In his note to the reader, he writes:

"Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen—the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves—socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency..."

And begins the book with:

"Thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse."

There is a discussion on this thread about what it means to "support the troops." I have found it to be a challenging conversation, and I'd like to open it up and ask for some help. I guess my question is the following: how does one acknowledge the extreme sacrifice that soldiers (and their families) are making, while at the same time registering disagreement with the war and the way in which it has been prosecuted? Can anyone help me with this?

"It’s hard to put those, those feelings and emotions into words. I mean, it, it—they’re so, they’re so complex and because they’re,   someone who trains, someone’s who is a soldier and who’s mission is to save you and, and that person goes in there and does it, and accomplishes a mission, if you’re on the receiving end of that, it’s, it’s (unintelligible) on a mission. I mean, it’s your life and you, you owe these people, I owe these people my life. And they’re, they’re, they’re the finest of the finest, they’re the best of the best. Um, I had to see them before I left. I had to. "

Read more:

The Olympian article is here.

When I was arrested in the early morning hours of May 23rd, I had about $13 on me (that was about 40% of my total cash at the time). The booking guy told me that I had to pay at least $10 into the booking fee, that I would owe another $90, and that I had no choice in the matter. He put my money into a drawer, and handed me a slip of paper to sign for my money (and to agree to the other $90). I signed it "Duress" and handed it back to him, hoping that in time I could show a judge that I was in custody, had no choice but to agree to the contract I was signing, and thus could not legally sign the contract.

Since then, I have worried (not much, just a little) about whether I would be able to get my shoes back from the Sheriff, since I had unpaid booking fees totaling $90. Now I can go back and get my shoes! Yay!

What I wonder about is this: when the booking fee is not paid, it goes to collections. The collections folks add their own profit (ahem, fees) to the mix, and the total is likely to be far more than the original amount owed - especially as time goes by. So what will happen to everyone whose credit and pocketbooks have been affected by these collections agencies and their entries on the 'permanent record' of our credit histories?

My cousin is currently in Kuwait and is scheduled to be in Iraq in the near future. He should be where much of the guerilla fighting is taking place, so I'll try and post any insight he can offer once he's settled into his job (which are going to be a lot of field operations, as he is an infantryman).

CNN:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Death squads and terrorists have ramped up attacks on civilians in Iraq, killing more than 1,600 people in cold-blooded "execution-style" slayings in July alone, a Pentagon report said Friday.

U.S. troops transferred security responsibilities Friday in most of the key northern province of Tameem to two Iraqi army battalions. Soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division made the transfer during a ceremony at an Iraqi military base outside Kirkuk. That oil-rich city and Hawija will remain under U.S.-led coalition control.

Who are we kidding?

Earlier today, during a lecture, another student said it was a politician's job to be upbeat and optimistic about any situation (this was followed by another student saying that as long as you believe you can do something, you can do it. Now, the "believe you can do it" comment wasn't supposed to be tied to any political thought, but isn't it that sort of thinking that gets us into foreign policy disasters? Shouldn't we simply accept the fact that some global problems simply cannot be solved? Or that just because you keep pumping money [and/or lives] into a given field or situation that there is no guarantee it will improve? Shouldn't one recognize when a change of strategy is necessary?)

I think the best leaders are those who are brutally honest about the direction the group is going and why they're moving that direction. The group should also understand what is at stake in terms of cost/reward.

I asked 20- and 30-somethings in a column last month what issues are important to this group. The answers surprised me.

The e-mailed responses gave glancing attention to headline-grabbing issues such as the environment, Iraq, transportation and education. The common theme was a desire for a more nuanced political discussion and candidates, not parties, worth believing in. Words like integrity and ethics peppered the replies.

[snip]

Emmett O'Connell, a 29-year-old respondent from Olympia, summed it up best during a telephone interview this week: "People see the parties being solely focused on winning elections, so they don't want to get involved."

O'Connell is not a bystander. He is the Web master for America For Richardson, the unofficial site for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's possible run for president. O'Connell also writes for a number of blogs, including Western Democrat and Olympia Time.

Even with an insider's view, O'Connell craves what the other respondents want.

"More than anything, we want authenticity," he wrote. "We're the generation of cable television, telemarketing, infomercials and junk mail. We don't want to be sold; rather, we want to be engaged."

Way to represent Emmett!