Worth reading

Two items definitely worth reading from today's New York Times:

1) In its lead editorial, the paper points out the terrible injustice of an American law which denies refuge to individuals who have provided "material support to terrorists," even when that alleged "support" was provided under extreme duress. Examples:

In Sierra Leone there is a woman who was kept captive in her house for four days by guerrillas. The rebels raped her and her daughter and cut them with machetes... [H]er application for refuge has been put on indefinite hold - because American law says that she provided "material support" to terrorists by giving them shelter.

A Liberian woman was kidnapped by a guerrilla group and forced to be a sexual slave for several weeks. She also had to cook and do laundry. These services are now considered material support to terrorists. In Colombia, the United Nations will no longer ask the United States to admit dozens of refugees who are clearly victims, since all their predecessors have been rejected on material support grounds. One is a woman who gave a glass of water to an armed guerrilla who approached her house. Another is a young man who was kidnapped by paramilitary members on a killing spree and forced to dig graves alongside others.

This is, in short, an inexcusable disgrace. I'd like to see what Michael Chertoff would agree to do for his captors if his f#%king cell phone were taken away for a day, let alone being raped and brutalized with the promise of death hanging over his head at any moment. My bet is that he'd give away the store.

Such a pattern of "blaming the victim" is even more egregious when compared with Administration (and, dare I point a finger, Liberal) attitudes toward "welcoming" millions of illegal immigrants to our society "for the good of our economy," simply because they successfully sneaked across our borders instead of bothering to ask permission. The absurdity of defining a woman whom thugs and rapists have held hostage in her home, against her will, as someone who's "provided shelter" to her assailants is simply beyond belief - and yet another reason to be ashamed of our leaders and policy makers.

- - -

2) Paul Krugman writes today about "John and Jerry," decrying Senator McCain's recent embrace of the fanatical Reverend Falwell as his bestest buddy. Mr. Krugman notes:

[If] you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are accepting some responsibility for their extremism. By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it's O.K. - not necessarily correct, but O.K. - to declare that 9/11 was America's punishment for its tolerance of abortion and homosexuality, that Islam is a terrorist religion, and that Jews can't go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

I, too, was once fooled by the Arizona Senator's facade of moderation and reason, and believed him to be a sign of hope within the Borg Collective once known as the GOP. But no longer. McCain has revealed himself to be a wolf in sheep's clothing by pandering to the extremists of the Religious Right.

No one who aligns him- or herself with these divisive, fanatical leaders of our homegrown American Taliban deserves to aspire to the highest office of the land. Thankfully, McCain has saved us the trouble of exposing his true colors long before the next Presidential election. We should remember to thank him two years from now by relegating his political ambitions to obscurity, where they most definitely belong.

- - -

(NOTE: For those of you who are not yet subscribers to the NYT's "Times Select", Mr. Krugman's article is reprinted in the comments section below. Click "add your opinion" to access the full editorial.)