book title says, has waged war against boys.

Liberals have largely run our great cities for the last half-century, but not many of them dare cross powerful special interests like the ACLU and the teachers unions, radical feminists or Hollywood and First Amendment absolutists (read pornographers).

Yeah, there it is, Santorum blaming nearly all of the bogeymen that the Republican Party holds profane. Of particular note here is Santorum attempting to prove his argument by calling on a supposed authority, Christina Hoff Sommers, but not referencing her ideas. Santorum is so lame that he references only the title of Sommers’ book! Does he not have the bare intellectual curiosity to dig and note that Sommers does indeed go after an influential feminist and her ideas, Carol Gilligan’s developmental psychology theories. It isn’t enough to note here that Sommers attacks Gilligan on the grounds of reportage and not on the grounds of psychology and careful experimentation, upon which Gilligan’s theories are built. It is enough to note that Santorum shows no sign that he has any apprehension of the issues Sommers addresses. Gilligan is not, as Santorum tries to claim, a radical feminist. He’s factually wrong on that assertion. Indeed, Santorum is wrong about the spelling of Sommers’ name, though I’m sure if confronted, Santorum, like any Republican, would blame the editors for his own incompetence.

Am I on a roll yet? Look, Santorum’s throwing the blame on the public schools is particularly offensive. He does so in favor of all sorts of faith-based organizations that he thinks have helped families more than anything in our country’s history:

Historically, the most potent forces to help families are churches and street-level civic organizations (many of them faith-based). Yet they’re a problem for liberals, since most are not controlled by the government or are morally traditionalist. They often come under assault by a liberal establishment bent on imposing its own politically correct perspective on them.

No, I am not here to praise public schooling, though it seems clear if one looks closely that public schools in the big cities are the ones that have failed, while the schools in the suburbs have thrived over the years. That suggests, does it not, that public schooling isn’t the problem, but likely something else determines the disparity between city schools and suburban ones. Keep in mind Rick Santorum was rather famous in his failed Senate race in 2006 for homeschooling his kids on the public dime, even though he did not qualify for such benefits. His views on schooling are clearly biased, and in this article, simply wrong.

That’s not the only place where Rick Santorum is wrong. He is factually wrong when he describes the City of Philadelphia’s stance on the Boy Scouts, and he distorts Philadelphia’s long relationship with the Boy Scouts as well:

Here in Philadelphia, the lethal threat to liberal orthodoxy and our young men is an organization whose aim is - don’t read this aloud to small children - to teach boys to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent and (shudder) to be morally straight.

This, of course, deeply offends one of the most powerful special-interest groups of the new left, the radical gay activists. To them the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, which for the record has what amounts to a don’t ask, don’t tell policy toward gays, is the moral equivalent of a malicious street gang that must be banished from the community.

This “gang” of 70,000 young men has been headquartered in the same building on Logan Square for 80 years - a building the scouts themselves erected, invested $1.5 million into in 1994, and spend about $60,000 annually to maintain.

But now the city would like to evict them via the back door. It wants to change their current agreement and force them to pay $200,000 in rent, a sum that city officials know the scouts cannot afford.

The reason: The scouts insist on holding true to their moral and faith-based principles that offend some powerful voices in the gay community.

No, the City of Philadelphia is doing no “back door” manuevers to discriminate against the Cradle of Liberty Council. All of its actions have been out in front of the public for several years now. That’s a false and misleading point on Santorum’s part. Santorum’s sarcasm in describing the Boy Scout mission is weak as well. If he knew anything about the oaths I took as an Eagle Scout, he’d know that honoring all one’s fellow, law-abiding citizens is vital, and the discrimination the Boy Scouts perpetrate against gay citizens is surely legal, but it is discrimination nonetheless. Further, Santorum is wrong to say that the City of Philadelphia has bowed to “radical gay activists.” That is another distortion that offends the duly elected officials of Philadelphia and the citizens who elected them. In our city we will not stand for discrimination, nor will we support such discrimination with public dollars. That’s the crux of the issue here, which Santorum simply ignores as if he thinks his version of faith trumps democracy every time.

Earlier in this essay I implied that Mr. Santorum let the Islamofascists off the hook. Not so fast. Santorum’s most egregious offense in this essay is the use of that Islamofascist word “jihad” to describe the actions of our Mayor Michael Nutter, overwhelmingly elected by the people:

That’s why I just don’t understand Mayor Nutter’s jihad against the Boy Scouts.

There’s no excuse for this kind of offensiveness. It is mean-spirited, especially when one considers Santorum’s famous antipathy towards Muslims. It is also sloppy writing that describes not one little bit the actions of Michael Nutter or the City of Philadelphia. But that’s become the Hallmark of Rick Santorum’s columns in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He’s simply a bad and irresponsible writer. He’s prone to logical fallacies, gross oversimplifications, mischaracterizations and sloppiness. the one scholar Santorum cites gets her name misspelled. He frames the issue dishonestly. His characterization of the Boy Scouts is incomplete and so imbued with sarcasm as to tar them and their mission. And Rick Santorum is needlessly insulting. Perhaps, though that is highly debatable, the Philadelphia needs another conservative voice beyond Michael Smerconish, but they don’t need the incompetence that is writ large across nearly every Rick Santorum column. Certainly the readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the citizens of this fine city do not deserve the insults Rick Santorum hurls their way.

A couple of months back, the legacy media (and the blogosphere) was all a-twitter about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Texas, and their predilection toward marrying off their youngun’s at an early age. Perpetuating the cult, as it were. The authorities intervened, and hundreds of children were taken into state custody to protect them from their cult leaders.

Since then, the Texas courts have ruled that the state had no business taking the children from their parents, in the absence of hard evidence of abuse. Now, reasonable people can argue that marrying off a 13 year old girl to a forty year old man would constitute pedophilia writ large. And it’s hard to contest that argument. The problem is: no evidence was ever presented that this was actually happening, or that the alleged pregnant teenager that kicked off this whole bruhaha (again, allegedly married to an older man in the cult) was a true story.

It’s not that something wasn’t weird here. There’s certainly room for questioning the motivations of the cult, particularly with any child below the age of legal consent. Still, as of last week, the children taken from the FLDS compound were being returned (rightfully) to their parents.

And now, the marketing opportunities emerge. My guess is that the FLDS has already inked a deal with some production company to create a television documentary (or movie) of the situation in Texas. It only makes sense. The prurient interest alone would draw high ratings on HBO or in a movie theater near you. Perhaps HBO could market the “expose” of FLDS in conjunction with the next season of Big Love. But, FLDS is not waiting for the glacial speed of Hollywood production.

They’ve got a new website up to market traditional LDS clothing! I am really sensing a developing fashion trend here.