Goodbye Raymond Burke

The AP reports that St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke has been promoted to head the Apostolic Signatura. This panel resolves disputes between Vatican tribunals and is the appeal from the Roman Rota.

This can be seen as a reward and a punishment. It is a reward for towing the party line, and beyond, regarding giving communion to Catholic dissenters (although the USCCB has repudiated his position - thank you Cardinal McCarrick). It is probably the only way for him to receive a red hat (become a cardinal) since it is unlikely he would be moved to another See with that title. If this were to happen, he would have been sent to Baltimore.

This is also the punishment, as he is no longer free to grab headlines in the American press, especially regarding the upcoming election. (See my prior post inviting the Archbishop to excommunicate me). I knew there was a reason I liked Benedict XVI. He has in essence silenced one of the most obnoxious voices on the Catholic right-wing.

See ya, your Excellency. Don't let the door hit you in the rump on your way out.

Harold Ickes Threat

I suspect that Harold Ickes may have cost his candidate the nomination with his remarks yesterday. In order to secure 4 additional delegates he may have lost 40 Superdelegates who want to bring this matter to a quick conclusion. It is time to get beyond the politics of anger.

Michigan and Florida

In the extremely unlikely event that anyone on the Rules Committee is reading this prior to debating, let me offer a few thoughts about today's deliberations.

First, Florida and Michigan should be treated in the same way. If Florida loses half of its delegates, Michigan should too. It would seem that the Charter provision requiring that half of the delegates be excluded is correct in both cases. DNC members should be seated, while non-DNC superdelegates should receive half a vote.

Second, on the matter of splitting Michigan, the Michigan party approach is correct. The best answer is to split the difference between the Obama 50-50 split and the Clinton position that the delegates breakdown should reflect the votes cast. Given a 50% split in the delegate total, this would give Obama 30 pledged delegates and Clinton 34 pledged delegates (rounding to the nearest even digit). In Florida, splitting the delegations as votes are cast would be 40 for Obama and 52 for Clinton.

This doesn't do much for Hillary, but it does settle this fairly.

Is a League of Democracies Enough?

Jackson Diehl writes in today's Washington Post about how John McCain's "League of Democracies" has liberal roots. This concept also has its Neocon roots in the work of Aaron Wildavsky and Max Singer in their book The Real World Order. They propose an almost Bismarkian hybrid of representation by population and representation by a factor of GDP and would give democracies much greater weight. I have a different proposal along these lines, but it goes a bit farther than a league of sovereign states.

First, I would create regional governments within the larger nations in NATO (the U.S., Germany, France, UK) and give each region a great deal of autonomy on taxation, spending and regulation. The national and later allied government would coin and print money, suggest economic policy to the regions, homogonize regulation by regional consensus, regulate joint military affairs with a singe commander-in-chief and executive, deal with environmental issues and oversee equal protection rights vis-a-vis regional and sub-regional (state and provincial) governments, as well as human rights violations by employers. It would have an allied judiciary and directly elected legislators - 2 per region. The chief executive would be chosen by an Allied College consisting of the legislature and the chief executives of each region.

Most importantly, nations would not be allowed to join unless they actually adopted the same level of individual liberty as found in the U.S. and Europe. In essence, we would be joining the EU as 7 member states and insisting that it adopt a more federalist government than it currently has.

I don't think McCain will go that far - however I am not sure the rest of the alliance has much patience for the U.S. and NATO if we do not eventually go down that road.

The Democratic Race

In what is now ancient news, the AP reported last week that even with Florida and Michigan, Senator Clinton is behind in the delegate count, albeit in a closer race. Let's do the math.

First, the pledged delegates:

Obama 1596, Clinton 1439

Then, add the 17 Edwards delegates to the Obama total.

Obama 1613, Clinton 1439

Give Florida all its delegates and count its primary, but give Obama the Edwards delegates.

Obama 1693, Clinton 1544

Next, honor the Michigan party proposal to give Clinton 69 and Obama 59.

Obama 1752, Clinton 1613

As you can see, including these delegations only closes the gap by 35 votes.

Now add the Super Delegates:

Obama 2045, Clinton 1885

Adding back Florida and Michigan in this way makes the number needed 2182.

For Hillary Clinton, that means she must pick up 297 delegates compared to 137 for Obama. If Obama wins Oregon tomorrow and wins even a quarter of the Kentucky vote, the math is pretty insurmountable - especially if the Superdelegates decide enough is enough.

Obama has already stated he will not declare victory on Wednesday. He doesn't have to. We can count. While the Superdelegates can always change their mind until August, they likely won't, especially given the likely victory by Obama in the pledged delegate race. It will be up to the Senator from New York to state the obvious.

California's Marriage Decision

E.J. Dionne opines in todays Washington Post that it is good that the majority will ultimately vote on the California Marriage issue and hopes that they vote to affirm it.

I don't share his optimism on the ability of legislative majorities to respect the rights of minorities. Some things should not be put to a vote. Ultimately, this will turn into a federal equal protection question - I am frankly surprised that it has not already.

Should the California voters not agree with E.J., the matter will eventually go to the Supreme Court. When it does, even Justice Scalia will have to agree that equal protection is equal protection - especially in the California case, opening up the spectre of a federal marriage amendment or even the call to a constitutional convention on a variety of conservative hot button issues from taxation to abortion.

Time will tell.

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: The Job of President

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: The Job of President responding to Joel Achenbach's piece in the Post Outlook section.

Thoughts on Gays, Benedict, Paul, Jesus and God

The Pope is coming to Washington this week, which had me thinking about the Church’s position on certain issues, like gay marriage. Much of the Church’s teaching on this issue comes from the letters of St. Paul, rather than the Gospels (which do not mention homosexuality per se but which do condemn pederasty). In order to understand how Paul might teach differently today, one must put him into context (of course, if Paul were teaching today, he would not be Saul of Tarsus, but someone else). Paul’s Epistles were part inspiration, part polemic and partly based on his own knowledge and beliefs as a Hebrew scribe (although in later life, he was a tent maker). As such his exhortations were culturally bound, just as our understanding of homosexuality is bound by our culture and our understanding of human biology (which is superior to his).

This train of thought led me to wonder about Jesus and how he knew what he knew. Was Jesus privy to some secret plan of God? As I have said before, the answer is no. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Being fully man, his resources were fully human – the Hebrew scriptures of his day. His divinity is manifested in his connection with the Holy Spirit, which filled him as part of his essence, rather than filling him with grace, which was the case for his mother, Mary. He was not a hybrid. He did not have God parts and man parts. He was fully both. To say otherwise is to lower him to the level of a Bodhisattva or of Hercules – a mere demigod. There are no God parts you can point to. His Divinity was the same when he was born, when he died and now.

This invites the question, what is God anyway? To really be God, he must have no physicality. There is no white skinned, white haired, bipedal hominid in a higher plane of existence named God. God is entirely spiritual and is not just, as St. Anselm posited, that which nothing greater can be conceived, but is rather something that cannot be conceived at all! There is no mind of God, since minds involve thinking and God does not think. Thinking is a process and in God there is no process – only ultimate existence. Does this mean that God does not exist? Not physically. This does not mean we cannot feel his presence, however we cannot measure it. There is no way to separate the divinity present in the sacraments like Eucharist and Confirmation and point to it. It exists in another realm that we can experience but not demonstrate, except by our actions. Even the communion miracle where in at least one case the bread and wine actually were transformed to flesh and blood still only show flesh and blood. You cannot measure God. Is God merely a set of communal endorphins? Is Prozac as effective and less costly (given the cost of supporting religious and even spiritual organizations in time and treasure – and in some cases lives)? That is an individual decision left to the reader, although I have seen and experience enough miracles to come down on the side of God.

God is the spiritual basis for the ideas of Love and Being. These ideals and the experience of them are expressions of God. Religion attempts to understand these things, but they are not limited to religion. As God, they are without human limits. They exist even without the Kleptocracy known as organized religion. If they did not, they wouldn’t be eternal.

So, where do I come down on homosexuality? The reader is invited to guess – or to read my book. There is an essay about it there, as well as a Chapter about God.

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Tax Discussion on Blog Talk Radio

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Tax Discussion on Blog Talk Radio

The Abortion Show

The Pope is coming to DC on Monday and you know he is going to mention the A word. Put the whole issue in perspective, or just call up and fight about it, on my Blog Talk Radio show. We talked about it on Thursday nite - or rather I talked about it while others commented on the chat line. To hear that show, click on the link to Blog Talk Radio to the right. To add your comments, call the show on Sunday nite at CORRECTION - 10 PM

The Christian Left is on the Air

See the icon to the right for Blog Talk Radio and use it to take a listen to my latest program.

Happy Easter

Starting yesterday, and for the next 49 days until Pentacost, Christians celebrate the Easter season. This season commemorates the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Belief in the Resurrection separates religious Christians from philosphical Christians.

The Christian Left movement is philosophical and religious.

It is philosophical because one need not believe in the resurrection to adopt the ideals preached by Jesus, including the forgiving of sins as a condition for their forgiveness, charity to the poor and a humanistic morality which has the Sabbath existing for man rather than man for the Sabbath. From these prospects, a whole society can be devised without reference to a belief in the resurrection.

You can even go so far as to say one can be saved from one's sins on earth by Jesus without having any reference to eternal life. In fact, this is the best way to understand the difference between salvation and eternity. (I don't use the term justification, since we have no right to expect to be made just - however we can be released from our domination by sin in this life by calling on the Lord and drinking his blood, and can be forgiven by forgiving others).

Going to heaven is an entirely different matter.

We go to heaven when we behave as if we were saved from sin. Works do not save us from sinfullness - Jesus does that. Once we have been saved from sinfullness, we must then behave as members of God's family. Some people who do not believe in God already behave as Christians should - the Brights or ethical atheists. According to the parable of the sheep and the goats, they go to heaven as well - while some of those who claim Christ but do not act on their salvation will be numbered among the goats.

Of course, Easter is not for atheists, even if some of them will wind up in heaven.

Easter is the promise that we do not stay dead. We will rise one day and go to heaven (the experience of heaven before the resurrection - or how we exist in time after death - or if we do - is a matter for the dead. The scriptures seem to indicate that once one has escaped the world, one has escaped time itself and may just land at the last judgment. This is one of those things that we don't need to worry about, since worrying about it won't change it anyway.

So, for those who are religious Christian Leftists, Happy Easter!

The Damnation Trial of Jesus of Nazareth - A One Act Play

Setting: 21st Century American Courtroom, with Oak Paneling (much like you find in The People's Court or Law and Order). There are two bailiffs, Michael and Gabriel. The Ten Commandments are behind the dias.

Time: 3:15 pm, Good Friday

GABRIEL: Oyez, Oyez, The Court of Final Judgment is now in Session, the Honorable Moses presiding.

Moses enters.

MOSES: Call the first case.

GABRIEL: The case of Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus enters, helped in by Uriel and Raphael. Jesus is run down, older in a dirty white robe showing signs of recent crucifixion

LUCIFER: Lucifer, the testor for the prosecution.

ELIJAH (John the Baptist): Objection to opposing counsel.

LUCIFIER: Your honor, my identification with Set is a product of Zorastrianism, not of Hebrew scripture.

MOSES: Objection overruled, I will not hold the slanderous views of defense counsel or his client against him, as they are the product of misinformation and not deliberate.

ELIJAH: Your honor, request my client immediately be allowed into Paradise as the Messiah. The blind now see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the mute speak and the dead rise under his ministrations.

LUCIFER: The prosecution stipulates the good works and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, however we must object on the grounds that in his last day he proved to be a false prophet.

UPROAR IN THE COURT

MOSES: Order, Order, I will have order. These is a serious charge, which you must stipulate - and be quick about it. It is Passover weekend and my pressence is required at Seder.

LUCIFER: I call Matthew, Mark and Luke

MATTHEW: I will speak for the three of us. Mark was the scribe of Peter and Luke for Paul, who gained his knowledge from our teaching. Peter and I were witnesses.

LUCIFER: Very good. Last evening, describe what was said at table at the end of the Seder.

MATTHEW: Jesus took some bread, and when he said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. Take and eat, he said, this is my body. Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. Drink all of you form this, he said, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father. (Matthew 26:26-29)

LUCIFER: And what happenned the next day.

MATTHEW: When they reached a place called Golgotha, that is, the place of the skull, they gave him wine to drink mixed with gall, which he tasted but refused to drink. (Matthew 27:33-35)

ELIJAH: I move for dismissal, as clearly my client kept his word.

LUCIFER: It is not so simple as that, I call John, son of Zebedee and Mary Salome, the defendent's nephew. John, describe what you saw at the foot of the cross.

JOHN: Jesus said: I thirst. A jar full of vinegar stood there, so putting a sponge soaked in the vinegar on a hyssop stick they held it up to his mouth. After he took the vinegar he said, It is accomplished and bowing his head he gave up his spirit. (John 19: 28-30)

LUCIFER: The prosecution rests.

ELIJAH: John, what occurred prior to the taking of the vinegar.

JOHN: Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. Seeing his mother and the disciple he loved standing near, Jesus said to his mother, Woman, this is your son. Then to the disciple he said, This is your mother. (John 19:25-26)

ELIJAH: The defense calls Mark.

MARK: And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which means My God, my God, why have you deserted me? When some of those who stood by heard this, they said, Listen, he is calling on Elijah. (Mark 15:33-35)

ELIJAH: It was at this point that Jesus took the fruit of the vine.

LUCIFER: Then you admit he did drink it.

ELIJAH: We so stipulate.

UPROAR

MOSES: I will have order. Counsel, please explain yourself.

ELIJAH: When he spoke with his mother and with John, Jesus gives up everything he was, both human and divine. Mary and John were the two main people in His life. Mary holds a unique place in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. She was and is his most beloved friend, as well as his most perfect creature. Even before his birth, she begins his message of social justice in the Magnificant to her cousin Elizabeth. More importantly, she symbolizes to him the very essence of his most unique self. Because of the way he was conceived, she is the physical manifestation of both his human and his divine origins, which he knew of originally through her telling of the story of his birth. I expect that she could not look at him in her grief. In like manner, John was the symbol for his mission, and for all who would believe in him. John was the last disciple, as all the others had fled. By giving John up to his mother, he both abandons and joins us. He is utterly emptied. At this moment his identity as God-man, son of the Virgin, his role as savior and teacher, are all gone! He has now been reduced to a state of complete isolation and hopelessness. It is a state that, as God, he does not know. Only by emptying himself and accepting this suffering does he ever know the despair and separation from God that each and every sinner feels.

The mechanism for human salvation must be understandable to humans, as it is for humans. As presented above, the origins of our salvation are obvious. Jesus suffered for God to know human suffering first hand. With this knowledge, he reaches out the suffering sinner and offers salvation. This suffering is what saves those who believe in him.

Jesus' passion helps us understand God, as well. To save man in this way God must be a Trinity. Without His humanity, the Son of God could not experience the abandonment of the crucifixion. If he had suffered abandonment in His purely divine form existence or all would have ended.

The passion also helps Christians understandthe perfection of God. The essence of salvation is what it does for the sinner, not what it does for God. It was not a blood offering to satisfy an angry God. God is not moved by anything! An angry God is not perfect, as that anger is moved by the actions of mere creatures, both in sinful man and in His sinless Son, who became a creature. The unmoved Will of God is His Love, which is a free gift without hint of anger.

The God Christians come to in faith is not some distant icon of perfection, but a God who, in Jesus, shares the experience of isolation. Humans do not reach God on our own, so he comes to them in their pain. Understanding this, people understand the meaning of salvation, because it makes right in our hearts what sin makes wrong.

What is the proof of this proposition? The scriptures show that the Kingdom of God had come when Jesus drank from the fruit of the vine on the cross at the moment of his death. He had promised at the Last Supper that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until he did it with us in his Father's kingdom, yet the scripture is clear that he took the wine on the cross. For salvation to be effective, it is accomplished without blemish. Had Jesus taken the wine before the completion of salvation, he would have rendered it impure and void. This, of course, is not so. Christianity is not some colossal practical joke with a secret meaning saying that we were all just kidding or some divine exercise in prophetic ticket punching. This is the proof Christians need to believe that the passion was real for Jesus, and that in it he joins mankind, not as a sin offering, but as a fellow sufferer. Ultimately, the proof is born out by the Resurrection, which shows that Jesus, who drank of the fruit of the vine just before his death, was justified by God. Christians are confident that as he died as they die, they will rise as he rose.

The passion also shows Christains how to seal their salvation. They seal it in his Blood, which comes to them through the fruit of the vine. Whenever Christians drink of His Blood in Communion, we share in the second covenant. This removes all taint of sin, and brings them back to God. They come back to Him in confidence, because they know that He knows the emptiness and pain of the sinner. God loved mankind so much that He sought the pain it feels when it is apart from Him. As Christians drink His Blood at the altar, they share in the kingdom and fulfill his command. For he said ...if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. (John 6:53)

The Defense rests.

MOSES: Well done, counsel. Case dismissed. Now, I believe my term of office is completed. I will continue as prosecutor.

JESUS: We thank you for your service. Next case.

MOSES: Bring forward the two theives. My Lord, these men were crucified for thievery, sedition, murder the elder for taunting you on the cross.

JESUS: I am familiar with this case. My prior promise to the younger stands. For your faith when all others saw differently, Today, you shall be with me in paradise. Court is adjourned! I have but a few days until I must return to the world at Easter.

The Archbishop and the Senator from New York

The AP reports that San Antonio, Texas Archbishop Jose Gomez objects to a campaign appearance by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at St. Mary's University, which is sponsored by the Diocese (and therefore partly his personal property) due to her pro-choice stance on abortion.

As I have said previously regarding another Archbishop's statements, it appears that his Excellency does not get it.

A pro-choice position is not an endorsement of abortion per se, but a realization that using the criminal law to prohibit abortion is not the right approach. If Senator Clinton were going to the campus to advise a group of pregnant coeds to terminate their pregnancies in order to complete their educations and advance their careers, the Archbishop would have a point. That is not the case, however. She may bring up abortion - in fact she has to in light of this controversy. Hopefully she will remember our conversation last year at this time regarding how some use this issue for political gain with no intent on resolution. If she were to do so, there might be some news in this campaign that we could use - although I don't expect it.

Let me reiterate one thing. The issue is not whether abortion should be made legal. It already is and the current lineup of the Supreme Court indicates it will be for the foreseeable future (Alito and Roberts supported Kennedy's position in the partial birth abortion decision rather than the Scalia/Thomas concurrence which advocated overturning Roe, thus Roe still has a 7-2 majority). States will not get the chance to pass abortion bans any time soon - nor the chance to repeal existing bans that were on the books when Roe was decided.

The legal question is not the morality of abortion, but when and how it can and should be regulated. Overturning Roe would also overturn Federal preeminence in civil rights law, basically putting citizens at the mercy of their state legislatures - which is a violation of republican government (majority rule with minority rights). It would also be ineffective, as women and girls would travel to abortion states for the procedure in much the same way they travel to counties where it is available.

The only way to constitutionally restrict abortion would be to grant citizenship rights to the child. Doing so in the first trimester is dicey - since it would turn every miscarriage into a public event and endow the child's survivors with a tort for its loss. While most such torts would not be successful, giving lawyers an entre' into this issue can hardly be in the best interest of either society or medicine. If you think malpractice rates for OB's are high now, just wait to see what happens if the fetus becomes a legal person.

As I have said several times, the best cure for abortion is the empowerment of women and girls to both say no to sex and to have the economic power to care for the child regardless of circumstance, while still having the ability to pursue an education and a career and the assurance that the child can do so without having to rely on the parents for financial support.

Considering the Church's ownership of probably the largest private educational complex on the planet and its influence with Catholic business owners and shareholders (who could be excommunicated for not providing a family wage), perhaps there are other avenues than GRANDSTANDING which could be used to fight abortion.

(On a technical note, most reported abortions are actually miscarriages - not elective procedures - so the statistics on how many children have been lost to abortion are way off since most of them were DEAD ALREADY).

The Cultural Conservative Vote

There are conservatives and then there are conservatives.

There are fiscal conservatives who believe in balanced budgets or tax cuts (you can't believe in both, I believe in the former). There are libertarian conservatives who believe in less government regulations and taxes (for me, it depends, as I believe in minimizing regulations unless they function to prevent bad behavior - such as racial or sex discrimination or producing unsafe products or waste).

There are religious conservatives who believe in traditional moral teachings and rituals. (I am a no on the first and yes on the second - so I believe in Tridentine Gay Weddings).

Then there are the "cultural conservatives." These believe in authoritarianism, very traditional morality and may in fact yearn for the days when certain people knew (or still know) their place. These are the folks that would not have their child marry certain people, mostly with darker skin. They believe in the right to not rent an apartment or sell a home to someone whose morality they do not approve of or won't hire certain people because they might file a discrimination complaint (for the likely reason that the conservatives feel they have a right to denigrate those who they feel are below them - in other words their parents didn't teach them civilized matters because there parents didn't HAVE civilized manners). These are the folks who favored Pat Buchanan in the Reform Party until he nominated an African American woman to be his running mate. These are the folks who carry the signs that say "God Hates F@gs."

Quite a few cultural conservatives hide behind the illegality of immigration are cultural conservatives (although not all anti-immigrant folks are in that category to be sure). There were enough of them in the GOP, however, to have me be very comfortable leaving in the 1990s. For now, I am back and supporting Mike Huckabee. When he was the leader of the Southern Baptists in Arkansas, he did not support the more culturally conservative types, which earned him the criticism of being one of my people - a Christian leftist. I don't think that the Governor will pander to these folks to win the nomination - at least I hope not. I know people who no longer support Ron Paul because he has, in the past, not disassociated himself from certain neoconfederate supporters of this stripe. I also hope that John McCain will likewise resist the urge to pander.

I believe that either McCain or Huckabee has a chance of winning in November without pandering to these folks. It is a pity Romney seemed to, since he is largely better than that.

There are more than a few listeners of a certain rotund talk radio host from Kansas City who are of that cultural stripe, and that same host seems to have no problem with their association with him.

For Rush and for all those cultural cultural conservatives whose attitudes I have identified above, I have a message:

We don't need you to win in November. Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out.

Now that

The Holloway Case

I have been silent on the diappearance of Natalee Holloway to date, but the recent airing of a hidden videotape of Joren Van der Sloot provokes some reaction.

My first reacton was and continues to be that this not what I would consider a story of national import. Rather, it is a story of national voyuerism, which is why I have withheld comment. I am commenting now because this incident has lessons for parents, young people and the law.

The only bright spot in this affair is the impact it is likely to have on the parents of teenage girls sending their daughters off on class trips. No matter how responsible your daughter is, don't do it. The more responsible girls actually have a worse time of it, since if they are letting lose for the first time, they are likely to poison themselves with alcohol, which is likely what happened here (unless some evidence can be found that Natalee was slipped a Ruffee (the date rape drug)). 18 year old girls should not be going on such trips, especially if they have never been exposed to alcohol. If you must send your kid on such an excursion, make sure they know how to drink safely. Trusting them not to drink in a tropical paradise where drinking is legal or enforcement lax is irresponsible.

As to the case of our young punk who thought he did nothing wrong, and the million young punks like him, it is no sign of masculinity to have sex with a girl who is drunk. Not only don't gentlemen do such things, but it is considered rape. Since we know from his statements that his goal was to have sex with Natalee in her drunken condition, he should at least be charged with attempted rape. Since her body was not found, murder cannot be charged, since there will never be any proof that she was alive when her body was disposed of. What we do know is that obstruction of justice occurred when the police were not called to pick up the body. Perjury likely occurred as well in the investigation. Natalees body was not treated respectfully, which is also a crime. Finally, if it can be proven than Joran was buying her drinks in order to make her more amenable to his rape attempt, he can likely be charged with manslaughter since these drinks caused her death - and God help him if he slipped her something else. If he needs sex that badly, he will likely get plenty of it in prison - although I don't think he will like it.

Now, about the justice system itself. No trial is likley necessary to determine that Joran is a drunken scumbag. He should likely have been subjected to mandatory treatment for his alcoholism and general amoral attitude before this incident ever occurred - as should many in his shoes. In a just world, he would be given the opportunity to plead guilty by reason of insanity with part of his punishment confinement in a mental institution for the minimum term for attempted date rape, if not involuntary manslaughter and some form of restitution to Natalee's family as a condition of release. Of course, knowing that he will be in a jail cell in Aruba as somebody's wife may a prevertedly just outcome in this case (not that I am advocating such treatment, however the spectre of it should give this punk some pause).

Jail Bush, Vote McCain?

Thinking about the positions of the Senator from Arizona, one cannot help but notice his continued oppossition to many of the positions taken by the current administration in the War on Terror - especially regarding torture and the treatment of prisoners of war.

I am sure somewhere in the Adminstration, there are calculations afoot as to personal culpability and the possibility of jail time, including war crimes trials at the Hague.

Looking at the likely winners tomorrow or next November, there have to be a few people who are a bit afraid of John McCain, possibly more so than any of the other candidates.

Why not fear Clinton or Obama? It is likely that neither of these candidates, if elected, will risk the ire of the right by launching into a punative investigation of the prior administration. Given Obama's message of unity, I doubt he will ship Bush and Cheney off to the trial they so richly deserve. Additionally, no one in the defense establishment will likely open up to either of them about what they have seen in the past seven years.

Not so with John McCain. My guess is that, if elected, he will ask the right questions and people will volunteer the right information. If this happens, a standup guy like McCain will pursue the matter and some people are going to jail.

It is no wonder many Bush surrogates are lining up behind Mitt Romney. I wonder if any promises have been made regarding ignoring the recent past?