Crossposted on Tikkun Daily

by Be Scofield

The popular atheist writer/blogger Greta Christina calls one of Hitchens’ ideas about religion a “terrible argument.”

You know that Christopher Hitchens is not a fan of religion. If you had any doubt you can read his best-selling book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, watch him debate leading Christian and religious theologians (on one occasion four of them at a time) or read any of the numerous articles he’s written on the subject. Yet, despite his public outcry and comparison of religion to child abuse and labeling it a “menace to society” readers may be surprised to discover that he is actually indifferent to religion as long as it produces good behavior. Shocking I know. Furthermore he’s admitted that he’s not arguing “religion should or ever would die out in the world.”

In God is Not Great Hitchens describes a story of how a Muslim cab driver went to great lengths to return a large sum of money that his wife had left in his cab. When the the cab driver told him that it was his religious duty to return the money and refused a generous reward that Hitchens had offered it seems to have sparked a unique moment of shared humanity for Hitchens with a religious person. In response to the Muslim cab driver’s act of selfless service Hitchens makes a shocking admission, “And if all Muslims conducted themselves like the man who gave up more than a week’s salary in order to do the right thing, I could be quite indifferent to the weird exhortations of the Koran” (p. 188). Hitchens is essentially saying that as long as religion produces good behavior the strange and peculiar commandments, beliefs and ideas are not a problem. He could have said as he has said elsewhere that religion is not needed to do good or to know right from wrong. Or he could have acted on his statement, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” But he didn’t. There was no ridicule for the cab driver. Instead, like many of us progressive religious people Hitchens demonstrated tolerance and a level of respect to this religious person and his beliefs.

The irony here is that when religious people make the same arguments as Hitchens they are attacked as religious apologists and face scorn from many in the atheist community. Why the double standard?

Being surprised by Hitchens’ response I asked the popular Alternet.org atheist writer and blogger Gretta Christina to comment on his line of thinking that if religion produced good behavior it’s ok to be indifferent to the “weird exhortations of the Koran” (without telling her it was Hitchens who actually said it). She stated,

It’s a terrible argument. People do act on their beliefs — and when those beliefs are mistaken, the actions are more likely to be problematic. Garbage in, garbage out.

What’s more, the very idea that it makes sense to believe things we have no good reason to think are true, in itself, does harm. It leads people to rely on wishful thinking in other areas of their lives – not just religion. And the more moderate and tolerant versions of faith lend credibility to the more extremist and intolerant versions.

Having watched just about every debate with Hitchens and written extensively about him and the new atheists (see the bottom of this article for links to my work on the subject) I would have initially suspected his thinking would be more along the lines of Christina’s. For certain, Hitchens has advanced many of her same arguments as he’s called the teachings of religion child abuse and has compared even the liberal and humanistic tradition of Unitarianism to rats and vermin. But, the more I listened to him, the more confused I became about what he actually believed about religion.

In his debate with Tony Blair, Hitchens answers the question of what it would take to make a good religion. He states, “It would have to give up all supernatural claims, it would say no you are not to do this under the threat of reward (heaven) or the terror of punishment (hell), no we can’t offer you miracles. Find me the Church that will say forget all that. Faith healing? No.” First, there are many religions and variations of them that already meet this claim such as Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarian Universalism, and progressive Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions just to name a few. All along Hitchens has incorrectly claimed that “to be religious is to be theist” i.e. to believe in a supernatural god. Not knowing that there are already religions that aren’t based on supernatural claims proves that Hitchens has a very limited understanding of the religious landscape or intentionally lies about his knowledge of it. Second, this is a different requirement than he stated in reference to the Muslim cab driver. In that case all that was required was good behavior. All of the “weird exhortations” i.e. threat of hell, supernatural claims or miracles in the Koran he could be indifferent too so long as people were nice and generous. In the same debate with Blair he stated yet another requirement for religion being acceptable. He said, “As long as you don’t want your religion taught to my children in school, given a government subsidy, imposed on me by violence you are fine by me.” Does this mean he’s ok with a “celestial dictator” (the term he uses for a supernatural god) as long people keep it to themselves? Granted, Hitchens may have different distinctions for what qualifies as a good religion as opposed to one that it is ok to be indifferent to. This deserves further explanation on his part. But, Hitchens gives at least three different reasons for religion getting a pass.

It’s fine if Hitchens wants to provide excuses for religion but he shouldn’t hide from the fact that he is doing so. The major thrust of his work has been to attack all things religion. Only on occasion does he slip in a statement that seems to suggest he’s less of a fundamentalist than he appears. These usually come out when he’s up against a liberal defender of religion like Tony Blair or Chris Hedges. But the remarks generally go unnoticed or are ignored because he’s never made them a recognizable element of his work. If he had, he simply couldn’t have written in the same either/or tone that he has. He’d be forced to confront the reality of what a more nuanced position towards religion would mean.

Hitchens is most likely well aware of the liberal and progressive expressions of religion that already meet his criteria for a “good” religion but he consistently chooses to ignore them and lump them together with the most dogmatic. It serves his purpose well. He also knows that religion inspires millions of people to do good and charitable acts like the Muslim cab driver who returned the money. Yet there is a lack of acknowledgment on Hitchens’ part of the already existing religious expressions that meet his criteria. And furthermore there is virtually no recognition by Hitchens or any new atheist of the long lineage of progressive religious reformers and theologians who have done way more than any atheist to make religion less dogmatic, less reliant upon supernatural claims and more inclusive and tolerant. Why not mention their contributions? Hitchens after all claims to be a “protestant atheist” as he recognizes the benefit of this historical reform movement. Or why not mention the current religious traditions that meet his criteria for being good or in the least worthy of being indifferent to?

I’d like to hear from Hitchens himself on which of the three excuses he’s made for religion is the one he subscribes to. Or perhaps it is a unique combination of them? Apparently, unlike other anti-religious atheists Hitchens doesn’t think religion per se is a danger despite his often contradictory remarks. Otherwise how could he give excuses for it? If he thought it was inherently bad he also wouldn’t be able to claim as he did in his debate with Blair that, “No one was arguing that religion should or would die out of the world. I’ll I’m arguing is that it would be better if there was a great deal more of an outbreak of secularism. We need a great deal less of one and a great deal more of the second.” If religion were truly dangerous why wouldn’t Hitchens want it to die out? What we need more of is not secularism but rather people who are generous, kind and compassionate like the Muslim cab driver regardless of their religious affiliation.

Religion isn’t going anywhere anytime soon so it makes sense for Hitchens and other new atheists to acknowledge and support those progressive religious strains which challenge the dogmatic, fundamentalist and bigoted dimensions of their traditions. If you’re worried that this type of support for liberal or moderate religion may justify the extremes have no fear because the idea is simply fiction.

As a prominent leader amongst atheists Christopher Hitchens has a responsibility and unique opportunity to clarify his stance on religion, especially if he’s willing to admit he’s ok with certain expressions of religion. Doing so could help us get beyond the false good/evil binary that defines so much of current thinking on the subject and lead to genuine dialogue between atheists new and old and the religious.

Be Scofield is a writer, founder of www.godblessthewholeworld.org and a Dr. King scholar. He writes and blogs for TikkunMagazine and his work has appeared on Alternet.org and Integral World among others. Be is pursuing a Master’s of Divinity in the Unitarian Universalist tradition with a dual certificate in women studies in religion and sacred dance with a concentration in Buddhism.

For more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s email digest or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

How do you support your troops? Regular, Special or Super?

As we celebrate Memorial Day, it can be hard to remember that this is not principally intended as  a day off from work for most of us, but as an occasion to honor dead soldiers who were once actual living persons, with many years of expected life ahead of them.

While contemplating the reality of all these dead young people, we would do well to ponder why soldiers are currently dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those who “support the troops”, i.e. support their being involved in those conflicts, should be able to explain, with vigor and simplicity, in just a few words, why it is necessary that they die—or risk dying.

Most can’t, and it’s not surprising that they are unfamiliar with some of the most revealing reports and analyses.

First, there’s the question of why the US (and its principal ally, Britain) invaded Iraq in the first place. We’ve had a lot to say on that topic, such as on Britain’s motivation (oil), more on Britain here, and then George W. Bush’s principal personal motivation (not oil!)

Enough Iraq. On to the war that gets the attention these days, Afghanistan. For perspective, see  the following, little-recalled BBC report from May 13, 2002—not long after the US invasion of Afghanistan and installation of Hamid Karzai in power:

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan’s biggest foreign investment project, Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

“The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit,” Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan’s former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the “lead company” among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal – which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea – has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

“Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects,” a spokesman told BBC News Online….

Also worth reviewing is this inadequately discussed June, 2010 article from the New York Times:

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion….

..American officials…recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country….

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said….

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency…..

While we’re at it, we might try and name places where large numbers of American troops have been deployed in recent years that do not have copious quantities of precious natural resources.

We also might think about possible reasons why Pakistan, the United States’ principal ally, is not very enthusiastic in helping fight off the Taliban. Consider the oft-cited explanation for Pakistan’s ambivalence: its never-ending geopolitical struggle with India. And a less-cited subtext: Some Pakistanis suspect that the Pakistani quarrel with India is largely perpetuated by the leadership of the Pakistani military because it keeps the army brass well positioned and well paid in a contentious, very poor country. (Kind of how the US military-industrial complex loved the Cold War.)

Here’s how the Associated Press oh-so-briefly characterized this recently, buried in a longer article about Pakistani “conspiracy theories”:

India and Pakistan have waged three wars since 1947 and exist in a state of semi-hostility. Left-wing critics accuse the army, which has ruled the country for much of its existence, of indoctrinating the country with mistrust of India to ensure that it keeps getting a large share of the country’s budget.

Let’s set aside AP’s marginalizing of those critics, and focus on the substance. Pakistan’s insistence on parity with India has been a principal justification for it receiving massive American financial and military aid. Thus, in a sense, the US funds the continued domination of Pakistani politics by the country’s military—and indirectly its support of the Afghan Taliban—while the US fights the Taliban.

Now let’s turn to the third theater of war, Libya, where American troops are not (yet) in ground combat, but certainly at war. As we’ve noted previously, the original stated reason for entering that conflict has essentially been abandoned (not that it was ever believable). If you’ve forgotten the original reason, which is entirely understandable, it was “protecting Libyan civilians”—(though see here for how we are not always that great at protecting civilians, particularly in Afghanistan.)

Most people don’t realize that the US has been deeply involved in creating the opposition that has “spontaneously” risen up against Qaddafi, and there’s (surprise surprise) an oil factor in play.

There’s another factor, too, we don’t hear being discussed. As the rest of the Arab world is swept up in turmoil and anger at US-backed dictators, a post-Qaddafi Libya looks awful nice as a place to base American troops—and if the US is the “rescuer” of the Libyan revolution, it is well positioned to request those bases.

Despite all of this, the obligatory talk (and not just on Memorial Day) is about how very, very proud we are of “our” troops, and their sacrifice. It is not in good taste to ask, however, what all this actually means. Though some do. Among the few is Andrew Bacevich, a retired career Army officer and professor of International Relations, who writes:

…From the perspective of those who engineer America’s wars, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it obviates any need for accountability. For nearly a decade now, popular willingness to “support the troops” has provided unlimited drawing rights on the United States Treasury.

Since 9/11, in waging its various campaigns, overt and covert, the United States military has expended hundreds of billions of (mostly borrowed) dollars. By the time the last invoice gets paid, the total will be in the trillions. Is the money being well spent? Are we getting good value? Is it possible that some of the largesse showered on U.S. forces trying to pacify Kandahar could be better put to use in helping to rebuild Cleveland? Given the existing terms of the civil-military relationship, even to pose such questions is unseemly. For politicians sending soldiers into battle, generals presiding over long, drawn-out, inconclusive campaigns, and contractors reaping large profits as a consequence, this war-comes-first mentality is exceedingly agreeable.

One wonders how many of those serving in the ranks are taken in by this fraud. The relationship between American people and their military—we love you; do whatever you want—seems to work for everyone. Everyone, that is, except soldiers themselves. They face the prospect of war without foreseeable end.

What’s missing from that fine essay (and from most analyses) is a candid assessment of the true power of the American oil industry. It is worth on this occasion taking a few minutes to examine that industry’s little-known history of muscling American presidents, here.

Of course, all the suggested reading above, albeit in short installments, can seem just too darned taxing. It’s a lot more fun to wave a flag and talk about “supporting our troops.” Even if we all know—very well indeed—that we do no such thing.

GRAPHIC: http://cdn.wn.com/pd/ef/ab/251ebe1d9e313650eeca1451fae2_grande.jpg

——————————————————————————–

WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news site founded by Russ Baker. Follow it on Facebook and Twitter or visit WhoWhatWhy.com

Written by Robin Marty for RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

The anti-abortion activists and politicians in the states have made passing 20-week abortion bans based on the idea of “fetal pain” a cause-du-jour for this year’s legislative sessions.  It’s become obvious, as Kate Sheppard reported in Mother Jones, that “fetal pain” is their number one priority this year, with four new states enacting bans and a dozen others at least proposing the legislation.

Emily Bazelon writes in the New York Times that the Center for Reproductive Rights is considering their own eventual lawsuit over the bans, which are unconstitutional due to the Roe V. Wade ruling stating that abortion cannot be banned before a fetus is viable, usually at around 23 weeks.  These state-based bans are only carving off a small section of new abortions, and as Bazelon notes these bans are in many cases “symbolic.”  Some of the states involved don’t even have providers that perform second trimester abortions, and the number of women seeking them out are only a tiny percentage of the overall number of women wanting the procedure.

It’s that statistic that is so dangerous, and why the push for legal action over the ban is exactly what anti-choice activists are both hoping for and counting on.

Just as anti-abortion activists won a victory in ending “partial-birth abortion,” a made-up term that helped change the face of abortion challenges by placing a government duty to “protect” a fetus over the needs of a mother, even though very few abortions would ever be affected by the ban, “fetal pain” bans seek to do the same: allow the Supreme Court to place a new standard for which the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of the woman carrying it.  

… Read more

Full disclosure: I find New York Times columnist David Brooks exceedingly annoying, and I have no intention of reading his most recent book, The Social Animal.

Having said that, I’m having a good week, and Brooks a very bad one. Either that, or he’s remaining willfully ignorant of the acutely barbed criticism of his work that has been popping up at a steady clip in recent days.

It started when the Nation published a classic smackdown of The Social Animal by Gary Greenberg, a psychotherapist and the author of Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease. Fellow Dissent blogger Lindsay Beyerstein has commented that Greenberg’s review is the most satisfying evisceration of a blowhard pundit “since Matt Taibbi savaged Tom Friedman’s The World is Flat.” (I’m not inclined to argue the point, although I’m sure I’d have fun reading other entries into that category.)

Greenberg takes Brooks to task for dabbling in neuroscience and cognitive psychology and then using his “findings” in these fields to ill effect: first, to give faux respectability to the conservative columnist’s favored vision of human nature; and, second, to provide an explanation for why liberal “attempts to narrow income inequality, stabilize the economy, spread democracy, and reduce political polarization have failed.” (Namely, Greenberg summarizes, because they allegedly “don’t mesh with our neuropsychological infrastructure.”)

Greenberg writes in response:

It is easy to wish, upon reading The Social Animal, that Brooks had stayed in his basement with his collection of books and scientific journals, occasionally sprinkling anecdotes about the latest amazing neuroscientific finding into his columns and lectures and Beltway chitchat. Not for our sake–after all, the book is no less genial, and no more infuriating, than his day-job commentary–but for his. The Social Animal is a deep and public embarrassment, a lumpy hybrid of fiction and science that fails at both, and so miserably that at least for a moment you feel bad for the guy. Because it is clear that he means every word, that this loose baggy monster, the bastard offspring of Malcolm Gladwell and Kilgore Trout, is a true love child.

Greenberg is just getting started here, and–unfortunately for Brooks–the Nation editors gave him plenty of space to work through the main arguments and assumptions of the book. The review is well worth enjoying in full.

As I previously indicated, I haven’t read The Social Animal myself, and I have no plans to. But I’ve delved deeply enough into the literature of bullshit sociobiology to smell the crap coming from some distance. Even from a safe remove, The Social Animal reeks.

I will not excuse progressives from the fault of drawing ridiculously over-generalized conclusions from evolutionary theory and contemporary neuroscience. I recently reviewed Tim Flannery’s new book, Here On Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, in which the author makes a variety of sociobiological claims about how we might be “hard-wired” to live in sync with Mother Nature. I Am, the liberal, feel-good documentary about social engagement and the meaning of life, is another example. That film tried hard to establish that evolution has predisposed human beings toward the cooperative, democratic sharing of group hugs in public places.

I didn’t buy the argument in those venues either, but at least I didn’t have to stomach contrived parables about how post-Reagan consumer capitalism is the best of all possible worlds.

While the Greenberg review might be the sharpest blow landed against Brooks this week, it has not been the only one. Just in time for President Obama’s trip abroad, Brooks wrote a column from England celebrating the British political system. He argued that, just as the British moved “gradually” from “an aristocratic political economy to a democratic, industrial one” in the opening decades of the 1900s, the country has now entered into a peaceful end-of-history phase. Since Thatcher “liberat[ed] the economy” in the 1980s, the country’s political parties can now agree to each “come up with new ways to measure government performance, reduce welfare dependency, and improve early childhood programs.”

Alternet’s Joshua Holland pointed to a very effective response by Daniel Knowles in the Telegraph entitled, “David Brooks of the New York Times thinks he understands Great Britain. He doesn’t.” Knowles wrote:

No doubt Mr. Brooks’ Westminster admirers will lap this up–is there anything we love more than being told how good we are by foreigners? But this column is laughably ignorant of British history and bizarrely naive about British political culture.

Let’s take a few choice bits, starting with the opening paragraph. Apparently, from 1900 to 1920:

“Britain faced an enormous task: To move from an aristocratic political economy to a democratic, industrial one. This transition was made gradually, without convulsion, with both parties playing a role.”

Gradually? Without convulsion? I don’t know if you’re aware of this David, but most British historians believe that the First World War was pretty convulsive. And definitely not very gradual. He seems to think that Britain cast off her aristocratic rulers by a process of “constructive competition.” In fact, what happened was that we went to war, conscripted millions of young men and sent them to France to be machine-gunned. Simultaneously, our government was taken over by a clique, led by Lloyd George, which ruled autocratically from a garden shed in No. 10 Downing Street. Meanwhile, a whole part of the country–Ireland–descended into civil war. Somehow, I don’t see that as a “gradual” transformation.

The well-earned abuse continues from there.

Of course, it should be said that picking a fight with David Brooks is not exactly the most daring move a political commentator can make. On this note, I will close with the observation of a friend. He wrote to me, “Mocking David Brooks is somehow both the lowest of low-hanging fruit and vital to our democracy. It’s a puzzle.”

[Cross-posted from the "Arguing the World" blog at Dissent magazine.]

Written by Dr. Katherine Scheirman for RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Dr. Katherine Scheirman served as an officer in the United States Air Force as a physician for 20 years. As Chief, Medical Operations Division for the Headquarters, United States Air Forces in Europe (HQ USAFE) her assignments included oversight of the quality of care provided at Air Force hospitals and clinics in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Turkey. Dr. Scheirman retired as a colonel in 2006.

I was deeply disappointed to learn that on May 24, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives shut down debate on an amendment that would have provided abortion services to military women who become pregnant as a result of rape.

Under current law, the Department of Defense is barred from providing coverage for abortion except where the pregnant woman’s life is endangered. Unlike other federal bans on abortion coverage, the military ban provides no exception for cases of rape or incest. The current policy is shameful. Our military women, who serve and sacrifice for their country, should not have worse health care benefits than civilians who rely on the government for their insurance coverage.

As Chief of Medical Operations at the Air Force’s European Headquarters, I was significantly involved in the initial development of the Sexual Assault Response and Prevention program (SAPRO) for our bases throughout Europe. Improvements in the area of prevention and reporting of assaults, and in the provision of emergency contraception, are commendable. However, military sexual assaults remain unacceptably high.

While the Department of Defense maintains a zero tolerance policy on sexual assault, this crime has reached crisis level in the military. … Read more

Memorial Day is a national holiday dedicated to remembering Americans killed in wartime. This year, unfortunately, we remember war dead who didn’t have to die, and unless Congress and the president act, we’ll remember more needless deaths next year. As of today, 1,516 Americans have died in the Afghanistan War, a conflict that the American people oppose and the continuation of which makes no sense.

Hidden from the front pages of newspapers and other media who can’t be bothered to devote significant coverage to the longest war in U.S. history, these dead troops had names and lives before our national policies forced them to give them up.

For example, 23-year-old Army Pvt. Thomas C. Allers from Plainwell, Michigan, was remembered as a “great kid, very sweet,” who enjoyed fishing with his parents. He died this week alongside Staff Sgt. Kristofferson B. Lorenzo, 33, of Chula Vista, California; Pfc. William S. Blevins, 21, of Sardinia, Ohio; and Pvt. Andrew M. Krippner, 20, of Garland, Texas.

These men didn’t have to die. They died because our politicians sent them to Afghanistan over the continued objections of their countrymen. Their comrades will continue to die until those politicians bring them home.

In a bitter moment of irony this week, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly failed to agree to amendments that would have reined in the brutal, futile war on the same day U.S. troops were suffering their worst losses in Afghanistan since Bin Laden’s death. But, as Robert Naiman points out, even though McGovern/Jones amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act failed, the vote margin was so narrow (204-215) that it sent a strong signal to the president that Congress’ patience with the constantly deteriorating and resource-hungry war was running out. As U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) put it, “[W]hen somebody comes up with the right amendment, it’s going to pass.”

The American people’s patience ran out long ago, however. For months, poll after poll has shown rock-solid opposition to the Afghanistan War. Since last December, for example, Pew Research Center’s polling has consistently shown that at least a plurality (hovering around 50 percent) want to “remove troops ASAP.” With Osama Bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda driven from the country, it’s time Congress and the president listened.

Today, we remember Americans killed during the Afghanistan War. Below are the names of the troops who died in that conflict just since last Memorial Day. Congress and the president need to act to end this war immediately so that next year’s list is drastically shorter. Please take a moment to sign our petition to bring the troops home.

• Abbate, Matthew
• Aceves, Omar
• Acosta, Rudy A.
• Adams, Christian M.
• Adamski III, Frank E.
• Adkins, Charles L.
• Adkinson III, Vinson B.
• Aguilar, Amaru
• Ahmed, Shane H.
• Ainsworth, Jesse W.
• Alcaraz, Raymond C.
• Aleman, Nicholas J.
• Allen, Justin B.
• Allers, Thomas C.
• Ambard, Philip D.
• Amores, Jason G.
• Anderson, Brian M.
• Andrade, John E.
• Andrews, Scott A.
• Antonik, Christopher J.
• Arizmendez, Marc A.
• Arrechaga, Ofren
• Ashlock, Vincent W.
• Atim, Paul J.
• Ausborn, Jeffrey O.
• Ayube II, James A.
• Bailey, Michael C.
• Balduf, Kevin B.
• Baldwin, Robert F.
• Balthaser, Jesse M.
• Bartelt, Justus S.
• Barton, Robert N.
• Bauer, Joseph A.
• Beckerman, Michael J.
• Benitez, Carlos A.
• Bennedsen, Robert N.
• Billingsley, Tramaine J.
• Bishop, John C.
• Bitner, Benjamin F.
• Blevins, William S.
• Board, Cody A.
• Bock, Michael A.
• Boelk, James D.
• Bohall, Thomas A.
• Bolen, Edward H.
• Bovia, Joseph A.
• Boyd, Christopher J.
• Braggs, Randy R.
• Brodeur, David L.
• Broehm, Matthew J.
• Brown, Tara R.
• Brummund, Gavin R.
• Bryant Jr., Frank D.
• Bubacz, Andrew S.
• Buenagua, Ardenjoseph A.
• Buffalo, Loren M.
• Buras, Michael J.
• Burgess, Bryan A.
• Burgess, Scott H.
• Bury, Brandon C.
• Buzinski, Keith T.
• Byrd, Jordan
• Cabacoy, Christopher F.
• Cain, Justin J.
• Calhoun Jr., Marvin R.
• Callahan, Sean T.
• Calo, Jason D.
• Campbell, Joshua R.
• Campbell, Karl A.
• Carazo, Mario D.
• Carpenter, Andrew P.
• Carroll, Jacob C.
• Carroll, Patrick R.
• Carron, Paul D.
• Carse, Nathan B.
• Carver, Jacob R.
• Carver, Ross S.
• Caskey, Joseph D.
• Castro, Andrew J.
• Castro, John P.
• Catherwood, Alec E.
• Catlett, Matthew R.
• Cemper, Joseph B.
• Ceniceros, Irvin M.
• Chapleau, Kristopher D.
• Charte, Philip G. E.
• Chihuahua, Shannon
• Childers, Cody S.
• Chisholm, Benjamen G.
• Ciaramitaro, Dominic J.
• Clark, Ryane G.
• Clements, Chad D.
• Coleman, Chad D.
• Collins, Sean M.
• Cooper, Keenan A.
• Cornelius, Kevin M.
• Corzine, Kenneth A.
• Cox, Nathan W.
• Craig, Adam D.
• Creamer, Zainah C.
• Creighton, Andrew J.
• Crouse IV, William H.
• Crow, Robert W.
• Cruttenden, Aaron B.
• Cueto, Kevin A.
• Culbreth, Justin E.
• Cullins, Joshua J.
• Curtis, Jonathan M.
• Cutsforth, Sean R.
• Cuzzupe, Paul O.
• Dawson, William Brandon
• Day, David P.
• Deans, Patrick D.
• DeBoer, Daane Adam
• Deluzio, Steven J.
• Dennis, Jacob A.
• Dennis, Preston J.
• Dew, Victor A.
• Deyoung, Matthew J.
• Dickmyer, Adam L.
• Dimock II, Joseph W.
• Donahue, Max W.
• Donnelly IV, William J.
• Dumaw, Joshua R.
• Dupont, Steven L.
• Durham, Patrick K.
• Eastman, Christopher L.
• Edgerton, Donald R.
• Emrick, Jordan B.
• Estelle II, Raymond G.
• Fabbri, Ralph J.
• Fahey Jr., David R.
• Fannin, Shawn D.
• Farley, Derek J.
• Fastuca, Louis R.
• Faulkner, Jeremy P.
• Fedder, Daniel L.
• Feldhaus, Dustin J.
• Fike, Robert J.
• Filpi III, Vincent A.
• Fisher, Zachary M.
• Flannery, Sean M.
• Fleming, Scott J.
• Flores, Michael P.
• Forester, Mark Andrew
• Freeman, Ronald D.
• Frison, Demetrius M.
• Gammone III, Vincent E.
• Gartner, Ryan A.
• Garvin, Nathaniel D.
• Gassen, Jacob A.
• Geary, Michael E.
• Gentz, Joel C.
• George, Matthew Eric
• Giese, Joseph R.
• Gire, Joshua S.
• Goeke, Christopher S.
• Goetz, Dale A.
• Goncalo, Ethan L.
• Gonzalez, Edwin
• Gould, Kristopher J.
• Grady, Ryan J.
• Green, Stacy A.
• Greer, Kristopher D.
• Grider, Ronald A.
• Grochowiak, Casey J.
• Hamilton, Adam S.
• Hamski, Joseph J.
• Hand, Andrew
• Hardin, Ethan C.
• Harley Jr., Willie J.
• Harper, Andrew M.
• Harris Jr., Larry D.
• Harris, Devon J.
• Harris, Todd M.
• Harrison, Calvin B.
• Harton, Joshua A.
• Hennigan, Matthew R.
• Hermanson, Matthew D.
• Hermogino, Ken K.
• Hernandez, Derek
• Hernandez, Jose A.
• Hess, David A
• Hidalgo, Daren M.
• High, IV, Charles M.
• Hizon Rudolph R.
• Holbrook, Jason E.
• Holder, Kyle M.
• Holley, Floyd E. C.
• Holmes, David A.
• Honeycutt Jr., Terry E.
• Hoover, Bryan A.
• Hotchkin, Gunnar R.
• Howard, Abram L.
• Htaik, Maung P.
• Hughes, Bradley S.
• Hunter, James P.
• Huse, Dakota R.
• Hutchins, Andrew
• Ide, James R.
• Infante, Jesse
• Jackson, Francisco R.
• Jackson, Joe M.
• Jackson, Timothy M.
• Jarrell, John H.
• Jarvis, Barry E.
• Javier Jr., Conrado D.
• Jefferson, David
• Jenkins, Gerald R.
• Jirtle, Charles S.
• Johnson, Daniel J.
• Johnson, John C.
• Johnson, Joseph D.
• Johnson, Kalin C.
• Johnson, Matthew J.
• Johnson, Raymon L. A.
• Johnson, Timothy L.
• Jones, Adam D.
• Justesen, Anthony T.
• Justice, James, A.
• Karch, Christopher N.
• Kelly, Robert M.
• Kennedy, Joseph A.
• Kessler, Kevin J.
• Kihm, John F.
• King, Brandon M.
• King, Jarrid L.
• Kirspel Jr., Michael D.
• Kirton, Brandon M.
• Klusacek, Erick J.
• Kramer, Aaron K.
• Kridlo, Dale J.
• Krippner, Andrew M.
• Lammerts, Michael S.
• Lancaster, Joshua T.
• Land, Brett W.
• Laningham, Ira B.
• Lee, Roger
• Lew, Harry
• Lillard, Nathan E.
• Lim, Daniel
• Lindskog, Jameson
• Locht, Gwendolyn A.
• Looney, Andrew R.
• Looney, Brendan J.
• Lopez, Joseph C.
• Loredo, Edwardo
• Lorenzo, Kristofferson B.
• Lugo, Martin A.
• Lukeala, Joshua A.
• Lutes, David C.
• Lynch, Scott A.
• Madden, Russell E.
• Maher, Brent M.
• Mahr, Michael C.
• Malachowski, James M.
• Maldonado, Alexis V.
• Maldonado, Jose L.
• Maldonado, Pedro A.
• Marler, Donald M.
• Martin, Shane R.
• Martinez Jr., Rafael
• Matteoni, Anthony D.
• Mays, Chauncy R.
• McAninch, Kenneth K.
• McClellan, Jonah D.
• McClimans, Joshua M.
• McCluskey, Jason J.
• McDaniel, Mecolus C.
• McGahan, Michael E.
• McGarrah, Clayton D.
• McLain, Buddy W.
• McLawhorn Jr., Willie A.
• McLendon, David B.
• McMahon, Jason T.
• McNeley, Justin
• Meari, Andrew N.
• Meis, Christopher S.
• Meletiche, Pedro A. Millet
• Melton, Bradley L.
• Mickler Jr., Donald R.
• Mills Jr., Edward D.
• Middleton, William K.
• Miller, David T.
• Miller, Paul J.
• Milley, Scott F.
• Miranda, Denis C.
• Misener, Garrett A.
• Mittler, Shaun M.
• Mixon, Kelly J.
• Moffitt, Thomas A.
• Montoya, Diego M.
• Mooldyk, Evan J.
• Moon, Christopher J.
• Moore, Benjamin G.
• Mora, Conrad A.
• Morrison, Donald Scott
• Moses, Sonny Jade
• Muhr, Shawn A.
• Muller, Ian M.
• Nagorski, Scott T.
• Near, Robert J.
• Necochea Jr., Kenneth E.
• Neenan, Brendan P.
• Negron, Carlos J.
• Nettleton, Eric M.
• Newlove, Jarod
• Newman, Eric C.
• Newman, Jaime C.
• Newton, Robert J.
• Nguyen, Tevan L.
• Nichols, Donald L.
• Nicol, Andrew C.
• Novak, Adam J.
• Noziska, Mark
• Nylander, Nathan J.
• O’Malley, Aracely Gonzalez
• Oakes, Curtis A.
• Officer, Justin A.
• Oquin, James J.
• Oratowski, Kevin E.
• Ortega, William
• Ortiz Rivera, Javier O.
• Osborn, Benjamin D.
• Osborne, Jerod H.
• Ose, Joshua S.
• Osman, Ergin V.
• Osterman, Sean A.
• Page, James A.
• Pallares, Ronnie J.
• Palmer, Benjamin J.
• Pape, Kevin M.
• Paranzino, Michael F.
• Park, Benjamin J.
• Park, Daehan
• Patino IV, Claudio
• Patton, Adam J.
• Pearson, Brandon W.
• Pedro, Brian J.
• Peney, Jonathan K.
• Peto, Jason D.
• Petree, Jaysine P. S.
• Pharris, Robert W.
• Pickering, Brandon T.
• Piercy, Brian F.
• Pierre, Linda L.
• Pietri, Jose M. Caraballo
• Pilgeram, Jonathan A.
• Plank, Michael G.
• Plunk, Jared C.
• Poulin, Dennis C.
• Powell, Joshua D.
• Powell, Matthew C.
• Prentler, Joseph T.
• Pressley, Cheziray
• Pridham, Michael S.
• Pyeatt, Lucas T.
• Rabon Jr.,Luther W.
• Ramirez, Joel A.
• Ramsey, Matthew W.
• Raney, Daniel G.
• Rankel, John K.
• Ransom, Charles A.
• Rappuhn, Bradley D.
• Rast, Benjamin D.
• Raver, Bryn T.
• Redding, Blaine E.
• Reed, Jesse D.
• Reeves, Jason A.
• Reifert, Shane M.
• Repkie, Robert K. L.
• Richards, William T.
• Ridgley Jr., Charles E.
• Riley Jr., Brian D.
• Rivadeneira, Juan L.
• Roads, Tyler A.
• Roberts, Cody A.
• Roberts, Edgar N.
• Robinson, David S.
• Robinson, James C.
• Rodewald, Joseph E.
• Rodgers, Christopher B.
• Rodriguez, Arturo E.
• Rodriguez, Mario
• Rodriguez, Ronald A.
• Rogers, Jason A.
• Rogers, John M.
• Romig, Christian J.
• Rosa, Anthony J.
• Ross, Justin D.
• Runkle, John M.
• Rusk, Colton W.
• Sadell, Charles M.
• Saenz III, Jose L.
• Salmon, Zachary S.
• Sanchez, Daniel R.
• Santiago, Anibal
• Santos, Dave M.
• Schlote, Robert C.
• Schmalstieg, Justin E.
• Schultz, Nathaniel J. A.
• Scott, Lucas C.
• Self, David D.
• Senft, David P.
• Serwinowski, Timothy G.
• Shanfield, Derek L.
• Shaw, Eric B.
• Shoecraft, Justin B.
• Silk, Brandon M.
• Simmons, Anthony W.
• Simonetta, Derek T.
• Simpson, Mark A.
• Sinkler, Amy R.
• Sisson Jr., Robert C.
• Smith, Adam O.
• Smith, David C.
• Smith, Jason T.
• Smith, Jeremy D.
• Snow, Deangelo B.
• Snow, Jesse Adam
• Sockalosky, Stephen C.
• Solorzanovaldovinos, Diego A.
• Solesbee, Kristoffer M.
• Soltero, Omar
• Southworth, Tristan H.
• Sparks, John T.
• Spaulding, Riley S.
• Springer II, Clinton E.
• Stack, James B.
• Staggs, Austin G.
• Standfest, Jeffrey R.
• Stanley, Chase
• Stansbery, Michael L.
• Stanton, Jordan R.
• Stark, Christopher G.
• Stout, Christopher T.
• Stout, Kyle B.
• Swanson, Aaron M.
• Swink, James Michael
• Tabada, Brian
• Tanner, Phillip C.
• Tate, Jacob A.
• Tate, Sheldon L.
• Tawney, Ian M.
• Taylor, Cynthia R.
• Taylor, Johnathan W.
• Theinert, Joseph J.
• Thode, James E.
• Thomas, Collin
• Thomas, David W.
• Thompson, Blair D.
• Thibodeau, Christopher R.
• Tilton, Jesse R.
• Tompkins, Travis M.
• Torbert Jr., Eric M.
• Trueblood, Eric S.
• Tucker, Lamarol J.
• Turner, Eddie
• Twigg, Joshua T.
• Van Aalst, Jared N.
• Vargas, Anthony
• Vargas, Julio
• Varnadore II, Terry L.
• Vazquez, Frederik E.
• Velazquez, Louie A. Ramos
• Venetz Jr., Anthony
• Vieyra, Barbara
• Villacis, Jorge E.
• Villanueva, Jonathan M.
• Villarreal Jr., Jorge
• Vinnedge, Phillip D.
• Vogeler, Lance H.
• Wade, Andrew P.
• Wade, Chad S.
• Wagstaff, Matthew G.
• Wallace, Ellery R.
• Walters, Zachary J.
• Warren, Kyle R.
• Warriner, Christian M.
• Weaver, Jason M.
• Weaver, Todd W.
• Weigle, Dave J.
• Weikert, Matthew W.
• Weis, James M.
• Welch III, Robert F.
• Wells, Mark C.
• West, Matthew J.
• Whipple, Blake D.
• White, Benjamin D.
• White, Kevin W.
• Whitehead, Joseph C.
• Wilfahrt, Andrew C.
• Williams, Leslie D.
• Winters, Leston M.
• Wisniewski, David A.
• Wood, Edwin C.
• Wren, Charles J.
• Wright, Christopher S.
• Wrightsman, Joe L.
• Wyatt, Derek A.
• Yates, Eric
• Young, James C.
• Zaehringer III, Frank R.
• Zimmerman, James R.

Recently, the New York Times published an editorial critical of the Supreme Court for failing to hear cases on kidnap and torture by the US government. And of the Obama Administration.

It raised important questions—and prompted more in a reader’s mind:

Extraordinary rendition — the abduction of foreigners, often innocent ones, by American agents who sent them to countries well known for torturing prisoners — was central to President George W. Bush’s antiterrorism policy. His administration then used wildly broad claims of state secrets to thwart any accountability for this immoral practice.

President Obama has adopted the same legal tactic of using the secrecy privilege to kill lawsuits. So the only hope was that the courts would not permit these widely known abuses of power to go unchecked.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court abdicated that duty. It declined to review a case brought by five individuals who say — credibly — that they were kidnapped and tortured in overseas prisons. The question was whether people injured by illegal interrogation and detention should be allowed their day in court or summarily tossed out.

The court’s choice is a major stain on American justice. By slamming its door on these victims without explanation, it removed the essential judicial block against the executive branch’s use of claims of secrecy to cover up misconduct that shocks the conscience. It has further diminished any hope of obtaining a definitive ruling that the government’s conduct was illegal — a vital step for repairing damage and preventing future abuses.

The lead plaintiff, an Ethiopian citizen and resident of Britain named Binyam Mohamed, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. The C.I.A. turned him over to Moroccan interrogators, who subjected him to brutal treatment that he says included cutting his penis with a scalpel and then pouring a hot, stinging liquid on the open wound.

After the trial court gave in to the secrecy argument, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case should proceed. It said the idea that the executive branch was entitled to have lawsuits shut down with a blanket claim of national security would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.”

Last September, the full appeals court, ruling en banc, reversed that decision by a 6-to-5 vote. The dissenters noted that the basic facts of the plaintiffs’ renditions were already public knowledge. But the majority gave in to the pretzel logic shaped by the Bush administration that allowing the torture victims a chance to make their case in court using non-secret evidence would risk divulging state secrets.

The Supreme Court allowed that nonsense to stand.

It is difficult to believe there are legitimate secrets regarding the plaintiffs’ ill treatment at this late date. Last year, a British court released secret files containing the assessment of British intelligence that the detention of Mr. Mohamed violated legal prohibitions against torture and cruel and degrading treatment.

The Supreme Court should have grabbed the case and used it to rein in the distorted use of the state secrets privilege, a court-created doctrine meant to shield sensitive evidence in actions against the government, not to dismiss cases before evidence is produced.

But this is not the first time the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to hear cases involving national security questions of this sort. A year ago, the Supreme Court refused to consider the claims of Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian whom the Bush administration sent to Syria to be tortured. In 2007, the court could not muster the four votes needed to grant review in the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen subjected to torture in a secret overseas prison.

As President Obama’s first solicitor general, Justice Elena Kagan was in on the benighted decision to use overwrought secrecy claims to stop any hearing for torture victims. She properly recused herself from voting on the case. Surely among the eight remaining judges there was at least one sensitive to the gross violation of rights, and apparently law. We wish they would have at least offered a dissent or comment to let the world know that the court’s indifference was not unanimous.

Instead, what the world sees is rendition victims blocked from American courts while architects of their torment write books bragging about their role in this legal and moral travesty. Some torture victims bounced from American courts, including Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Arar, have received money from nations with comparatively minor involvement in their ordeals.

The Supreme Court’s action ends an important legal case, but not President Obama’s duty to acknowledge what occurred, and to come up with ways to compensate torture victims and advance accountability. It is hard, right now, to be optimistic.

So that’s the situation at present, as the American people begin sorting out Obama’s credibility, first-term legacy, whether he deserves re-election—and if so, backed by what degree of enthusiasm.

The real question, in my mind, is: what in the world is Obama thinking? Why take this approach so very opposite “change we can believe in?”

Since I doubt the White House will tell me, I turned to a fellow who follows these matters on a daily basis: Steven Aftergood,  who runs the Project on Government Secrecy, Federation of American Scientists. (You can learn more on secrecy policy here.)

I asked him how he explains Obama’s attitude toward torture and accountability.

Here’s what he wrote me back:

I don’t have any particular insight into the Admin’s thinking.  All that I can infer is the official policy is intended to maximize executive power and freedom of action, not to advance any coherent political or moral set of principles.  Regrettably, the Supreme Court gave its blessing.

Keep in mind that Aftergood is no wild-eyed radical. He’s a careful and precise man, and he thinks before he speaks (or writes.) So, what we have here is this:

The Obama administration’s “official policy” seems to be to “maximize executive power and freedom of action, not to advance any coherent political or moral set of principles.”

This is disturbing on its face. But consider this in light of the choices it’s made, with regard to:

-keeping longtime Bush family insider Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary, a position he also held under George W. Bush.

-continuing a virtually indistinguishable policy with regard to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—then adding a war in Libya.

-refusing to question the treatment of military whistleblower Bradley Manning

-failing to have a candid discussion with the American people about the stranglehold that the military-industrial-espionage-oil complex has over the American presidency itself.

For more background on all of this, please see previous WhoWhatWhy pieces, such as

-The oil industry’s grip on the US government

-Why we are in Libya

-Lack of accountability for killing civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan

-The story behind national security post reshuffling

and more on that

-The CIA’s man in Libya

-Evidence of oil industry pressure regarding the Iraq invasion

-And, finally, and perhaps most important, “What Obama is Up Against”:

Then come back here and share your comments. Tell us: what’s up with Obama?

———————————————————————–

WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news site founded by Russ Baker. Follow it on Facebook and Twitter or visit WhoWhatWhy.com

Why do we offer Fabulous Sainthood this week at our Earthalujah! church to a hero of the housing rights movement, Ms. Marina Metalios? Aren’t housing and the environment two different issues?

No, we no longer have “issues.” Not stand-alone issues. 2011 is too late for that. When we are all drawing our last breath, there will be only one issue: life itself. If all the fires and floods and winds and our own accumulated poisons leave us without air to breathe, and at that last moment we ask ourselves How did this happen? – we might blame our demise on the refusal to shelter our fellow human beings.

When so much of today’s information culture reports that the Joplin tornado is a disconnected event, “natural,” and fitting logically with death tolls of 1953 and 1925, then we know that extreme weather is matching extreme blindness. It is the same blindness that accepts homelessness, imprisonment of immigrants, and a racist justice system.

When cruelty becomes shrugged off as inevitable in a realistic world – our common sense breaks down. We suffer cracks in the lens of our perspective. Climate science denial doesn’t come from stupidity. It comes from the de-coupling of cause and effect that we have in the common sense of keeping our loved ones safe.

So, in honoring Marina Metalios – life-long defender of housing rights – we are healing our view of the Earth. Her work helps us to take care of our communities first, and then we see the interconnected community of the whole Earth open before us. Of course we will house the people of Joplin, Missouri. And also we will care for the Earth that shelters us. The Earth should not be driven to destroy our homes with the fierce winds of our broken love.

Join Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir with special guest Marina Metalios this Sunday at The Church of Earthalujah! LIVE in NYC and online via webstream: http://bit.ly/ChurchofEarthalujah

Reverend Billy’s brilliantly bombasting boldly brief, quirky, quixotic Earthalujah sermons — now available as video podcasts! Watch & subscribe to our new podcast, Reverend Billy’s Freak Storm at revbilly.com/podcast

In one of the most surprising and inspiring grassroots campaigns this year, the Citizens for a Better Arizona will make history next Tuesday, May 31st, when they present Secretary of State Ken Bennett with more than twice as many signatures needed to recall notorious state Senate President Russell Pearce (R-Mesa).

Defying all expectations, the once powerful Pearce will become the first Senate president to be recalled in American history, according to campaign supporters, if 7,756 valid signatures from Pearce’s District 18 in Phoenix-area Mesa are verified over a rigorous 90-day period.

Take note: The other Arizona — the real Arizona, for a rapidly growing statewide movement — has re-emerged to reclaim its state from one of the nation’s most controversial and embarrassing right-wing hardliners.

Appearing in Tucson yesterday, Phoenix-based campaign organizer Randy Parraz and a crowd of bipartisan supporters urged volunteers to turn out this holiday weekend for the final canvassing of signatures in the Mesa-area district. The symbolic number: 17,553 signatures — one more than the total Pearce received in his low turnout victory in 2010.

Hundreds of supporters in Pearce’s district and around the state have taken part in an extensive door-to-door campaign that many had doubts would ever succeed.

Stating Pearce’s “indefensible” actions are out of step with the values and interests of Arizona voters, the bipartisan Citizens for a Better Arizona have listed four major reasons for their historic recall:

1. Voted to terminate health care for seniors, struggling families and people with a disability.

2. Opposes the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

3. Voted to require American citizens show a Government ID for emergency care.

4. Opposes access to public education for all Arizona children.

Most recently, Pearce has been at the center of a scandal over improper Fiesta Bowl gifts and favors. As the architect of the controversial SB 1070 immigration law, Pearce has attracted national attention for his calls for punitive crackdowns on the state’s immigrant communities. Last fall he accused President Obama of “waging jihad” on America. Earlier this week, FOX News Phoenix explored Pearce’s widely denounced connections to neo-Nazi hate groups:

At the press conference, retired Tucson businessman Ed Booth criticized Pearce’s dominant role in the state as an “extreme negative distraction” that has derailed legislative efforts for economic development and education. As Pearce and the state legislature passed draconian cuts in education this spring, Booth reminded participants, former Intel CEO Craig Barrett warned the state that major businesses were overlooking Arizona due to its poor education commitment.

Declaring that Pearce’s national role on immigration and other issues transcended his district in Mesa and Arizona state politics, Parraz told participants in Tucson to prepare for a national campaign.

“Pearce and his machine are going to do anything they can to stall and stop this recall,” Parraz said.

He clarified recent reports that an error in the recall timetable by the Elections Directors might delay any subsequent election until next spring. Parraz explained the 90-day process of signature verification by the Secretary of State’s office, the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, and the governor’s final 15-day period to call for new elections. Citizens for a Better Arizona has hired the Perkins Cole law firm to monitor the verification process.

“We can’t sit idly by,” warned former state senator Luis Gonzales, calling on all Arizonans to save the state’s reputation, and revamp its commitment to education and the economy.

Written by Brady Swenson for RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

A man who drove to Madison, Wisconsin to kill an abortion doctor faces federal charges for intending to attack a Planned Parenthood office in Madison, Wisconsin and murder abortion providers. Ralph Lang, 63, was arrested Wednesday night when his gun went off in his motel room not far from the Planned Parenthood clinic that he planned to attack Thursday. According to a criminal complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court Lang said he had a gun “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies.”

… Read more