And through it all, the Universe just keeps chugging along:

From ABC Online (Australia) - Light echoes through space: this sequence from the Hubble Space Telescope shows the January 2002 eruption of V838 Monocerotis reverberating through dust clouds - in May (top), September (middle), and December 2002 (bottom). At the centre is the expanding red supergiant (Pics: NASA/ESA/STScI)

Dave at "How to Save the World" has an interesting post on the propaganda coming out about the war, including information the "civilian uprising" in Barsa that never quite was and the impact of knocking the Iraqi national TV station off the air in the early hours of the war.  He closes the post with this note:

$75 Billion just for the first phase of the war - that's $3,000 (a fortune) for every Iraqi man, woman and child. Think of what could have been done with that money.

Indeed.

I mentioned in an earlier post about Jan and I both having had our 6 month "blogiversaries" (I'm probably going to kick myself over using that word, but it's been a weird morning).  I also just learned that Rayne, too, has just had hers.

Rayne, I love the personal glimpses you give us into your life and how the various issues we're facing affect you and your family.  It helps give a context to your views, with gives them that much more power.  Congrats!! 

Below is the text of a resolution that has been submitted to the House of Representatives. (Found via Atrios at Eschaton)

It seems that now our Congress thinks we need to spend time praying and fasting in order to convince God to help us.  Of course, if the war truly was what God wanted Bush (and hence, us) to do, wouldn't he be helping us already?

And even though it may be something of a tradition for such resolutions to be put forth, exactly what business does the secular government of this secular nation have in calling upon the citizens of the US to "seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and learn how we can do better in our everyday activities"?  I'm sorry, but I think I have failings that require divine assistance, I think I can figure that out for myself, thankyouverymuch, and will decide on my own if I want to pray or not.  I certainly don't need the House of Representatives to call upon me to do so!

Another thing I found interesting - the resolution states that "all of the various faiths of the people of the United States" recognize "the need for fasting and humble supplication".  Somehow I don't think they did a comprehensive survey before making that assertion.  While I'm sure there are some people of almost any faith who would engage in prayer and fasting as a means of communicating with their God or Gods, it's not an actual tenet of every religion in the nation.  Many of the Pagan faiths, for example, have no position whatsoever about whether or not one should fast and pray. It's certainly not something that is viewed as "needed".

This is just another example of why it is the government should stay out of religion entirely, and if you think this resolution has me a bit incensed, you're right.  I am.  Granted, the resolution clearly has no binding legal effect on me to do anything,  but the government simply has no business trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do as part of my own personal spirituality.

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 153

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

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 20, 2003

Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SOUDER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

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

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;

Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;

Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;

Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer' ;

Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;

Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting , prayer and humiliation;

Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before
Providence;

Whereas humility, fasting , and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;

Whereas, through prayer , fasting , and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and

Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting : Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--

(1) designating a day for humility, prayer , and fasting for all people of the United States; and

(2) calling on all people of the United States--

(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting ;

(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and

(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

"The storm is from God," he said, looking out his trembling window. "Until the aggression started, never in my life did I see a storm like this. We all believe in God, we all have faith in God. And God is setting obstacles against the Americans." [Washington Post]

Our President believes that his divine purpose is to rid the world of Saddam Hussein (and probably anyone else he believes is a terrorist), and that God chose him to lead the nation at this time in history.  He also believes that God is on "our side" in the war. 

Now Iraqis are wondering if maybe God isn't on "their side" - and is now helping them out by sending an intense sandstorm to interfere with our ability to wage this war effectively. 

Maybe one of the embedded reporters will get a chance to find out where God is currently staying and ask him about it. 

Last week I posted about the creeping fascism that seems to be growing in our nation.  It's a topic I plan to stay on top of, and which other bloggers and activists have been writing about as well.  I found this passage in an interesting article at The Email Activist.  While there are points in the article where the author seems to be slipping a bit into hyperbolic paranoia (such as asking when slave labour may be making a comeback), the majority of the article reflects what I've seen and heard from a variety of other sources, and it makes an excellent point about how far we've come from the roots of this country and why it was initially established in the first place.

When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government.Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism.

Isn’t the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we’re fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now surrender in the name of fighting terrorism.

The article also includes a short list of the rights and freedoms that we have lost since 9/11 - most of them through the USA PATRIOT act.  Some of those listed are ones that have been talked about fair frequently: The ability of the government to search homes or businesses without notifying you; libraries and bookstores can now be required to turn over your reading lists - and are forbidden to tell you if they've been asked for your records; the ability of the government to arrest and detain people suspected of possible terrorist involvement indefinately, without charges and without the ability to contact an attorney, and then - if they choose to take the case to trial - they can do so in a secret military tribunal, with no jury, no public oversight, no right to confront the evidence and no appeals; and the ability of law enforcement to listen in to conversations between attorneys and their clients.

There were two items on the list that I was not aware of, and which I find at least as troubling as the ones I was aware of - if not moreso.  The first is that the government can now take steps, including using bugs, to track phone calls and emails of people who are not even suspected of having commited a crime.  In addition, the FBI can make use of their Magic Lantern technology to track everywhere you visit on the Internet, and to capture every keystroke you make.  The second is that the Feds can now investigate someone even if their only reason for being suspicious of them is that they have participated in activities that are legal and protected by the First Amendment - such as if someone has taken part in an anti-war protest or something of that nature.

Of course, John Ashcroft and his Justice department don't think the Patriot Act goes quite far enough, so they are working on a bill to "enhance" the new powers it grants. 

Dr. David Cole, a Law professor at Georgetown University and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document, saying, “I think this is a quite radical proposal.  It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests.  It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations.”

Today's Washington Post reports on how the government is stepping up the use of secret surveilance and records searches which do not require authorization through the courts and - unless a case comes to trial - are not subject to any judicial oversight.  In many of these cases, the government has no obligation to notify you that you're being investigated, or that they've requested your personal records from various businesses.  These records may include e-mails, phone records, banking records and credit reports.  These, too, are courtesy of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act also significantly increased the amount of intelligence information that can be shared with criminal prosecutors and federal grand juries, giving authorities new powers in the war on terrorism. National security letters can be used as part of criminal investigations and preliminary inquiries involving terrorism and espionage, according to officials and internal FBI guidelines on the letters.

There is, however, one small bit of hopeful news in all of this.  As it currently stands, Congress will be reviewing provisions of the Patriot Act in 2005.  True, that sounds like it's a long ways off - and as fast as things are changing in this country, to a certain extent it is, but as more citizens become aware of the extent to which this country is sliding into fascism, more pressure can be brought to bear on Congress to ensure that they retain the necessary control in order to do those reviews, and that they will rescind, repeal or otherwise refuse to renew as many provisions of the act as possible.

Ever since the "War on Terror^TM" began, there have been concerns not only about how we would determine which "sponsors of terror" to go after, and what other countries might do with the precedent we're setting.  One area of particular worry has been the long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and it looks like that dispute may be heating up again.

On March 23rd, 24 Hindus were killed in a raid on Nandimarg, a village in Indian-administered Kashmir.  India is claiming that the raid was committed by Pakistanis, dressed in army uniforms, while Pakistan claims the raid was committed by India's own army.  No rebel groups have yet claimed credit for the attack. 

The dispute over Kashmir has been ongoing for the last 14 years, and it is often hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are in the conflict.  Official estimates indicate that around 37,000 people have died in the fighting, though Muslim rebels claim the number is closer to 80,000.  One of the major sticking points has been that India refuses to enter into diplomatic talks with Pakistan until Pakistan stops supporting the terrorists India believes are behind the attacks.  Pakistan, of course, denies that they are supporting any terrorists.

In response to the attack, the US has once again called upon India and Pakistan to try and work out the problem diplomatically.  India is now complaining that the US is promoting a double-standard in how to deal with terrorism, with some conflicts - such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq - requiring military intervention, while others - such as that between India and Pakistan - being told to handle it diplomatically.

India on Wednesday strongly disapproved the "double standards" pursued by the US and some others in dealing with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, saying the fight against international terrorism was "ill-served" if threats in some cases were met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue.

New Delhi's sharp rebuff came following the renewed call by the US for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, disregarding India's growing concerns over cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan. "The global war against terrorism can only be won when it is pursued without double standards and terrorism is eradicated wherever it exists, without being influenced by short term political and other considerations," External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters. He said, "The combat against international terrorism is ill-served if threats in some cases are met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue."

One of the biggest concerns in the India-Pakistani conflict is that it may turn nuclear.  Both nations have nuclear capabilities, and tensions are obviously very high.  Today, both Pakistan and India have test fired nuclear-capable short-range missles in an apparent response to the recent killings.

The US has at least partially justified our attack on Iraq by claiming the Iraqi government sponsors terrorism.  We also claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.  We've said that Saddam has had 12 years to show that he's willing to disarm and basically 'behave' himself.  India's claims about Pakistan are similar.  They believe that Pakistan is sponsoring the terrorist attacks on Kashmir, they know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the conflict has gone on for 14 years.  Granted, they appear to have little evidence to support their claim that Pakistan is behind the attacks in Kashmir, but we have little evidence to support the idea that Saddam is behind the 9/11 attacks.  How, then, do we justify telling India that they need to keep trying to use diplomacy, when we decided that our dispute with Iraq called for war?

I suspect that we will be seeing more problems like this in the future, as we make decisions that set dangerous precedents.  We may want to be the world leader, but if we keep taking controversial actions and then telling other countries they should take a different route, we're going to lose influence quickly - and we won't be able to have much input in what happens as a result.

The United States can't assume that we can do whatever we want, justified or not, and not have other nations follow suit.  We may be the largest and more powerful nation in the world, but that doesn't mean we get to have different rules than everyone else.  Insisting that we do only adds to our image as a global bully - which is an image we can ill afford to have.

A few days ago, there were a number of articles boasting that a "huge" chemical weapons plant had been found.  Almost immediately, US Central Command let it be known that it was premature to call it a "weapons plant", and that they would have to inspect the plant to find out if it had been used for chemical weapons or not.

Since then, fewer articles have been posted about the most recent news about the site - that no chemical weapons had been found, and that there is no indication it had been used to make chemical weapons in at least the last 5 years.

In an interesting note, Canoe (a Canadian news site) published an AP article which reports that "[b]efore the war, American intelligence agencies had identified the site in the town of Najaf as a possible part of Iraq's chemical weapons program."  This raises an important question: If American intelligence agencies were aware of this site before the war, did they let the weapons inspectors know that they should check the site?  If not, why not? and if so, how was it that this was initially described as a "discovery" - implying that it was a site previously unknown to Western forces?

Many sites reporting on the initial story linked to a Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe story from January 2003 that describes several sites in the Al-Najaf area that has been inspected, none of which showed indications of having been used as chemical weapons plants.  It's hard for me (as a layman) to tell for sure if the specific site in question is among those reported in the article. 

One of the hardest things to do right now is separate fact from speculation - and with the speed of the Internet, stories posted on one site can quickly spread throughout cyberspace.  I've been glad to see that most of the bloggers I read regularly have been careful to indicate if a story they're reporting on is based more on rumours or speculations than fact or even 'confirmed reports', and it's something I try to do as well. 

Sadly, it sometimes seems that we bloggers tend to be more skepical of reports than the "traditional" press is.  Granted, they are in competition for ratings, and having 'scoops' is a time-honoured way of getting an audience.  Since most blogs are not run on a for-profit basis (most are more a labour of love - or a labour of anger & frustration, as the case may be), the size of our audience isn't nearly as important.  Blogs tend to live and die less on the basis of how many people read them than they do on the basis of whether or not the author/editor feels like keeping it going.  It tends to give us a greater freedom in what we publish, and the manner in which we publish it.  It doesn't guarantee accuracy - but it makes it much easier to ask questions about what is reported, or to take the time needed to try and verify a story before publishing it. 

I don't think blogs will replace "traditional" news sources anytime soon, but as an adjunct, I do think we can be valuable to the public, pointing out some of the questions that need to be asked.  It's certainly going to be interesting to watch how the relationship between "traditional" news sources and bloggers evolves, during the war and after its done.