Andy's Intestinal Bloggage

... is a long time to go without clearing one's intestinal bloggage.

That's all I got though. It's like grunting and pushing and moaning and sweating and swearing that you just crapped an elephant, but when you turn around there's nothing more than a miniature chihuahua. One of the really tiny ones.

Such is life.

I approached the milestone of 2,000 dead American soldiers in the Iraq invasion/occupation with the knowledge that my quotes about it would be in an article in the Tech paper, the Daily Toreador. I gave the interview a couple weeks ago, I think. The article is pasted below. I sound like rather an ass in my comments about the political implications of the unpopularity of the war. I didn't know there would be such an emphasis on it, and I am not so great with words and things. I talk a lot about the lies surrounding the war and told Ms. Gepford about the Downing Street Memo, in hopes that she would actually go find out what it was and that, yes, the Bush administration was lying about what they knew about WMDs to lead us into war. But that would have made too much sense. Anyway, here it is, but first, my favorite quote from the Rude Pundit:

For if they place any significance on the number 2000, they will have to acknowlege that corpses have meaning, and if you stack 2000 of them up, it still does not equal the height of the pile of bullshit that took us into the war.

Okay,the article:

U.S. military deaths mark unwanted milestone as casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom reach 2000

By Anne Gepford/Senior Staff Writer

October 26, 2005

The U.S. troop death toll in Iraq today hit 2,000 since the conflict began in March 2003, according to The Associated Press.

Since President George W. Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq ended May 1, 2003, 1,860 members of the U.S. military have died. Of the total casualties, 1,706 of those as a result of hostile action, according to The AP count. More than 15,000 U.S. troops have been wounded since the war began.

With the U.S. troop death toll in Iraq increasing, the occupation of Iraq has split the nation, but the line between opposition and support does not parallel political party lines.

While politics can factor into a person's view toward the war, it is not the only underlying issue.

Senior advertising major Katie Thompson said her boyfriend of four months, is stationed in Tallil, Iraq, and she is worried for his safety. Thompson, from Paint Creek, said she deals with the situation in a different way than other people with friends and family in the armed forces.

"I try to stay away from the news whenever they're talking about Iraq," she said. "I worry too much. If I read more about it, I get caught up in it. I know his mom does the same thing."

Thompson said her boyfriend is expected to return in December, and it is hard not to be anxious.

"There's still a lot of resistance in the country that it's going to be a while before they're all unified," she said. "It'll be awhile before they're able to be on their own."

Thompson said the continuous attacks in Iraq show the instability of the country. She said she is ambivalent about the war itself.

"I totally support the soldiers that are doing this for their country, but I'm not totally sure how I feel about the whole thing in general," she said.

While Thompson remains unsure about her overall views, other Texas Tech students voice strong positions.

Andy Reay, a junior chemical engineering major from Albuquerque, N.M., said he does not support the war in Iraq.

"I think Iraq is the biggest travesty and lie that has been perpetrated on American people in a while," he said. "The dishonesty that this whole thing is based on is unbelievable. It makes me mad."

While Reay disagrees with the war in Iraq, Matt Fowler, a junior mechanical engineering major from Keller, said he believes it is more disgraceful that people are using the war as a political tool.

"Each death in the military is a tragedy," he said. "The people they've left back home have made sacrifices, but no sacrifice is greater than the one they have made. We should respect that and honor them and remember them."

Fowler said people in Iraq have more rights now than they ever did while under Saddam Hussein's rule.

"What we are accomplishing is positive," he said. "It pales in comparison with what happened under Saddam's rule."

Reay said there is not much anybody can do right now, as U.S. troops are somewhat committed in Iraq.

"Taking away the troops may be an even bigger sin for the Iraqi people," he said. "I don't necessarily think I know the right answer."

Reay attended the anti-war protest in August in Crawford and said the different perspectives among protesters were interesting, including the one that war is not justifiable ever.

"I don't necessarily share that view," he said. "There is such a thing as justified war. The main message of that protest was 'Bring the troops home now.'"

Reay said others have compared this war to the Vietnam War, but the number of deaths is not as high, even though the numbers are starting to increase after two and a half years.

"It's 2,000 too many for dishonest purposes. I'm glad there haven't been more, and I don't think there should be any more," he said. "You can't bring democracy to another part of the world when it's rooted in something that's untruthful."

Fowler also said he would not compare the numbers from this war to another.

"I think that's the big point. You don't have all the massive casualty figures," he said. "America has seen wars that we've lost thousands and thousands and thousands of people a day."

Reay said that despite the smaller numbers, too many people have died. He said there is total corruption in Washington, D.C., and the Republican Party will have trouble taking control in the 2006 and 2008 elections, partially because of the conflict in Iraq.

"It's the perfect opportunity, I would say, for the Democrats to get back in power," Reay said.

While the Democratic Party may be looking to gain political power, Fowler said he does not believe it will happen in upcoming elections because of what some of the main issues could be during the campaigns.

"The Republican Party as a group has proven in the past that they are strong on national security," he said. "If you're going to make an election on national security, the Republican Party is going to win."

While the elections and candidates are not campaigning yet, Reay said he is not sure whether the Democratic Party will gain any power in upcoming elections.

"I don't have enough faith in the Democratic Party that they'll actually seize any opportunity," he said.

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday, 55 percent of Americans said they would vote for a Democratic candidate over Bush if an election were held this year. According to the poll, 39 percent of people said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

Also questioned was Bush's approval, which 42 percent of people interviewed said they approved of the way Bush is handling his job, while 55 percent disapproved.

November 2004 was the deadliest month for the war, with 173 U.S. troops dying. Other months with at least 100 deaths include January 2005 and April 2004.

The safest month was February 2004, when 20 U.S. troops were killed.

So it's been awhile. I didn't post at all in September. In case you haven't noticed, I post when I am angry about something. I haven't been angry in awhile. But, since I am angry and therefore posting again, I may as well take the opportunity to catch you up on things.

First and foremost, I have ceased claiming to be a Christian. I had had a personal faith in whom I believed to be God and Jesus since I was about 12, but that personal faith gradually was replaced by irrepressible doubt, to the point that I did not honestly believe in the factuality of the "necessities" of Christian faith any longer. So continuing to claim to have faith became really only about convenience and protecting my personal relationships; that was a dishonest life, which I have left behind.

Since then, interestingly enough, I have heard some of the most refreshing, intriguing takes on Christianity that I have ever heard. There is a whole world of "liberal theology" that I suppose I was actively avoiding when I was a Christian that I have just now heard of, and it is fascinating. First off, I have been reading a book called Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom for...get this...Sunday school class. Yep. But I guess that will tell you a little about the church I go to here in Lubbock. Basically the book says the literal stories of all major religions (it focuses on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are garbage, completely unsupported by reliable historical evidence. I had never before considered the idea that Jesus was not even a real person; I always assumed there must be some historical evidence for the stories the Gospels told. Not the case, it seems. So yes, it was fascinating to read that, and I still have yet to read the second half of the book that relates how the teachings of those religions can be good and helpful to achieve spiritual awakening and a better world. I look forward to it, though.

I have also enjoyed the fascinating, novel (to me at least) views a new friend who came to believe in Jesus, not because of some fear of going to hell, but because of the call of Jesus' words (whether he was a real person or not) about social justice, peace, common humanity, and love in her life. I must say, those words still speak to me deeply, as they should to all people of conscience.

So yeah, that's what is going on with me. I am not an atheist. I do not believe there is no God. I just am not convinced there is. That is not enough fuel for a personal, depending, trusting relationship with God that the Bible outlines, so I gave up on it. I am now in a transitional period. I will never return to the brand of Christianity I once embraced; that is, Literalist (except for Genesis; I never bought that). But I can't deny the fascination these new experiences of Christianity and philosophy have caused.

But anyway, I mentioned I was angry. I'll tell you why in a minute. When I first admitted the failure of my faith and stopped claiming to be Christian, I did not think it was caused by my disgust with the behavior of "Christians" in this country; behavior that I have basically complained about on this blog incessantly for a year and a half now. For the most part, it really was just a lack of faith on my part. But now, in the last couple months, that I have seen the less morally and philosophically repugnant sides of Christianity more closely than I had before, I'm gaining a better perspective on how I could lose faith in a God whose representatives (whether they were right or not, which I believed the were not) preached a religion of moral and intellectual hegemony, chauvinism, and self-righteousness in the face of human suffering.

FOR EXAMPLE

Okay, regarding cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV), here is some background info:

The magnitude of the association between HPV and cervical squamous cell carcinoma is higher than that for the association between smoking and lung cancer.

Okay.

More frequently known as HPV, it is thought to be the most common sexually transmitted disease, infecting as much as thirteen percent of the world's population, which equates with about 630 million infected people.

Okay.

Gardasil, made by Merck & Co., has been found to be 100 percent effective against HPV and is expected to be available as soon as next year. According to a New York Times article, Gardasil "works by making people immune to two types of a sexually transmitted virus that causes most cases of the disease. It is the first successful vaccine ever developed specifically to prevent cancer."

Okay.

Pia de Solenni, director of life and women's issues for the conservative Family Research Council, states: "If a 10- or 12-year-old is given a vaccine to protect against sexually transmitted disease, then it's implied they'd be engaging in risky sexual behavior." Robert Knight, director of the culture and family institute for the conservative Concerned Women for America, says that "It enters into the area of parental rights and individual freedom."

And Bridget Maher, an analyst at the conservative Family Research Council, states that "The best way to prevent HPV is through abstinence...I see potential harm in giving this vaccine to young women." In another interview, Maher opines that "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex."

Does this need commentary? Well I'm out of practice on that, for sure. Maybe next time. But to the mass of people in this country who consider it their right - nay, religious duty - to thrust their sexual mores down the unwilling throat of society at the expense of human lives, let me just say I think I'll stick with Jesus being fictional, if your version of him is reality.

Back at school. The Crawford/Camp Casey event was amazing; the most relevant, meaningful event for me, I think, since my first show with Hit by a Bus, which, if you know me, was a big deal. Anyway, I hope to have some pics soon. I have to take a couple more to finish off the film, as I have not yet entered the digital age.

For those unfortunate enough not to have gone to Camp Casey yet, you still have a few days. In case you can't make it, I'll share a few of my observations about it. First off, I expected it to be more protest-like, in the sense of people carrying signs and chanting and stuff, but it wasn't at all. It was like being at a summer camp. A summer camp of dissent. In retrospect, I realize people wouldn't be able to carry signs and chant for a month straight.

Anyway, it is a really cool collaborative effort to run the camp, with food and cleaning up and directing traffic and security at night and planning events and making signs, etc., and everybody volunteers for something. That kind of business takes up most of the day, and they have events in the evening, and Joan Baez was there performing both nights I was there. She is really amazing; her show was pretty much storytelling mixed in with various songs (her own and other folk/traditional songs), and it was just superb; well paced and relevant throughout.

The most inspiring part of Camp Casey and the reason I am still gushing about it is the fact that everybody is there for a reason. You have to be, as the conditions (heat, bugs, hard to find, bad parking, etc.) are pretty unpleasant. Everybody has a reason, and they are all different, but they all converge on fighting the injustice of the immoral and illegal war in Iraq. I imagine it's like the excitement of being at a sports game (I only imagine because I've never really been very excited about being at a sports game), only the team you're cheering is literally right versus wrong, life versus death, truth versus lies. And the outcome of the game could determine whether many more people will get to live or die. There is a palpable feeling that Camp Casey and Cindy Sheehan's protest represent a significant moment in our history, when the lies surrounding the war begin tumbling down, and everybody is excited to be a part of it.

As I mentioned, different people have different motivations for being there. There were veterans and their familes, general peace activists/pacifists, people calling for the end of the war now (which is not necessarily me) and the group into which I fit: people calling for personal and political accountability for the president. My parents asked me before I left, "You don't think he can actually come out and talk to her now, do you?" I said of course not, but the longer he doesn't (so long as the protest is still in the media), the worse it looks for him, and the more chance of electoral defeat for the Republicans and supporters of the Iraq debacle in general. He deserves to be put into an impossible political position at least as much as, say, 1874 American soldiers deserved to die in a war based on deception. I should mention, in case you don't know it, that that is why I chose that Rage lyric (from which I regularly draw inspiration and/or solace) for the post's title: "We've found your weakness / And it's right outside your door." George Bush's weakness is the truth, and it's right outside his door. Or at least within a couple miles of it.

Another significant facet of the Crawford event is that "Support the Troops" is essentially the underlying theme. There are two locations filled with crosses for dead soldiers, pictures everwhere, a giant mural of Casey Sheehan, and the occasional candlelight vigil for the soldiers. We went to Waco yesterday and had an actual protest (chanting, signs, marching, etc.) over the upcoming closing of the VA hospital there, which also has a leading psychiatric program and the only (maybe?) program for blind vets. As far as I could tell there was nobody there joining in with us from the pro-war counter-protest (which, by the way, had about 5 to 8 people at the most when I drove by). So, even though people are beginning to realize it anyway, supporting the troops does not necessarily equal supporting the war, and certainly not vice versa.

Well, anyway, that's all I have to say about that, for now. If you get a chance, do your civic duty and go to Crawford. Or else go to Washington on September 24 when AccountabilityFest 2005 (not the real name) continues, right outside the president's door.

Now Testify.

I'm about to pack up the computer because I am heading back to school. But I am going early because I will be heading to the Camp Casey for Monday through Wednesday. I hope to bring back some pics.

Daily Kos has a collection of quotes from Republicans regarding U.S. involvement in Bosnia during the Clinton administration. Now, I know very little about that, as I was not paying much attention at the time (I was in elementary school), but the rich, chocolatey irony of all these statements in light of the present is simply delicious. Mmm...

Anyway, for your enjoyment, and to save you the trouble of clicking through, here is the Kos quotefest reproduced in its entirety:

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:


"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

To the dedicated bloggers out there with the patience and skill to really dig through everything and collect all these Golden Tickets of Right Wing Hypocrisy (and this, which I loved even more) into one source, you deserve a trip to the chocolate factory...or something.

I can't recall reading any better summary than this of why the idea that opposing the war is unpatriotic is the stupidest crap imaginable. Please take the time to read it.

Also...I don't know enough about the potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008 (although seriously, I don't feel too bad about it; that's a long, painful ways away), but the DLC types are a poison for the party. The idea that we'll only win by becoming more like the Republicans is garbage; if it were true, then Democrats would have done better in the last election. I hate to be so dramatic, but for me supporting the war in Iraq will be a deal-breaker for any candidate.

By "supporting the war in Iraq" I do not mean:

1. - Supporting the troops
2. - Calling for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until it is stable enough to take care of itself
3. - Having voted for the 2002 authorization for war (necessarily)

All those are just fine. What I mean is I will not support any candidate who:

1. - Claims that the Iraq war began as a valid part of the "War on Terrorism" or a valid response to September 11
2. - Claims that the invasion of Iraq was justified
3. - Does anything less than call the Bush administration out for lying to the American public about the reasons for the invasion

Again, I don't know where all of those Democrats who are rumored to run stand in regard to these criteria. But I will find out and weed them out accordingly. Why? Because good Americans and good Iraqis are dying because of the liars who orchestrated this fiasco; any Democrat on their side betrays both country and party. Also because any Democrat who does not meet these criteria will lose the race anyway. Americans are finally taking note of the lies about the war and the incompetency and malignance of those who are running it. Following this DLC nonsense is the quickest path toward another electoral defeat.

(more here)

UPDATE: And here:

"What Democrats need to start doing is grabbing that belt, pulling it out of their hands and saying, "Not anymore, Junior. Why don't you explain why you blew a spy's cover? Why don't you explain where all the money our soldiers need went? Why don't you explain why you tortured innocent people? Why don't you explain where Osama bin Laden is? Where is he? Where the bloody hell is he and why isn't he in jail right now watching his gallows being built outside his tiny little window? Huh? Huh? Got an answer for that, you overblown jingoistic piece of useless? Huh?

"What Democrats need to start doing is realizing that there's nothing wrong with them, except that they don't say, quite loudly enough to be heard over the noise machine, what's wrong with their opposition."