"The group’s main objective is to help refugees and people who have lost their homes or are sick and hungry as a result of the war, Graham told Beliefnet. 'We realize we’re in an Arab country and we just can’t go out and preach,' Graham said in a telephone interview from Samaritan’s Purse headquarters in Boone, N.C.

However, he added, 'I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son….We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ...."

'This is not just a great opportunity to do humanitarian work but to share God's love,' said Sam Porter, state disaster relief director for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. 'We understand that the individual people of Iraq have done nothing to hurt us. We want to help them to have true freedom in Jesus Christ.'”

The group organizing the effort is Graham's Samaritan's Purse, essentially a missionizing group who uses international disasters as an entre for spreading the word. And Franklin himself called Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."

For the sake of clarity, let me underscore that Samaritan's Purse is not affiliated with the federal government, nor is this a government initiative. But whether those distinctions are relevant to Iraqis, now looking at the prospect of having their post-war suffering tended to by missionizing Christians, is not as clear.

[Correction: Atrios points out that Samaritan's Purse does receive federal aid. And so the plot thickens.]

"The Administration hawks seem oblivious, too, of the consequences of a unilateral, imperial-style occupation of Iraq. They welcome it. By embracing imperialism frankly—by proclaiming that the goal of their policy is the maintenance and expansion of unchallenged power—they congratulate themselves as honest and hardheaded. The Administration hawks seem oblivious, too, of the consequences of a unilateral, imperial-style occupation of Iraq. They welcome it. By embracing imperialism frankly—by proclaiming that the goal of their policy is the maintenance and expansion of unchallenged power—they congratulate themselves as honest and hardheaded."

The article has the quality of an historical account written in the present tense. Much as histories are written, Remick describes the context from which failures arise for the administration.

"Russia, which is led by a former colonel of the K.G.B., still deeply resents its decline, and what it sees as a string of broken American promises. At various points, we promised not to hasten the unification of Germany, not to expand nato, not to dispense with the A.B.M. treaty. In each case, we did what we wanted, simply because we felt it was in our interest and because we could. The new conservative theology too often seems to combine power with a preening delight in brandishing it; the very notion of coöperation is suspect."

His analysis is underscored by a wonderful quote, which might have sufficed on its own (except that he's not paid to locate quotes, but to make them). From Eisenhower's speech in London on June 12, 1945.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.

"Conceivably a commander may have been professionally superior. He may have given everything of his heart and mind to meet the spiritual and physical needs of his comrades. He may have written a chapter that will glow forever in the pages of military history. Still, even such a man—if he existed—would sadly face the fact that his honors cannot hide in his memories the crosses marking the resting places of the dead. They cannot soothe the anguish of the widow or the orphan whose husband or father will not return.

"The only attitude in which a commander may with satisfaction receive the tributes of his friends is in the humble acknowledgment that no matter how unworthy he may be, his position is the symbol of great human forces that have labored arduously and successfully for a righteous cause."

The President seems to love to imagine himself pyschic kin to Churchill and Roosevelt. Eisenhower's speech and Reminck's article remind us that there was a lot more to those figures' stature than valiant armies.

Ljubljana - The United States has mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq - and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict.

One day after hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets to protest the inclusion of their nation in the US war budget, Prime Minister Anton Rop said Washington had goofed...

"We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace," Rop said.

Lesson: offer more than pocket change when bribing foreign countries (not everyone's as poor and desperate as Oregon, after all).

• Our PURPOSE is to reach leaders for Jesus Christ.

• Our OBJECTIVE is "Pray for all in authority, that we might lead Godly lives."

• Our STRATEGY is to use Prayer Breakfasts. The acceptance of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country's Spiritual Heritage."

In the Harper's article, the author identifies several known Family members who are in the House of Representatives, including Jim DeMint (SC) and Josph Pitts (PA), both of whom are listed as co-sponsors of this resolution.

Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but here's the title of the bill:

Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

Again: securing the blessings and protection of Providence. Providence, for those of you who didn't go to Catholic school, is (according to Webster's): "Foresight; care; especially, the foresight and care which God manifests for his creatures; hence, God himself, regarded as exercising a constant wise prescience."

Thus the House of Representatives has passed a resolution calling for prayers that God intercede on the United States' behalf against a Muslim country.

Let's leave aside for the moment the Constitutional issues (the resolution was non-binding). Let's instead look merely at the strategic implications of such a public move. The US is at war against a Muslim country. Its standing throughout the Muslim world is just slightly better than Israel's. We're so unpopular in the Muslim country we're attacking that the locals would prefer the 30-year reign of terror continue rather than welcome Amercans to "liberate" them. And now 346 Christian politicians have called on God to defeat the Iraqis.

What in the hell were they thinking?

"WASHINGTON -- The House passed a resolution Thursday calling for a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.

The resolution, passed 346-49, says Americans should use the day of prayer 'to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.'"

Well hell, shock and awe didn't work, how about a little of the Almighty? This is remarkable. Is Washington really so out of touch with the situation in Iraq that it can't see the potential for the intense hatred this will inspire?

From the text of the resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

Oh man....

Washington
"(March 19, 2003) OLYMPIA --The state House passed an anti-terrorism bill a few minutes before midnight, sidestepping a fight over gun control that had threatened to stall the measure.

"Requested by Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, House Bill 1210 would create six new terrorism-related crimes, including possession of a weapon of mass destruction, making terrorist threats, and providing material support to terrorists."

New York
"(March 22, 2003) Donohue has been touring the state this week to put pressure on the Democratic-led Assembly to pass an anti-terrorism bill pushed by Gov. George Pataki and the state Senate.

"Among the many provisions, the bill would authorize 'roving' wiretaps to make it easier for authorities to listen to calls of suspects using one or more cellular phones. The bills also would create the crime of cyberterrorism and widen the ability of law enforcement to prosecute potential terrorists.

"The legislation came under fire this week from defense lawyers and the New York Civil Liberties Union, who claim it would infringe on citizens’ rights and constitutional guarantees.

“'They would create extraordinary new police powers that would undermine basic freedoms,' said Robert Perry, the union’s legislative counsel."

Nevada
"(February 27, 2003) CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- The author of an Assembly anti-terrorism bill that's less sweeping than a Senate proposal said Thursday he's open to even narrower wording to ensure Nevadans' civil liberties aren't threatened.

"Brown's bill has several descriptions of terrorism, including one that defines it as an act that would 'disrupt, affect or influence the conduct or policy of a governmental entity by intimidation or coercion.'

"AB99, as amended, would outlaw 'any act that involves the use or the threatened or attempted use of sabotage or violence' to cause such disruptions, or to retaliate against a government agency or 'cause widespread panic or civil unrest' through attacks that result in 'substantial destruction.'"

Oklahoma
"(March 17, 2003) Oklahoma City (AP) - A state House committee today approved bills giving law enforcement agencies more power to investigate suspected terrorists.

"One bill by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee authorizes vaccination programs for teams that would respond to a bioterror attack.

"Another bill gives the attorney general authority to ask for wiretaps of terror suspects and allows the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to investigate terrorism. It also allows for closed-door meetings for officials to assess and discuss acts of terrorism and exempts documents involving terrorism assessments and response plans from the Open Records Act.

"The bills have already passed the state Senate and now go to the full House for action."

It doesn't hurt to repeat: there are inadvertant, negative consequences to war.

"What person in his or her right mind actually believes a man like George W. Bush will change his views on the basis of a peace march, no matter how huge?

"The history of the Vietnam War shows clearly how ineffective protests are. No other war in American history had as many active opponents, and no other war lasted as long."

As a rebuttal, let me offer an example from our own little corner of the world. Here in Portland, we have a healthy (though under-celebrated) protest corps. But the local paper is center-right: it urged readers to vote Bush and it supports the war. Early articles were decidedly negative about the protesters. Not, I think, intentionally; everyone was in shock about the war, and for those with traditional, support-our-troop views, the early, loud protests were unseemly. But the protests continued every day, and increasingly, the discussion about the war and protests has changed. Listen:

"From bridges or helicopters, they blend into indistinguishable masses. Up close, they are of all ages, and they come from a wide spectrum of backgrounds and beliefs. They are united, however, in one thing: They all oppose the war in Iraq."

The local paper decided to give the protesters a fair shake, and the results are remarkable. For 24 hours, a reporter and photographer followed the protesters and wrote a wonderful piece about their lives and their views. Read it here.

It humanizes and gives voice to the anti-war movement. Much like the dozens of soldier profiles the media prepares, this one paints a sympathetic portrait of Americans with strong, patriotic views. I think it would be impossible to read it and not feel inspired by their voices.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate reversed itself Tuesday and voted to cut President Bush's proposed $726 billion tax cut in half, dealing a blow to the keystone of his economic recovery plan.

A week after refusing to do so, senators voted 51-48 to reduce the tax reduction's price tag to $350 billion through 2013. Bush has said his plan - which would eliminate taxes on corporate dividends and reduce income taxes - is needed to create jobs, boost investment and spur the slumbering economy.

It's a victory, but for whom? The spinmeisters are spinning. Atrios calls it advantage Democrats. But Dave Johnson and Ruminate This howl foul: three fitty's a pretty decent tax cut. Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer's still talkin big: "We'll see what the ultimate outcome is, if that vote is the final vote. They have many more to come."

But I think the real story is buried in paragraph 17:

Just Friday, the Senate voted 62-38 to reject a similar move to pare Bush's tax plan in half. That plan would have taken the additional money Bush wanted for tax cuts and used it for deficit reduction.

Let's see, last Friday. Oh right--back when everyone thought the war was going to be a cakewalk. When all the spinning is done, expect senators to look at the collapsing economy, out-of-work constituents, and insolvent states and then look at the war tally and quietly drop the tax cuts to nil.

• From ally during the Iran/Iraq war to foe during the Kuwait invasion (even leaving aside the issue of whether the US gave permission to invade);

• Failure to take Saddam out during the Kuwait debacle, which placed pro-American supporters at Saddam’s mercy;

• Iraqis watched as the US twice sold out the Kurds, most recently offering Northern Iraq to Turkey as part of the pay-off for Turkish land.

Into that context rides George W. Bush, a wild-eyed cowboy who smugly ignores international will. When the issue of Iraq arises, he ignores the UN. And when the war begins, he tries to achieve compliance through the practice of “shock and awe.”

Let’s see now, why exactly did we think the Iraqis were going to run into the streets with open arms?

I’m not a very good informant on all of this. Like others, I’m having a hard time mustering the strength to watch this all play out. So maybe it will turn out all right. Maybe the Iraqis will put down their guns. I know the US won’t, so I hope the Iraqis will. All I sense is a lot of death in the offing. But I have to admit, I can’t blame the Iraqis for not laying their guns down—I wouldn’t trust George, either. It’s a horrible crime that the Iraqis have to pay the price for America’s history of betrayal.

(I know, I know, you’re gonna torch me with that Chomsky anti-American argument. But before you do, look at it from the perspective of the average Iraqi resident.)

SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.

More on it in this article.

It's absurdly unconstitutional, and is really just a stunt by Republican congressman John Minnis to demonize the sizeable number of anti-war protesters who continue to pester the city of Portland. But the fact that it's going to occupy time at the Oregon capitol should underscore an argument I've been trying to make here for the past week: America absolutely does not want to hear the anti-war message.

Some of you have advanced the “ends justify the means” argument with regard to the war—things are going well there (except now they’re not, particularly), so what’s the fuss?

Well, how’s this for one answer?

"Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security.

"The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006.

"The new policy would also permit reclassification of documents that have already been made public, and give the Central Intelligence Agency special authority to resist decisions by an interagency panel that considers classification appeals, typically from researchers."

| link |

Again: the war may be successful. But at what cost to our democracy?

Democracy proceeds from a more adventurous premise, its structure akin to a suspension bridge rather than to an Egyptian pyramid, its strength dependent upon the complicity of its citizens in a shared work of the political imagination. The enterprise collapses into either anarchy or tyranny unless the countervailing stresses oppose one another with equal weight, unless enough people possess enough courage to sustain the dialectic between the government and the governed, between city and town, capital and labor, men and women, matter and mind.

Defined as a ceaseless process of change, democracy assumes the pain of contradiction and new discovery not only as the normal but also as the necessary condition of existence. As has been said, a hard act to perform, and one that failed and was abandoned by nearly every country in Europe n the generation between the First and Second World Wars. In place of truthful and therefore possibly unpleasant argument, the Bush Administration offers warm and welcome lies, advising us to lay aside the tool of thought and rest safely on the pillows of glorious and world-encircling empire. We accept the invitation at our peril."

“What are we doing to make sure that not another woman is raped or beheaded as a form of political terror? What are we doing to make sure that not another man is humiliated and rendered mute and powerless as the ex-general was? What are we doing to shut down the headquarters of General Intelligence? In the community of human rights monitors, work toward these goals is heroic and often dangerous. These would seem also to be urgent goals for all who consider themselves progressive. But for the most part, in all the angry debate over the war, the left rarely discusses these issues. We acknowledge Saddam as a ruthless dictator and lament his human rights abuses, but we focus our rage on Bush.”

War is a time of extreme chaos. As people slide into increasingly reactive states of mind and opinion, it’s critical to remind ourselves why this is a bad war: not for leftists or anti-Bushies or pacifists, but for America.

The Pre-emption Doctrine
This war is the first war of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. The White House has given many reasons why we should invade Iraq, but this is the heart of the argument: because of the “clear and present danger” Iraq poses to the United States, the US is justified in taking a pre-emptive strike. That the US is its own final arbiter in choosing which nations to attack—and when and how—was made clear when the it ignored the will of the UN and began bombing Baghdad today.

The precedent this doctrine establishes is as counter to the United States’ ideals as a democratic nation, and it places the country outside the scope of international law or world oversight. Whether this is relevant to American citizens isn’t exactly the point: rather, the very position the US has placed itself strategically—as an uncooperative member of the world politic—should alarm a nation fighting terrorism.

The Moral War
The second-most cited argument for this war is that we must defeat a ruthless dictator. This argument is well-established; it’s the emotional counterbalance to the realpolitik of pre-emption. It is the argument that appeals to good-hearted people, from Ma and Pa Main Street to Edward W. Lempinen to President Bartlett on the West Wing. But it is a hollow and simplistic argument.

1.) There are some dozens of dictatorial regimes throughout the globe. If the United States is prepared to make the argument that it is going on a campaign of ridding the world of tyrants, so be it. But: let’s have an open dialogue about which regimes are going to be targeted; let us hear which countries are next and why they are more or less dictatorial than others on the list; let’s be very clear that impediments like, say, the presence of nuclear weapons, will not deter us from our righteous cause. If a country is prepared to make foreign policy priorities based on the protection of human rights and liberty, it better damn well get in the business of protecting human rights and liberty—not just use it as an excuse when the opportunity arises.

2.) If the US is serious about protecting human life and liberty globally, Americans should demand that it sever ties with famously repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. If we’re about human life and liberty, then we’re about human life and liberty.

3.) If the US is sincerely committed to the protection of human rights, we should expect to see serious cooperation with foreign governments at all levels—not just invasions when it suits the White House. This means addressing the economic, natural resources, nutritional, educational, and medical needs of the countries that are destabilized by these problems. It means seriously dealing with Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, Russia-Chechnya, and so on.

On a less hyperbolic note, if the White House is serious about addressing human rights around the globe, we should expect a very serious articulation of this plan, as fully formed as the pre-emption doctrine. Americans are prepared to give the President latitude here, but not based on the mendacious, craven arguments he has thus far advanced.

The Safety Argument
The final significant argument advance by the proponents of war is that it will ensure the United States’ safety. The superficial justification is that Iraq poses an immediate threat to its neighbors, and a distant threat to the US through “terror networks.” Yet no one buys this one: the Iraqis have been under the literal shadow of US planes for a dozen years and is no threat to its neighbors; as to terror links—not a single other country has agreed that these exist.

The more substantial argument here is geopolitical. It’s also the most appealing argument—Saddam Hussein is a dangerous tyrant, and does seem capable of anything. But here again, there’s a credibility problem. With the changed world situation after 9/11, the US for the first time has a serious threat to its own soil. Realignment after the Soviet collapse have made power centers of Beijing, Delhi, Islamabad, and Pyongyang. As the White House addresses these challenges, the argument that Baghdad should consume the US’s attention, money, and resources is weak at best. Is Baghdad more of a threat than Pyongyang? Actually, it might be—but here again we have the credibility problem: Bush never made the argument. His assertions shift from misleading, absent, or untrue evidence to simplistic moralizing. Based on nothing more than that, what should Americans think?

--------------------------------


The White House never made a clear argument about why it invaded Iraq. That’s reason enough to oppose a war. But far worse, the President introduced a number of foreign policy shifts to justify this war that remain unexamined, unexplained, and hidden behind false arguments.

It doesn’t’ mater how this war turns out. The very act of going to war establishes a number of dangerous precedents: the US is now prepared to go to war arbitrarily against whom it deems the most dangerous—without public dialogue or international collaboration—without clear disclosure to American citizens about the cost, risks, hidden political and commercial goals, or long term benefits.

This is what reasonable Americans need to separate from the chaos of war, the flashy logos, and the thunderous wartime rhetoric: we all need to keep our eye on the ball. This war is a bad war because it has no clear foundation, no clear objectives, and puts into place policy priorities that American citizens should be loth to follow.

"Finnish director Aki Kaurismaki, whose 'The Man Without a Past' is up for an Academy Award for best foreign-language film, said he and his production company will skip Sunday's ceremony in Los Angeles to protest plans for a U.S.-led war in Iraq."

'"We are not living in the most glorious moments of the history of mankind,' Kaurismaki wrote in a letter to Frank Pierson, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

"'Therefore, I nor anybody else from Sputnik Ltd. can participate in the Oscar gala event at the same time the government of the United States is preparing a crime against humanity for the purpose of shameless economic interests.'"

Sputnik Ltd. I kid you not. That was a real story.

And then there's this: no Joan for you.

"The show will go on as planned, but Sunday's Academy Awards will be a 'more sober affair' in light of the pending war with Iraq, Oscar telecast producer Gil Cates said Tuesday.

Cates said the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 'is mindful that many of its celebrity guests would feel uncomfortable arriving at this year's awards, at the beginning of a major war, to face a business-as-usual phalanx of interviewers and photographers.'"

Uncomfortable because they're yellah. They don't want to be targets of any anti-US types PO'ed that we're bombing Iraq. Which is reasonable, one now sees, given the wild gleam in Aki Kaurismaki's eye.

"Look out, look out, I think he's got a gun!"

"Who?"

"The Finn. THE FINN!!"

Nationalism (n) the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation. (Princeton)

Last night I watched I Am Cuba, a 1964 Soviet-produced anti-American movie about the Cuban revolution. (And not because—as the suspicious among you might imagine—I was in an anti-American pique after the President’s announcement of unilateral pre-emption. Actually it was because a friend had loaned us that DVD, left the country, and is due to return tomorrow: I couldn’t face the prospect of confessing I hadn’t watched it in the five months he was gone. I was, of course, caught in the throes of an anti-Bush pique as well.)

The film is a product of the socialist realism school, and it’s claim to fame is the extraordinary camerawork of director Mikhail Kalatozov. Deservedly so. But beyond that it’s a pretty lousy film, because the dogma is so obvious and cartoonish. It shows creepy American businessmen in the Batista era indulging their basest, capitalist-imperialist desires at the expense of hard-working Cubans. One narrative follows a prostitute whom we realize in 1.3 seconds is a metaphor for Cuba—prostituted to imperialists. And so it goes.

The film’s failure as art is revealed in 2003 much more obviously than it would have been 40 years ago. The hypotheses that saturate the film—that capitalism is the root of all evil, and assorted manifestations—seem silly and quaint at best. Film is most successful when it challenges the viewer to think. I Am Cuba doesn’t, because all the issues are settled in our mind: the result is an oddity from a lost age with bitchin’ camerawork.

Or maybe not. Watching a movie like I Am Cuba reminds us that so much of what we “know” is actually what we assume. It is instructive because we know that at one time, such a film—and films like it—were effective because people held different assumptions. Through the eyes of history, all nationalist rhetoric looks silly and quaint and often deadly dangerous. Nazi nationalism, particularly, fills me with dread because its so easy to see where it came from. Out of the desperation of WWI, Hitler fashioned a nationalism of pride and rage.

So it was interesting to watch that film on the day our own President (sort of) declared war. Over the coming days and weeks, Americans will be thrown into deep ambivalence: support for the troops on one hand, resentment and fear that the whole endeavor is a massive debacle on the other. Polls already show that the country is rallying around the President and the troops. Presumably, when the slightest events turn negative, those numbers will drop, reflecting the fear and resentment.

Standing on the edge of the abyss, I can’t help but think that the President’s arrogance is of the same, garden variety arrogance the world has seen so many times. I am willing to bet the farm that in 40 years, his nationalist rhetoric will look as quaint and silly as the Soviet Union’s does now. Americans are not patriots if they follow his blind arrogance—they’re nationalists. The commitment to the ideals of the Constitution are not embodied by a United States that invades countries pre-emptively and against the wishes of its allies. American nationalism is particularly alluring because we all participate in its manufacture—it doesn’t come from the propaganda ministry. But it’s still the same old nationalism. Real patriots question their leaders: patriotic leaders welcome the questions.

Oppose Bush's folly.

A Florida congresswoman introduced a Bill on Capitol Hill that would allow the families of Second World War dead to dig up their bones and take them home.

Ginny Brown-Waite said that her American Heroes Repatriation Act 2003 was a response to constituents’ concerns that their fathers and grandfathers were lying in “unpatriotic soil”. She said: “The French don’t seem to remember that if it wasn’t for America, they would be speaking German.”

Her melodramatic flourish was the most far-reaching effort yet to codify American anger at what politicians and the public see as a mixture of French ingratitude, arrogance and wilful obstruction of US foreign policy interests.

It comes from Genfoods, of course--ahead of the curve in documenting the latest chaos.

Per pupil spending ranges dramatically, from a low in Utah of $4,625 to a high in New York of $10,922 per year (the national average is $7,284). Here in Oregon, where cutting school days, and packing three dozen kids into a classroom are regularly discussed, spending is above the national average, but not excessive at $7,511. Eyeballing the list, it looks like the Northeast spends more on schools than other regions, followed by the Midwest; the South and West pull up the rear (that's generally speaking, of course).

School funding (national data): 50% from state sources, 43% from local sources, and only 7% from federal sources.

Spending: 85% goes to current spending (instruction and support), while 12% goes to capital outlays. Of the money spent, 61% goes to teachers, 12% to other staffing (support staff, administration), 10% to maintenence, 5% to pupil support (?), and 4% to pupil transportation (leaving a miscellaneous pot of 9%).

Of course, the rubber meets the road when you start looking at state data, which is provided in the text.

The predominant answer coming out of different quarters -- one that I broached six months ago, to a certain degree of derision from some readers -- is that the president of the United States of America sees himself as part of God's divine plan. For America, for the Middle East, for the world! It is not doctrine that he espouses, but gospel; not a world of shifting national interests, but one of absolute truths.

One of the best analyses came last week from the Rev. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church in Virginia. "The president," he said, "confidently asserts a worldview that most Christian denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of redemptive violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on the side of good and Satan on the side of evil." This approach, he went on, "is characterized by a stark refusal to acknowledge accountability, because to suggest accountability is to question American purity, which would undermine the secular theology of 'good vs. evil' inherent in present U.S. policy."

And today, writing in the Times, Jackson Lears made the argument that this isn't your garden-variety lip service:

The great rhetoricians of Providence have resisted the temptation of self-righteousness. When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail that "we will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands," he was seeking common ground with white Southerners, not predicting perdition for satanic segregationists.

Likewise, when Abraham Lincoln invoked Providence in his second inaugural address, his message to the victorious North and the defeated South was one of reconciliation. By characterizing the Civil War as a national expiation for the sin of slavery, he wanted "to bind up the nation's wounds" and make some moral sense of the appalling losses on both sides. At its best, providentialist thinking can offer a powerful antidote to self-righteousness.

Too often, though, American politicians and moralists have reduced faith in Providence to a religious sanction for raw power. In the 1840's, with the emergence of the idea that the United States had a manifest destiny to expand to the Pacific, the hand of God was no longer mysterious (as in traditional Christian doctrine) but "manifest" in American expansion. As for the natives who unproductively occupied the Great Plains, Horace Greeley, the journalist, said in 1859: "`These people must die out — there is no help for them. God has given this earth to those who will subdue and cultivate it, and it is vain to struggle against his righteous decree."

"GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.

"A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address."

Oh yeah, and it looks like the war may be about oil after all. Anyway, that's the not-unreasonable conclusion one might draw upon learning that Halliburton won the contract to rebuild Iraqi oil fields.

Most of this news is brought to you by Genfoods, who, by the way, has some fantastic news links. Atrios, watch your back.

"The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. When Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity, people naturally ask, 'Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil, or some right-wing ideology.'"

...

Mr. Bush growls that the world is demanding that America play "Captain, May I" when it comes to Iraq — and he's not going to ask anybody's permission. But with Iraq, the relevant question is not "Captain, May I?" It's "Captain, Can I?" — can I do it right without allies? No.

Things have gotten out of control. Right now, some people have their reading glasses on, so when they see headlines like today's, it's easy to dismiss them as unrelated to the Great Bush Bumble. But every day someone like Friedman stops to take a bigger look at things and starts seeing the connections. Iran scrambling to build nukes, North Korea testing missles and revving up their own nukes, gas prices skyrocketing, markets across the globe plunging--all of these result from demented American foreign policy of the past year. I have a bad feeling things are only going to get worse.

[Update: You should always read Atrios before blogging. He found a story from the Times of London that has identified yet another person who's starting to feel queasy about the Iraq Debacle: George HW Bush.

"The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.

"Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

"He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

'You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,' he said."]

YIKES.

"So, bottom line, in Nordhaus' best-case scenario, cheap oil and lower prices at the pump cancel out some of the war costs, and you get a tab of about $100 billion, some $1,000 per U.S. household.

The worse-case, higher prices at home, more spending abroad, a total of roughly $2 trillion -- $20,000 per U.S. household over a decade."

• "We have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror."
• "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
• Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes."
• The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed."
• And I've [not] made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully that as a result of the pressure that we have placed--and others have placed--that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country."

For Bush, the problem's personal--it's Saddam. In the course of the news conference, the Presdident used the word Saddam or Saddam Hussein 39 times; add to that 6 times he referred to him not by name (though personally) as "dictator." Throughout the entire news conference, the word "Iraq" or its variants only appeared 36 times together--and many of these referred to the "Iraqi people" and so on.

I think it's very clear, too--despite the President's objections about words--what's going on in his mind in the last comment I quoted (if you overlook the mangled first sentence). Despite all the talk of disarmament, the danger of the Iraqi regime's weapons and their availability on the open terrorist market, the President will be satisfied if Saddam (not Iraq) disarms or leaves the country. Leaves the country? That's not consisent with anything we've heard from the White House. But it is consistent with getting back at Saddam personally. Which, when you read the transcript, is the unmistakeable tell the President gives about his real intention.

"The demand for American troops to stay comes as a shock to United States officials, who had assumed they were responding to commonly held Korean thinking by pushing ahead with plans for shifting the American military posture."

For my money, this is WAY bigger news. The United States was prepared to remove troops from South Korea, and they hadn't even asked South Korea? Good LORD, that's yet another massive diplomatic failure.

But I digress. The point here is Google, right? Care to guess how many related articles were listed on this story as of 10:13 am Pacific Time? Twelve.

(Meanwhile, a neighbor of an uncle of Osama bin Laden's gardner has heard from a Pakistani official that Osama bin Laden's sons may have been captured, the Grover Cleveland Junior High School Gazette of Grand Rapids is reporting.)

A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush released a list of the world's most-wanted terrorists. There were 22 names on it. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was No. 22.

And the list wasn't alphabetical.

Interestingly, information on the FBI website still seems to support this. There's Mohammed, way down at the bottom of the page (Osama's in the top left corner). Also confirmed here and here (though he's 18 of 22). Check out the links because they may move him up to cohere with White House reports.

"Bush's proposal is vague on many points, including the terms for insurers. But Tricia Neuman, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the plan would have to provide a windfall for the companies, "or too few would participate for the plan to work."

The analysts said drug companies also could be expected to reap huge profits under Bush's approach. More senior citizens would be able to afford prescriptions, and doctors could be expected to write more of them. And drug company executives fear that federal price controls on their products would be the result if a drug benefit were provided within Medicare.

Several administration officials said the drug and insurance businesses would profit from Bush's plan, which is estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years."

But wait, that's not all. Karl's scored a trifecta!

If Bush's proposal were enacted, it could provide a high-profile benefit for industries that are reliable donors to Republican candidates and committees. The Center for Responsive Politics said that for the past two elections combined, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave $30 million to Republicans and $8 million to Democrats.

| link |

"The federal deficit is growing much more quickly than expected, even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq, Congressional analysts have concluded."

'The tax code is not performing, and it's making a mess out of the budget, said Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee. 'Unless we get the economy growing again, we're going to keep getting these kinds of corrections.'"

| link |

(Oregonians could enlighten him about how this process works.)

"Every religion is welcomed in our country; all are practiced here. Many of our good citizens profess no religion at all. Our country has never had an official faith. Yet we have all been witnesses these past 21 weeks to the power of faith to see us through the hurt and loss that has come to our country."

Also innocuous is Tennessee Representative Zach Wamp's comments on his congress website about the breakfast:

"In 1953, President Eisenhower attended the first combined Prayer Breakfast, and Presidents have participated every year since. The National Prayer Breakfast was President George W. Bush's first major appearance since being sworn in on January 20th."

But it's not all quite so ecumenical as that. Cruising around the official sponsor's website, you find some interesting commentary:

"The acceptability of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country’s Spiritual Heritage.

• The GOAL of Prayer Breakfast Network is to reach every city possible across the USA through a well-planned Prayer Breakfast.

• Our PURPOSE is to reach leaders for Jesus Christ.

• Our OBJECTIVE is “Pray for all in authority, that we might lead Godly lives.”

• Our STRATEGY is to use Prayer Breakfasts. The acceptance of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country’s Spiritual Heritage."

And just to bring it all back home, Rep. Wamp mentions a little bit more that hints at the Family (in nice, separation-of-church-and-state prose):

"The Senate and the House of Representatives each continue to hold their own weekly breakfast to discuss problems, both personal and national, in the spirit of fellowship and prayer. Members meet in the spirit of peace and in the Spirit of Christ, but they need not be Christians. All members are welcome, regardless of their political or religious affiliation; sincere seekers, as well as the deeply devoted, all on a common journey to understand the place of faith in their lives and to discover how to love God and one’s fellow man."

And no more promises about not printing anything anymore.

"it's not that there are groups who gather with the express aim of exploring the means by which they can gain influence and political power. This has happened since the beginning of human history. In our county it is our right, if not our duty, to so act to protect the values that WE cherish--so that our views are not trampled upon.

It's an interesting point--one I've been pushing around all weekend. Intuitively, I felt it missed a basic point, but on the face of it, the statement seems the essence of democracy: individuals voicing their opinions about the nature of governance. I was hung up on this secrecy thing it occured to me, because obviously the Christians have enormous governmental influence, and I never consdered this anything but good politics. Certainly consistent with the constitution. But the secrecy...

It starts from the obvious question: why would they need to be secretive? George Bush doesn't hide his own beliefs: he tells people what they are and he endorses PACs, media, and nonprofits who are specifically politico-religious. So what's the advantage of secrecy?

One thought is that the Family's ideas don't make good PR and so better to keep them on the hush. (According to Sharlet, they have a list of statements in a document called "Thoughts and Principles of the Family" that are not mainstream: "We recognize the place and responsibility of national secular leaders in the work of advancing His kingdom." "We desire to see a leadership led by God--leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.") But still, we don't descriminate against a speaker because we don't like his speech: the Family has the right to espouse this view.

But one could argue that the secrecy is there to protect not constitutionally-protected speech, but the implementation of unconstitutional actions described in the speech. And this is what I fear. Any third-party involved in politics is bound by disclosure laws--whether it's the oil industry, labor, or religious groups. This is part of the protection that ensures that the three wings of government maintain the checks and balances that are critical to a healthy democracy. The Family's raison d'etra, however, is exactly the opposite. It wishes to harness the power of the government to further the ends of Christ. Its strategy, it seems clear from the article, is to work in secrecy to recruit and convert politicians who will in turn pack the courts and pass laws favorable to Christian values and work with governments who agree to this course.

Why are we planning to invade Iraq? George Bush has told us nothing of a religious war. But if the agenda of the Family were to hold sway across all halls of US power, it might well be. (And to Listening, who is leery about my conspiracy-coddling, let me say that I'm not asserting this.)

We live in a democracy, which means there needs to be safeguards against the tyranny of the many. If these are dismantled for the sole reason of establishing the tyranny, it's clearly a constitutional breach. Call me a canary in the coal mine, but I think it's not too soon to start asking hard questions about what appears to this blogger to be an establishment of religion.