politics

The Passing of the Christian Right

By John W. Whitehead
02/05/08

We are witnessing the end of an era. The deaths of Jerry Falwell (May 15, 2007) and Dr. D. James Kennedy (September 5, 2007) augured a decided downward shift in the Christian Right's steady march to power. Yet long before these men were laid to rest, the movement they helped energize had begun its steady decline.

In the early 1980s, an emergent generation of evangelists lit up television screens, appeared on university campuses, and infiltrated syndicated radio waves. Among these leaders were Falwell, Kennedy, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, evangelical figures who both predicted and embodied the formation of a new political religion that has transformed the national political scene. More.

Cruel and Unusual Questions

By Rachel King
01/15/07

On December 13, 2006, the state of Florida executed Angel Diaz by lethal injection. The execution took 34 minutes and two doses of lethal drugs, and Diaz was reportedly moving and mouthing words after the final injection. Apparently the prison official improperly inserted the catheter, causing the lethal drugs to go into soft tissue instead of the vein. Governor Jeb Bush has declared a temporary moratorium on executions, pending an investigation of what happened. 

Mr. Diaz’s execution was not the first one that was botched. On May 2, 2006, Ohio executioners took 22 minutes to find a suitable vein to insert the catheter into Joseph L. Clark. After several minutes, the vein collapsed. Clark’s arm began to swell, and he said “It don’t work” five times. The curtains surrounding the gurney were then closed, and technicians spent an additional 30 minutes trying to find another vein. Media witnesses later reported that they heard “moaning, crying out and guttural noises.” It took 90 minutes before Mr. Clark was pronounced dead. More.

Injustice Begets Injustice—Don't Execute Saddam Hussein

By Rachel King
12/27/06 

On November 5, former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes after a trial that lasted over nine months. He was convicted for killing 148 people in the Shia town of Djail, following an assassination attempt on him in 1982. An appeal was lodged, which has now been denied. As a result, Hussein’s execution may be eminent.

On the surface, few people will view the punishment as unjust. By all accounts, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who ruled his country with an iron fist, tolerated no dissent, and killed with impunity those he perceived as his enemies. He plundered the countries resources living in extreme opulence. If the death penalty is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst offenders, then Saddam fits that category. More.

Pre-Election Politics Don’t Mix with Protecting Rights

By Rachel King
10/03/2006

A day before the anniversary of the Nuremberg trial verdicts, the United States Senate voted to pass a bill, S. 3930 – the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – that gives far-reaching power to the President to prosecute and detain terrorism suspects.  The Senate bill was the same version as a House bill that passed the day before.  It is anticipated that the President will sign the bill into law soon. 

Among some of its most notable provisions, the bill gives the President the power to define Common Article 3 Acts under the Geneva Convention, which means that there is no explicit prohibition against such acts as waterboarding, death threats, induced hypothermia, use of dogs or stress positions.  The bill also strips away habeas corpus rights for foreigners, permits the use of evidence obtained through coercion and torture, and gives immunity to government officials who have engaged in previous acts of torture. More.

Five Years Later – What Does Liberty Mean?

By Rachel King
09/11/06

As the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, we are being bombarded with news programs discussing how our lives have changed in the last five years. Commentators expound on how our civil liberties have been diminished, even as President Bush insists that he needs yet more expanded wiretapping authority. American soldiers are still in Iraq, with no signs of withdrawing any time soon. Osama bin Laden remains at large, and we continue fighting a war on terror, even though we are not entirely sure who we are fighting.

Underlying all of this confusion is a question for which we have not yet formulated an answer as a society: Is terrorism a crime or an act of war? Considering the set-up of our legal system, where we have one system for criminals and another for enemy combatants, this is an important question to answer. During the past five years, the Bush administration has consistently refused to categorize where terrorism falls and, as such, has evaded following the law. More.

Holding the Bush Administration Accountable

By Rachel King
08/18/06

On August 17, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Taylor struck down a warrantless surveillance program established by the National Security Agency (NSA) known as the “TSP.”  President Bush first authorized warrantless wiretapping in 2002, in the wake of the September 11th attacks, and has reauthorized the program at least 30 times since then. Once news of this secret program was made public, the American Civil Liberties Union brought suit on behalf of a group of journalists and lawyers who regularly conduct international business and claim that they are unable to do their jobs because the surveillance program has chilled communication with their clients and contacts.

The Bush administration hotly defends its program, claiming that it needs the authority to conduct warantless wiretaps on international calls in order to fight the war on terror. It asserts that it must be able to monitor every phone call without a warrant, because the process of seeking a warrant could compromise its investigation. More.

Grannies for Peace

By Neelam Patel
06/30/2006

On Wednesday, June 28, ten members of the Granny Peace Brigade were arrested in Philadelphia after they refused to leave a military recruiting center. Jean Haskell, a 74-year-old grandmother of five, said, “We’re saying, ‘I’ve lived my life. Let me go to Iraq instead of our children, so they have a chance to live their lives.’” Military officials at the recruiting center had informed the grandmothers and other anti-war protesters who had joined them that they were too old to enlist. Refusing to leave, the protesters were arrested soon after the center was forced to close down early because they were blocking access.

This is not the first time the grandmothers have been arrested. In October 2005, 18 women were arrested for disorderly conduct after they were accused of blocking traffic at the Times Square Army Recruitment Center. A judge later acquitted the protesters, stating that there has been no premise for their arrest. More.

Reverence for the Union Jack

By Jayson Whitehead
02/13/06

With yet one more attempt to restrict flag burning stumbling before the Senate this past summer and the threat of another effort always looming, we take a look back at and talk to the defendant in the 1989 Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson.

On a summer afternoon in 1984, Gregory Johnson, the 28-year-old spokesperson for the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, made his way through a throng of protesters and then stopped across the street from Dallas City Hall and set fire to a United States flag.   

Inside the building, the Republican National Convention—celebrating the renomination of Ronald Reagan—was in a fevered pitch, filled with thousands of jubilant supporters lost in the red, white and blue flags, bunting, and assorted patriotic paraphernalia.

Outside, city police were poised for such an act of defiance and quickly broke up the irreverent challenge, carting Johnson and nearly a hundred of his peers off to jail. Out on bail hours later, the obstreperous Marxist was hardly free. Charged with violating Texas’s “Desecration of a Venerated Object” statute, he faced up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. More.

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold

On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program

02/07/06

Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America’s leadership in the world, and called on all of us to “lead this world toward freedom.” Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.

But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.

The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion.

The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA’s domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and I think even some Democrats.

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program. More.

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

from Commentary

By Norman Podhoretz
Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what. More.

Driving Under the Inference

By Doug Hornig
09/02/05

What’s the most powerful lobbying group in the U.S.?

Liberals might argue that it’s the NRA, while conservatives might nominate the NEA. Many from both sides of the aisle would put forth the oil industry. But for sheer proven effectiveness, it’s impossible to top the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Founded in 1980 by Californian Candy Lightner, whose 13-year-old daughter had been killed by a repeat drunk driving offender, the organization has grown steadily in numbers—it boasts about two million members today—and influence. In fact, it would probably be fair to say that on no political or social issue of the day is there only one side, except here. No politician can afford to be seen as for drunk driving, and thus there isn’t a one who dares cross swords with MADD. More.

Torture Fatigue

By Silja J.A. Talvi
07/12/05

"The Christian in me says it's wrong," Army Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. said of torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "But the corrections officer in me says I love to make a grown man piss himself."

Photos taken of him demeaning captives at Abu Ghraib exposed Graner as the sadist that his surroundings allowed him to be. But are the differences between brutal correctional officers like Graner and other Americans as stark as we would like to think?

An acquaintance of mine recently admitted how much he enjoyed watching the torture scenes in the new blockbuster, Sin City. "I know it's strange," he said, "but there's something I get out of seeing torture and violence like that on the screen. It's like it's some kind of release." More.

A Nation Betrayed: Secret Cold War Experiments Performed on Our Children and Other Innocent People

An interview with Carol Rutz

By John W. Whitehead
05/18/05

In 1953, terrified by rumors of Communist “brainwashing” of prisoners of war during the Korean War, then CIA Director Allen Dulles authorized MKULTRA—a program that quickly became notorious for unusual and inhumane testing that the CIA and U.S. military poured millions of dollars into. In fact, while reviewing the “tests” five years later in 1958, one CIA auditor wrote: “Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces, but also to conceal these activities from the American public. The knowledge the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles.” Most of the documents detailing day-to-day operations within MKULTRA were destroyed by the CIA in 1972. These included limitless LSD experiments on unknowing victims, as well as experiments with sensory deprivation, electro-shock, brain implants, hypnosis and various forms of torture. More.

You Are Being Watched, and There Is No Place to Hide

An interview with Robert O'Harrow

By John W. Whitehead
04/01/05

Increasingly, we live in a surveillance state where everything we do and our every transaction, business or otherwise, is watched, videotaped and analyzed. There is virtually nothing that the surveillance state, growing data systems and information companies do not know about the most intricate details of our lives. With the slightest mistake, however, you can be branded for life. More.

Calling the Shots

The realities of the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program

By Kathryn Goodson
03/25/05

On a good day, Thomas Colosimo could last four hours at his job answering phones and taking messages. A former Senior Airman in the U.S. Air Force who traveled the world as a Nondestructive Inspectionalist, Colosimo is one of the more than 3,000 service people who have come forth about their suffering and severe disabilities from the mandatory Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP), a move that he and many others state ruined their military careers. More.

Silence Is Not an Option

The Importance of Gary Webb

By Neal Shaffer
02/01/05

In 1996, the San Jose Mercury News carried an explosive series of articles called the “Dark Alliance” detailing ties between CIA operatives and the Nicaraguan drug trade. It caused quite a stir among the populace, particularly those segments that are inclined to believe the government doesn’t always have their best interests at heart. And as might be expected, the man who reported it–Gary Webb–paid dearly. His career and personal life were ruined by a vicious campaign on the part of the government to discredit him and his story. And on December 10, 2004, four months after he started a new job with the Sacramento News and Review , the clock was punched again. That day, Gary Webb was found dead in his California home of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. He was 49." More.

From Dred Scott to Gay Rights

The controversy over activist judges

By Kathryn Goodson
11/16/04

On October 8, 2004, during the second presidential candidate debate in St. Louis, Missouri, President Bush was asked by an audience member how he would respond to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law," he replied. "I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States."

The President then went on to describe characteristics he would not pursue in a judicial candidate. "I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution." More.

God's Man Will Always Win

A Christian argument for voting third party

By Joshua S. Anderson
10/21/04

A few weeks ago, after the first George Bush-John Kerry debate had ended and most Americans were either going to bed or switching over to Leno and Letterman, PBS ran a program called "Crashing the Parties," focusing on the grass-roots campaigns of the three "major" third parties in America-the Greens, the Libertarians and the Constitution Party. Although unlikely PBS planned things this way, the symbolic contrast could not have been more obvious; after sitting through 90 minutes of intense effort on the part of Bush and Kerry to appeal to the broadest swath of voters possible, the radical nature of these third parties only became more apparent. In general, these third parties are not merely fodder for political trivia-though there seems to be less polling strength this year, third party candidates Ross Perot and Ralph Nader each played important, decisive roles in the last three presidential elections. But slowly more and more Americans are beginning to consider voting outside the two-party box: Depending on how many voters choose a third party candidate, it remains a distinct possibility that in this election year more than one state could swing into Bush or Kerry's camp. This situation leaves some Christian voters growing impatient with the two major parties to face a deep dilemma-in such a close election, is it better to stick with a minor candidate they support enthusiastically, or might their vote be more wisely used to elect what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils? The argument against voting for a third party is familiar and well known, usually boiling down to something along the lines of not "wasting your vote." In this short essay, I will try to defend a rationale for the other side. More.

Whose Side Are You On?

Oliver North's 1994 run for the Senate

By Jayson Whitehead
08/10/04

In the opening scene of the 1996 documentary A Perfect Candidate , Marine Lt. Col. Oliver L. North is shown in the summer of 1986 as he sits before a Senate special committee investigating illegal activity by officials in the Reagan Administration. As the U.S. Counter-Terrorism Coordinator from 1983-1986, North was accused of being a main figure in the covert sale of arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages. The profit from the sales was then illegally diverted to anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua. A portion was diverted to a Swiss Bank account and used for a home security system for North’s Virginia residence. North was also accused of helping to destroy evidence. With TV cameras focused on him, North confessed that he had misled the committee. More.

Junk for Jihad

Prohibition empowers terrorists and violent insurgents

By Joel Miller
07/29/04

Still stinging from the September 11, 2001, terrorist assault on the US, the president’s Office of National Drug Control Policy kicked off an ad campaign during Super Bowl XXXVI that linked drug users to terrorists.

"This is Dan," started one, following a script borrowed from a children’s book. "This is the joint that Dan bought. This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought," and so it goes until Dan’s purchase ties him directly to terrorists.

Another ad that ran later in the campaign featured a ghostly girl suddenly appearing in a dark office space: "You killed me," she says twice to a woman at her desk. "There was a bomb. I was going to school." When the woman asks the obvious question ("What does that have to do with me?"), the ghost replies, "You bought drugs. You gave them money. They can’t do things like that without money. It’s the money." And with that she disappears. Contrived and grotesque as the ad may be, the little girl is correct—it is the money.

But it’s not quite so simple. More.

Book Review: Worse Than Watergate

The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush

By John W. Dean
Reviewed by David McNair
06/07/04

Joining the growing line-up of "Bush Bashing Books" on the best-seller lists, which now include Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack , Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies , Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud , and Kevin Phillip’s American Dynasty , is the one with perhaps the most direct and damning title: John Dean’s Worse than Watergate . As far as trends in book publishing go, it couldn’t look much worse for the Bush Administration. So much popular literature so critical of a sitting President’s transgressions or revealing of his hidden agendas (and written by respected authors largely beyond reproach) would seem to signal a tragic Nixonian end. If it weren’t for the fact that most Americans don’t read books and that politics has become a reality TV show that most Americans are content to sit back and watch, there just might be something for Bush and Cheney to worry about. More.

Election 2004

Who are the presidential candidates and where do they stand?

By Neal Shaffer
06/01/04

The heavily frontloaded Democratic primary process has worked its intended magic. With still two months to go before Kerry formally receives his nomination, and three months before Bush gets his, the election season has all but ground to a halt. The presumptive candidates are crisscrossing the nation like two centipedes, saying nothing new and disagreeing only on the finer points. This will evolve as the real news starts to pick up, but the meantime finds concerned observers wondering just what to make of the choice. Now, then, is a pertinent time to step back and assess not only where the two giants stand but also to point out that they are not exactly alone. More.

Waging War Against the Barbarians

An interview with Gary Bauer

By John W. Whitehead
04/27/04

John W. Whitehead first encountered Gary Bauer at a meeting on Capitol Hill in the mid-1980s when the young Rutherford Institute founder noticed that the equally youthful Reagan staffer had copies of Whitehead's books in his executive office. The two talked at length about many of the issues they were trying to impact. Nearly 20 years later, the president of American Values continues to display a steadfast commitment to the core beliefs that he fought for and saw fulfilled politically under Ronald Reagan. Today, Bauer is a loyal defender of the current president, and strongly emphasizes the need for Christian involvement on Capitol Hill. At the same time, he stresses that Christians must be careful to "separate the cause of Christ from the political aspirations that people have in both political parties." In this frank conversation with Whitehead, Bauer strikes a consistent balance between his need to influence national politics and follow his personal beliefs. More.

Taking Care of the Least

Susan Pace Hamill's odyssey to reform Alabama's tax code

By Jayson Whitehead
02/20/04

At the close of 2003, The New York Times named ?Biblical Taxation? as one of the year?s most important ideas. The recognition capped a tumultuous year-and-a-half period for University of Alabama law professor Susan Pace Hamill, whose argument for tax reform based upon Christian principles galvanized debate?first in her native Alabama and then nationally. More.

The Hard Lessons of the Primary Season

By Neal Shaffer
02/10/04

Although the 2004 primary season has not yet ended, it’s tempting to look at the results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early states and declare Kerry the victor—to declare that it’s all over but the shouting. Would it actually be a surprise, however, if any of the three remaining serious candidates—Howard Dean, John Edwards, or Wesley Clark—found his legs and ended up with the nomination? Given what has already transpired, the only logical answer is no. Indeed, one of the joys of this primary season has been watching the “experts” jump from bandwagon to bandwagon in vain attempts to appear prescient. More.

Starting a Brush Fire for Freedom

An interview with U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

By John W. Whitehead
02/09/04

When asked what advice he would give to Americans concerned about the growing power of the federal government and the various threats to our liberties, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) quoted Samuel Adams: “Every individual has a responsibility to be informed, to know what is going on and to know the issues. As Samuel Adams once said, ‘Go out and start a brush fire.’ And you can do that with one individual or many. You can become a teacher or a writer or help somebody in politics. But you can only start a brush fire for freedom if you feel confident that you understand the issues and really can defend liberty as being the best system for all of us.” More.

Bush’s Shadow Campaign

By Neal Shaffer
10/22/03

Lost in all the attention the Democrats have been getting is something important: the reelection campaign of sitting President George Bush. Bush is enjoying the perks of incumbency to full effect, sitting back in Crawford, Texas with a war chest that, if he meets his target, will be at roughly $170 million for the primary season. To make matters even more interesting, Bush is not participating in the Federal matching funds program, meaning that he has no spending restrictions. No matter who faces him in the general election, they will be at a marked monetary disadvantage. More.

EDITORIAL

Is Bush Leapfrogging the National Media or the Truth?
10/15/03

On Monday, October 13, President Bush granted exclusive interviews to five regional broadcasting companies in an effort—the first of its kind—to bypass the national media in order to reach millions of Americans with his message of prosperity in Iraq. Bush’s decision to avoid larger media outlets, plus recent comments, illustrate a basic distrust of the media on the part of his administration that has only increased as the war in Iraq has dragged on. More.

12 Years of Diplomacy

Was the invasion of Iraq really a last resort or just unfinished business?

By David McNair
09/22/03

In a speech to the United Nations on the day after the first anniversary of 9/11, President Bush officially demonized and targeted Saddam Hussein in the war on terror. He called the dictator a "grave and gathering danger" to world peace and security and demanded that the nations of the world deal with him immediately. Bush suggested that Iraq might have links to groups like Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and said that America's greatest fear was that terrorists would "find a short cut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale." But President Bush didn't stop there. "Should Iraq acquire fissile material," he went on to say, "...it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." More.

Lowered Expectations

American evangelicals' love affair with their President

By Joshua Seth Anderson
07/02/03

When George W. Bush found himself the winner of the two-month post-election scramble in the winter of 2000, the Christian Right basked in the light of their collective victory. Jerry Falwell commented to his church and TV audience after returning from the inauguration of our 43rd President, “I want to stop right here and now and say thanks and congratulations to Bible-believing Christians nationwide…I wish all of you could have been in Washington last week. Jesus Christ was honored.” More.

The Rise of Evil

Does Hussein belong beside Hitler?

By Neal Shaffer
05/14/03

It’s easy to forget, but Bush had a serious problem in the early stages of the war. A noticeable body of opinion, domestic and foreign, was making its opposition known. Large-scale protests were taking place on a regular basis, and the Bush Administration was on the defensive. Then words like “liberation” and “freedom” started cropping up with increasing regularity, and Weapons Of Mass Destruction became something we would get back to after the business of doing what’s right was finished. Then somebody—it’s impossible to say who, or who first—played the ace from the bottom of the deck: Hitler. More.

Winning My Heart, But Losing My Mind:

By Alexander Wardwell
04/15/03

An American expat friend recently sent me an e-mail, inviting me to join him to protest the war in Iraq at the American Embassy, here in Oslo. To my own shock and awe, I not only failed to answer his email but I didn't show up at the protest, either. We haven't spoken since.

For the record, I am against the war and am deeply skeptical of the motives of the current administration. By almost every yardstick, I can be measured as a liberal democrat, and since my move to Europe five years ago, have become increasingly outraged by America's cynical use of power. So why didn't I grab a placard, paint a swastika on an American flag and hurl a few paint balls at the Embassy?

I blame the left. More.

It's Getting Weird Over Here

A U.S. expat ruminates on Europe's increasing anti-Americanism

By Alexander Wardwell
10/21/02

A friend in Berlin says he’s so tired of Germans getting into his face about Iraq he doesn’t go out much anymore. Another friend, living just outside Paris, told me his kids are getting harassed at school for being half-American. And in London, someone kicked in the rear window of another friend’s car, where she had a sticker commemorating the victims of 9/11. It’s getting weird over here. More.

War Is Not An Accident:

A Profile of Radical Pacifist A.J. Muste

By David McNair
10/21/02

At the end of his biography of A.J. Muste (Peace Agitator: The Story of A.J. Muste, Macmillan, 1963), Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff paints a grim picture of the peace movement. "As for myself, I have enormous doubts as to whether Muste and others like him will ever reach enough people so that the primitiveness of the way men rule and are ruled is finally ended. It may well be too late to prevent the obliteration of mankind…" But then he holds out Muste as a beacon of hope. More.

Turning Back to the Things of God

An interview with conservative commentator Cal Thomas

By John W. Whitehead
10/21/02

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has been called a "gay-bashing, low-life, neanderthal, Republican slime-ball," "hypocrite, disgusting coward," "idiot," and "lying, narrow-minded, bigoted, ratty twerp." And this is just a sampling from hate mail posted on his own website, Calthomas.com. Often grouped with commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Thomas is a less sensationalistic, more thoughtful antidote to the talk radio host. While his following has grown from an initial column in the Los Angeles Times in 1984 to a current weekly syndication in 540 newspapers, his opinions on what America should be doing both abroad and at home still earn him the weekly ire of left-leaning readers. "I can’t judge myself," he says. "I have to leave that to God." The one-time political pundit seems to be doing just that, replacing his faith in government with a belief in God. "During my years of hands-on political activism, I never converted anybody to my point of view," Thomas says. "However, I did have, and have had, and am having on many occasions the privilege of leading somebody to Christ." Breaking from the penning of his latest polemic, Thomas talks with John W. Whitehead about the state of Christianity, its innocuous involvement in politics, and how real change can be wrought. More.

Lincoln's Virtues

An interview with author William Lee Miller

By Jayson Whitehead
10/14/02

On the one-year anniversary of September 11, New York Governor George Pataki broke the moment of silence at Ground Zero by reciting the Gettysburg Address. First delivered on November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln’s brief speech (three paragraphs in length) is one of America’s greatest historical documents, generally considered, as the Library of Congress states, "one of the gems of the English language, placed somewhere alongside Shakespeare’s soliloquys and the Magna Carta." William Lee Miller, a scholar at Charlottesville, Virginia’s Miller Center, concurs. "Lincoln had a particular talent to give strong short expression to powerful underlying emotions," he says. "He struck for lasting abstractions expressed in emotion-laden language, without current details that would date it." More.

The Question Is Why?

By Frederick Zackel
09/23/02

Why did we fight the Gulf War? More importantly, why did we quit the war when we did? Our slaughter scared our generals. We made slaughter look too easy. So our generals got embarrassed by the killing frenzy our machines unleashed. The international media was noticing how great the slaughter was. And our weaponry wasn’t even super-duper Space Age wizardry. We were emptying out old inventory we had stocked up on in warehouses around the world. More.

A Love Affair with Authority

How big changes in the federal government are affecting small town America

By David McNair
01/13/02

Across the country, cities and towns are beginning to give police and security personnel even more freedom and authority. In New York City, the NYPD is trying to get rid of a federal order that prevents police from spying on people who exercise their constitutional rights. The order was imposed after a lawsuit in the 1970s proved the NYPD was guilty of widespread surveillance abuses of political activists. In Washington D.C. there’s an initiative to begin installing video cameras in certain neighborhoods, an initiative gaining ground in other cities as well. And even before 9/11, police tactics with regard to the war on drugs and drunk driving have grown startlingly militaristic. In Fairfax, Virginia, recently, a team of police officers in SWAT-like gear raided a tavern and hauled people eating dinner out on to the street to give them sobriety tests. And even here in Charlottesville, Virginia, the impulse toward guarding the fortress was revealed in a November city council meeting when, after a long list of boring, small-town legislative agenda had been addressed, one council member suggested the city consider coming up with its own Homeland Security program. What’s next, councilman, a missile defense system? More.

Down With Big Brother:

The thought crimes of George Orwell

By John W. Whitehead
10/07/02

George Orwell was the pen name Eric Blair took in 1934. At the time of his death in England in 1950, 46-year-old Orwell had been a writer for less than twenty years. For about half of that period, he had been obscure and poor. Orwell’s life was never a comfortable one. He was shot in the throat while fighting in the Spanish Civil War and suffered from a demoralizing and ultimately lethal case of tuberculosis. All the while, Orwell lived on a low budget and, whenever possible, tried to grow his own food and even make his own furniture. More.