I really have to apologize — mostly, perhaps, to myself — for being such a slacker on the blog front in recent weeks. There are lots of reasons, but it still pains me to suddenly realize I haven’t written in a week, and that I have nothing substantial to add to anyone’s discussion. 

That hasn’t changed today. But, in lieu of actual thought, I’d like to give you a few glimpses at the things that are making me tick right now.

A Palestinian man wails over the dead body of a Hamas security officer Saturday. (This is the version we ran in the paper, CLICK for the uncropped, much more gruesome version.)

1.) Pictures of dead people. That sounds weird, I’m sure. But today’s Israeli attack on Hamas — the bloodiest single event in decades of the conflict — has me thinking about fallen man in fallen world; and how in the world we, America, can presume to know anything about these people in a land far, far away; and how thankful I am to live in such a peaceful place; and how spoiled I am to live a life so detached from the real struggles being dealt with by most of the rest of the world.

(more…)

This really amuses me. There’s something sad about how easily the “conservative” movement — for all their “big tent” talk — tosses aside people who have been major players in the movement if they breach any one of a certain set of unwritten “rules.” One of the rules: Unwavering and extreme support for the state of Israel.

Now, how any objective person can look at the Israel-Palestinian situation of the past decades and come to the conclusion that it’s all the Palestinians’ fault is beyond me. But, that is part and parcel of the unwritten rule. Pat Buchanan — top advisor to Nixon, sometimes adviser to Reagan, and a hard-nosed defender of Republicans to this day in his common TV appearances — holds that Israel has done its share of bad, and that we as a nation have given too much help and gotten too little benefit.

That Buchanan is now posterboy in an anti-Obama ad probably amuses him too.

He’s given credit to the campaign when it’s made a good move, and lavished praise on Obama’s victory speech. Yet these are the sorts of comments he usually has for Obama — despite the fact that on foreign policy (which is a specialty of his, and with an eye toward history as a foundation), he’s far closer to Obama than McCain:

No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency, or more doubts as to his core beliefs. If Obama wins, the country could be in real trouble.

… if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal … [the answer to that question is here, by the way--R]

After all, Barack did dump the flag pin. Michelle did say she had never been proud of her country before now. Barack did don that Ali Baba outfit in Somalia. His father and stepfather were Muslims. He does have a benefactor, Bill Ayers, who said after 9-11 he regrets not planting more bombs in the 1960s. He did have a pastor who lionizes Black Muslim Minister Louis Farrakhan. Put glasses on him, and Barack could play Malcolm X in the movies.

Democrats, at least, are allowed to disagree on foreign policy, disagree on gay marriage, disagree on levels of abortion procedure (and, yes, abortion generally, though pro-life Dems don’t see as much TV time). But raise legitimate questions on America’s overseas overreaching, as Buchanan does and continues to do, and you’re not welcome at the GOP’s Hannukah party.

Even if you spend most of your time trying to help John McCain get elected president.

A similar meme popped up, briefly, a couple weeks ago when Buchanan mentioned on MSNBC that Palin has been a “Buchananite,” i.e. a supporter in his attempts to get the GOP nomination in the 90s and his third-party attempts when that was denied him. Well, the right-wing blogosphere went nuts, seeking ways to “defend Sarah” against that claim. Why? Because Buchanan is not staunchly pro-Israel, which is now part of the by-laws (and a major reason conservatives would have been somewhat OK with a Lieberman pick), and so maybe Palin wasn’t ultra-pro-Israel, too… is it really about conservative principles?

Go to wikipedia and search the term “neocon.” It will truly enhance your understanding of the real Republican power players, the ones behind the scenes, the ones who turned Bush’s “we won’t get into nation-building” into “we’re going to spread democracy across the globe.” It’s these people Buchanan’s pissed off, and nothing but full recantation will appease them.

P.S.: Buchanan’s latest is an interesting read for all you Palin fans out there (he’s one of you, by the way).