Op-Ed

AUSTIN, Texas -- I often complain about the excess of irony in our national life, but this week, if you're not begoshed by the irony surplus, you haven't been paying attention. If we could just figure out a way to get energy out of the stuff, we'd be set for life.

Liberals for the filibuster; conservatives against it -- hilarious. Pentagon loses track of more than $1 trillion, and the Army can't find 56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. Not to mention Osama bin Ladin. And more:

-- Right-wing Republicans fight to make the world safe from "judicial activists" by appointing Priscilla Owen -- the biggest, baddest, worstest judicial activist Texas ever produced -- to the federal bench.

Owen is so notorious for reading her own opinions into the law, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then her colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, described her opinion in a parental consent case as "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." (For further irony, see Gonzales' subsequent attempts to deny that he was describing Owen.)

AUSTIN -- Here in the National Laboratory for Bad Government, it's Duck and Cover time -- the Legislature is in session. The Can't-Shake-Your-Booty bill passed the House, saving us all from the scourge of sexy cheerleaders. But nothing else is getting done. The state is being run by people who do not know how to govern. Keep in mind that based on past form, whatever lunacy is going on in Texas will eventually sweep the country.

Rarely are the words of one state legislator worth national attention, but when Senfronia Thompson, a black representative from Houston, stalks to the back mike with a certain "get-out-of-my-way" look in her eye, it's, Katie, bar the door. Here is Thompson speaking against the Legislature's recent folly of putting a superfluous anti-gay marriage measure into the state constitution:

"I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about; this is the politics of divisiveness at it's worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.

I am sorry. I can't help but comment on this one.  I sat by idly and watched the Bolton controversy unfold and have been uncharacteristically silent while I watched the GOP shove this Presidential prerogative down everyone's choking throats.  But I just got back from a tour of UN Related agencies in Geneva and Paris with the UNA and now find I cannot be silent with regard to Bush's choice for UN Ambassador.

First, has George Allen ever been to any international destination other than perhaps Cancun or the British Virgin Islands? Because the tea sipping pinky comment was replayed on BBC World News and he looked like his only exposure to anything international was watching reruns of Faulty Towers- like diplomats in Geneva ever sit in parlors and sip tea. They might be skiing an hour away in Val D'isere or on Mount Blanc and sipping sherry in the apres ski lodge, or maybe sipping Chardonay on the Lake, but Bolton wouldn't be invited.

If the Republicans really believe our top federal judges deserve an up-and-down vote, and that the filibuster is an unfair relic, there's an easy solution: Propose a rules change that will end it-in 2015.

I'd still support keeping the filibuster as way to protect minority rights. But its history has been pretty mixed. If the shift were voted in now but deferred for ten years, it would be hard for anyone to argue that it was being changed for narrow political advantage. The Republican push might even look like principle, instead of yet another raw power play along the lines of Tom DeLay's mid-census midnight Congressional redistricting. If they can sunset the phasing in of tax cuts to make them easier to pass, why not sunrise this fundamental shift in how the Senate has done business for 200 years?

Would the Republicans accept this deal if offered full Democratic support? Would they offer an alternative to grabbing everything they can the moment they hold the reins of power? I doubt it. But it would be a great way to highlight their real priorities.

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

History is slowly being rewritten. Hard to believe yet harder to deny is the increasing frequency and fervor with which those on the religious right are asserting that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Every day, on editorial pages and radio talk shows across the country, more and more unapologetic Christian crusaders are stating as fact fantastic claims of our founding fathers’ providential mission to create a nation based on the Ten Commandments and a Biblical worldview.

You may be tempted to chuckle, but you must not. You must take this seriously, very seriously, for unknown to many of you America has become engaged in nothing less than an epic battle, one whose outcome will shape world history for the next century and beyond. It is not a battle against radical Islamic terrorism, though that is a separate fight we must also win, but a battle that pits reason against faith, the Enlightenment against the Dark Ages, the light against the cave.

At the height of the nuclear arms race, those who marched against it used to say that in the ashes of a nuclear war, no one could tell a capitalist from a communist. "Not necessarily," others would joke, "Richard Perle could tell." For Perle, even total annihilation would have its victors and losers, and he knew which side he wanted to be on.

Perle has continued to preach the virtues of usable nuclear weapons while helping orchestrate our invasion of Iraq. Now he's a key allied strategist of an administration willing to obliterate democracy itself if they don't get their way on judicial nominees and everything else.

I'm thinking of the ease with which Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and other Republicans have talked of a "nuclear option" to intimidate the Democrats into capitulating on every right wing judge that Bush sends to Congress. Although Republicans have backed off from using the phrase since it began polling negative, it may reveal more than they intended about their Party. They doesn't just seek to enact particular programs, but have done their best to turn politics into total war, seeking to annihilate the opposition completely.

The battle over the filibuster is now one of the country’s biggest political news stories. The Bush administration seems determined to change Senate rules so a simple majority of senators, instead of three-fifths, can cut off debate and force a vote on the president’s judicial nominees. Both sides claim to be arguing for procedural principles.

But a Senate filibuster is not inherently good or bad. Throughout U.S. history, the meaning of the filibuster has always been a matter of political context. The merits have everything to do with what kind of nation people want.

During the 1950s and ’60s, to anyone who supported civil rights legislation, “filibuster” was a very ugly word. In Washington, it was the ultimate maneuver for avian racists whose high-flown rhetoric accompanied their devotion to Jim Crow. The gist of many speeches and commentaries was that civil rights bills were part of an ominous plot against “states’ rights” and sacred American traditions.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)

Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"

However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliche is "smoking gun."