For the last three years, Americans have refused time after time to acknowledge the bad faith of their leaders. The press is complicit in its failure to make the public aware of the human cost of the war. On one hand, there is American idealism that refuses to admit that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice are not cut from the same cloth as Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. On the other hand is a cynical press whose concern seems to be more interested in protecting its own interest than exposing the truth. It is, after all, more pleasant to be “one of the guys” than to be a thorn in their sides.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
A Day Early and a Dollar Long
I received a disturbing letter from an elderly female relative the other day. At first, she seemed depressed, and I interpreted her letter as hinting at suicide, but after some thought, I realized that she believes that she is about to participate in the rapture.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Crazy Like a Fox
The one enjoyable pastime of the last six years for many liberals has been making sport of George W. Bush. After all, if a cretin can be president, if a man as inarticulate as Bush can actually be the leader of the free world, at least we ought to get a couple of belly laughs out of it.
Friday, May 05, 2006
And Now a Request for Our Sponsor
Traffic has been picking up lately, and I want to take a minute to talk to all of you whom I do not know.
I am a working writer; that is to say I do this for a living. To clarify, I like to get paid.
If you find that your publication is in need of a clear voice, by all means, contact me. I won't demand Stephen King's salary--I'm not Stephen King. On the other hand, I'm worth my salt. I will create exclusive content to your specifications for your publication for a reasonable fee. So give me a call. You know you want to.
And now back to the scheduled festivities. . .
I am a working writer; that is to say I do this for a living. To clarify, I like to get paid.
If you find that your publication is in need of a clear voice, by all means, contact me. I won't demand Stephen King's salary--I'm not Stephen King. On the other hand, I'm worth my salt. I will create exclusive content to your specifications for your publication for a reasonable fee. So give me a call. You know you want to.
And now back to the scheduled festivities. . .
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Political Magicianship
One of the elements of a successful stage magician is misdirection of the audience’s attention. Without mastering that skill, a stage magician is nothing more than a sideshow, background noise. Indeed, both political parties have been to magic school, and both parties have been hard at work to misdirect our attention to anything other than real pressing issues, particularly when it comes to self-created morasses and performance shortcomings.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Rooting for the Bad Guy
Sometimes, people know they are right at the same time they know they cannot win. Some of those people get disgusted, fed up, tired and angry enough to start hoping that things will finally go wrong enough that the Bad Guy will get what he or she deserves.
Here are a couple of examples:
Here are a couple of examples:
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner!
People send me things, news items, links to obscure journalistic ventures on the Internet. Sometimes I think they send these things to see if they can get a rise out of me. Okay, I know they send me things to see if they can get a rise out of me.
Al Jazeera, the bad-boy of the Arabic-speaking news world, has spun off an English-language news network. Inasmuch as most of our 280 million people speak English, Americans are part of its target audience, and the new network is recruiting American journalists. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Some of the first American journalists to sign on to Al Jazeera International (AJI) have been vilified in the press. Called traitors by their compatriots, for the simple act of taking a job with an Arab journalistic venture.
Some of the hatred stems from Al Jazeera’s publishing photos of American casualties in Iraq, the kind of thing that caused the uproar over Vietnam, and the very thing the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to prevent; but it is unwise to discount the growing anti-Arab sentiment in this country. Not long ago, I received an e-mail professing to enlighten me on the reasons Muslims cannot be patriotic Americans. The person who sent the item in question claims to be a Christian. The e-mail is the same kind of propaganda that the Nazis used in the 1930s, but its target has been changed.
That the Righteous Wrong in this country think they have a right to run the country is regrettable. It is more than regrettable that some of these people have read Tim LaHaye’s novels and decided that these books have the force of scripture, while steadfastly refusing to hear from or discuss issues with anyone who disagrees with them. Some of these very same people think that it is about time for the second coming of Christ and think that they can precipitate this event, if they just work things right. I asked an unusually good-natured friend who believes all this what would happen if the Righteous Wrong had miscalculated, and Christ did not come to bail the world out. “I never thought about that,” was her answer.
Obviously, AJI will have its work cut out for it trying to build an audience here. American foreign policy has had a distinct Zionist bent for a long time, and the press has long since come to heel with policy. AJI will undoubtedly report news from a different perspective, which, given the current resemblance of American journalism to propaganda, could be a very good thing. Unfortunately, AJI may have difficulty finding an outlet in this country because of the current intellectual and ideological climate.
Herbert Spencer wrote, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. It is unclear whether anything can free a closed mind.
© 2006
Al Jazeera, the bad-boy of the Arabic-speaking news world, has spun off an English-language news network. Inasmuch as most of our 280 million people speak English, Americans are part of its target audience, and the new network is recruiting American journalists. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Some of the first American journalists to sign on to Al Jazeera International (AJI) have been vilified in the press. Called traitors by their compatriots, for the simple act of taking a job with an Arab journalistic venture.
Some of the hatred stems from Al Jazeera’s publishing photos of American casualties in Iraq, the kind of thing that caused the uproar over Vietnam, and the very thing the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to prevent; but it is unwise to discount the growing anti-Arab sentiment in this country. Not long ago, I received an e-mail professing to enlighten me on the reasons Muslims cannot be patriotic Americans. The person who sent the item in question claims to be a Christian. The e-mail is the same kind of propaganda that the Nazis used in the 1930s, but its target has been changed.
That the Righteous Wrong in this country think they have a right to run the country is regrettable. It is more than regrettable that some of these people have read Tim LaHaye’s novels and decided that these books have the force of scripture, while steadfastly refusing to hear from or discuss issues with anyone who disagrees with them. Some of these very same people think that it is about time for the second coming of Christ and think that they can precipitate this event, if they just work things right. I asked an unusually good-natured friend who believes all this what would happen if the Righteous Wrong had miscalculated, and Christ did not come to bail the world out. “I never thought about that,” was her answer.
Obviously, AJI will have its work cut out for it trying to build an audience here. American foreign policy has had a distinct Zionist bent for a long time, and the press has long since come to heel with policy. AJI will undoubtedly report news from a different perspective, which, given the current resemblance of American journalism to propaganda, could be a very good thing. Unfortunately, AJI may have difficulty finding an outlet in this country because of the current intellectual and ideological climate.
Herbert Spencer wrote, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. It is unclear whether anything can free a closed mind.
© 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The New Sex
Terror is the new sex.
We’ve bought toothpaste for decades because it will get that special someone to notice us. Anna Nicole Smith actually got Joe Six-Pack to pay attention to the Supreme Court for a day. But terror, that really sells. If the powers that be can scare Joe Six-Pack enough, they can cherry pick every possible advantage and go home with ALL the goodies.
Terror brought us the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that was passed without thorough consideration in Congress, but which has gotten Americans used to the idea that the government might “need” to watch them or “need” to curtail their constitutional rights. Terror brought us wars on two fronts, neither of which the United States was in a position to win when it entered them; it brought public acquiescence to the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and tolerance for public racial slurs when they come from slender blonde women.
Terror is better than sex when it comes to selling some things. No one would ever believe that we let New Orleans drown because we were having a romance, but since we were off “fighting terror,” all those poor black people could just tread water during hurricane Katrina. Terror turned public attention away from corporate looting on an unprecedented scale, and has undoubtedly created a goldmine for Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and ExxonMobil. Somehow the fact that the price of petroleum was stable for years before we invaded Iraq has escaped public notice; and terror equals money for those who own stock in defense contractors.
Terror has been such a fine sales tool that CEO Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court in such a way that as it considers partisan gerrymandering in Texas, it completely ignores the question of whether partisan redistricting deprives people of representation, as long as the party in power is now correcting wrongs perpetrated when it was not in power. One man, one vote? Fuggedaboudit.
This week, the Democrats have discovered terror. Suddenly, awakened by the mid-term elections, and a little news that operations of U.S. ports have been sold to a Middle Eastern company, our honorable representatives have come over to the Vertebrate Party. They can finally call Bush soft on terror. Hallelujah!
These are the same Democrats who failed to impeach Bush, failed to prevent the United States from taking military action against two sovereign nations that did not attack us, failed to hold the executive branch accountable for torture, spying, lying, obstructing justice, acting in bad faith, or any other wrong. Now these Democrats are going to ask for our votes. They are now telling us how they will protect us.
The question is, if they didn’t protect us from the Republicans, the Right-wing wacko religious wing-nuts, or the likes of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, what makes us think they’ll protect us from anybody else?
Bush and friends sold the operations of our ports, along with their souls to the highest bidders. The Democrats are unlikely to do much different, except they might get a better price.
We’ve bought toothpaste for decades because it will get that special someone to notice us. Anna Nicole Smith actually got Joe Six-Pack to pay attention to the Supreme Court for a day. But terror, that really sells. If the powers that be can scare Joe Six-Pack enough, they can cherry pick every possible advantage and go home with ALL the goodies.
Terror brought us the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that was passed without thorough consideration in Congress, but which has gotten Americans used to the idea that the government might “need” to watch them or “need” to curtail their constitutional rights. Terror brought us wars on two fronts, neither of which the United States was in a position to win when it entered them; it brought public acquiescence to the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and tolerance for public racial slurs when they come from slender blonde women.
Terror is better than sex when it comes to selling some things. No one would ever believe that we let New Orleans drown because we were having a romance, but since we were off “fighting terror,” all those poor black people could just tread water during hurricane Katrina. Terror turned public attention away from corporate looting on an unprecedented scale, and has undoubtedly created a goldmine for Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and ExxonMobil. Somehow the fact that the price of petroleum was stable for years before we invaded Iraq has escaped public notice; and terror equals money for those who own stock in defense contractors.
Terror has been such a fine sales tool that CEO Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court in such a way that as it considers partisan gerrymandering in Texas, it completely ignores the question of whether partisan redistricting deprives people of representation, as long as the party in power is now correcting wrongs perpetrated when it was not in power. One man, one vote? Fuggedaboudit.
This week, the Democrats have discovered terror. Suddenly, awakened by the mid-term elections, and a little news that operations of U.S. ports have been sold to a Middle Eastern company, our honorable representatives have come over to the Vertebrate Party. They can finally call Bush soft on terror. Hallelujah!
These are the same Democrats who failed to impeach Bush, failed to prevent the United States from taking military action against two sovereign nations that did not attack us, failed to hold the executive branch accountable for torture, spying, lying, obstructing justice, acting in bad faith, or any other wrong. Now these Democrats are going to ask for our votes. They are now telling us how they will protect us.
The question is, if they didn’t protect us from the Republicans, the Right-wing wacko religious wing-nuts, or the likes of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, what makes us think they’ll protect us from anybody else?
Bush and friends sold the operations of our ports, along with their souls to the highest bidders. The Democrats are unlikely to do much different, except they might get a better price.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Real Vice
Vice-President Cheney shot one of his buddies on a hunting trip last week, and his Republican spin-doctors are howling with glee at the outraged screams that he is a cretin for hunting. Of course he’s a cretin; anyone who thinks that this is news has been in a coma.
The fact that so many liberal bloggers seem to think that hunting is the trouble trivializes the entire situation, and that smells like help from the Neocons. After all, a good pickpocket does not keep you from seeing him, just from seeing what he is doing. While everyone is wringing their hands about the poor baby birds that Cheyney is sending to kingdom come, nobody is paying attention to the game. The first rule of many games is “keep your eye on the ball.” This kind of news is tailor-made to prevent more important things from getting the attention they deserve.
Few pundits are screaming that Cheyney broke the law by not having a hunting license. The law, in case anyone is interested, is what the president and vice-president swear to uphold in this country, and this administration has shown a disdain for law that rivals that of many felons. Okay, and not buying a hunting license is not such a big deal, punishable a fine that Cheyney can loose and never miss.
But what about the fact that Condo-sleeza Rice was on TV saying that “We” whoever that is, are attuned to the “hopes and dreams of the Iranian people”. For those who like things laid out plainly: These are very similar to words that heralded the beginning of the present morass in Iraq. In about 6 weeks, Iran plans to begin trading oil in Euros, rather than in dollars. And the “we” for whom Rice was speaking are the sons and daughters of working-class people who are going to be herded off to become cannon fodder so the rich can get richer, and the poor can get the hell out of their way.
People disgusted with the current political climate look to 2008 with hope. If the best we can do is censure the vice-president for hunting in the press, there is no hope.
Many people look to Hillary Clinton as the candidate. When the honorable Senator from New York grows a spine and stands up to the Neocons, she can have my vote, and not a minute before. We have 100 senators. Why is it that out of those one hundred senators, there was not a single one who would stand up to the Republican election fraud in 2000? The House of Representatives were outraged by the mis-doings in that election. Not a single senator would stand behind them and demand an investigation. Why was that? Could it be because our United States Senators are loath to risk their cushy jobs by doing them and standing up for the people who hired them in the first place?
Why is it that of 100 senators, none is willing to ask for impeachment? Does anyone honestly believe that Bush acted in good faith when he engineered our invasion of Iraq? Does anyone write representatives anymore? I do it regularly, and I get the same answer every time: “Thanks for writing. I’m going to continue doing what I damned well please.”
We are willing to look the other way when our leaders break laws. We like to pretend that there is nothing we can do about all the powerful bad guys in Washington. As long as we stay comfortable and safe, we are going to have the same profit-driven, busybody government without change or end.
Personally, I am angry with Cheyney for shooting the wrong rich, white, middle-aged, male, dominionist Neocon. Also, the dumbass should have used a deer rifle.
The fact that so many liberal bloggers seem to think that hunting is the trouble trivializes the entire situation, and that smells like help from the Neocons. After all, a good pickpocket does not keep you from seeing him, just from seeing what he is doing. While everyone is wringing their hands about the poor baby birds that Cheyney is sending to kingdom come, nobody is paying attention to the game. The first rule of many games is “keep your eye on the ball.” This kind of news is tailor-made to prevent more important things from getting the attention they deserve.
Few pundits are screaming that Cheyney broke the law by not having a hunting license. The law, in case anyone is interested, is what the president and vice-president swear to uphold in this country, and this administration has shown a disdain for law that rivals that of many felons. Okay, and not buying a hunting license is not such a big deal, punishable a fine that Cheyney can loose and never miss.
But what about the fact that Condo-sleeza Rice was on TV saying that “We” whoever that is, are attuned to the “hopes and dreams of the Iranian people”. For those who like things laid out plainly: These are very similar to words that heralded the beginning of the present morass in Iraq. In about 6 weeks, Iran plans to begin trading oil in Euros, rather than in dollars. And the “we” for whom Rice was speaking are the sons and daughters of working-class people who are going to be herded off to become cannon fodder so the rich can get richer, and the poor can get the hell out of their way.
People disgusted with the current political climate look to 2008 with hope. If the best we can do is censure the vice-president for hunting in the press, there is no hope.
Many people look to Hillary Clinton as the candidate. When the honorable Senator from New York grows a spine and stands up to the Neocons, she can have my vote, and not a minute before. We have 100 senators. Why is it that out of those one hundred senators, there was not a single one who would stand up to the Republican election fraud in 2000? The House of Representatives were outraged by the mis-doings in that election. Not a single senator would stand behind them and demand an investigation. Why was that? Could it be because our United States Senators are loath to risk their cushy jobs by doing them and standing up for the people who hired them in the first place?
Why is it that of 100 senators, none is willing to ask for impeachment? Does anyone honestly believe that Bush acted in good faith when he engineered our invasion of Iraq? Does anyone write representatives anymore? I do it regularly, and I get the same answer every time: “Thanks for writing. I’m going to continue doing what I damned well please.”
We are willing to look the other way when our leaders break laws. We like to pretend that there is nothing we can do about all the powerful bad guys in Washington. As long as we stay comfortable and safe, we are going to have the same profit-driven, busybody government without change or end.
Personally, I am angry with Cheyney for shooting the wrong rich, white, middle-aged, male, dominionist Neocon. Also, the dumbass should have used a deer rifle.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
An Open Letter to God
Dear God,
Please don’t take this personally, but I really think I have had quite enough of your followers. They all seem like nice people until I get to watching them, and then it all falls apart. Granted, I am not perfect, and I do not claim to be a lot better, but these followers of yours, well, they seem downright dangerous.
Take, for example, Christians. They all want me to hang out with them, until I express an opinion that they do not agree with. Then they call me a sinner. I don’t get it. Because I think a really bad marriage ought not be a life sentence, I am sinful. Then there was this man at church who was called to help a woman who saw a snake. His solution to the woman’s fear was to kill it. When I pointed out that snakes eat rodents, and therefore have a place in the environment, he answered, “That snake had two [places in the environment].” Very funny, but not for the snake.
And then there are these Muslims. They seem nice enough, except they say bad things about me (like that I’m a loose woman) because I don’t cover my hair. You gave me red hair. Why would I want to hide that? They also have this thing about blowing things and people up. If I get bummed about dead snakes, You can imagine how bummed I am about busloads of dead people. And they have this other thing about the Jews that just drives me bonkers. They are all cousins, but anyone would think they were fighting for the last crust of bread on earth, the way they carry on. And of course, if I think there should be Jews, then I am a Zionist, and deserve to die. If I go around India way, I have to be careful not to hang out with or befriend either Sikhs or Hindus, because they are also good-for-nothing infidels.
Now the Jews think I am okay, as long as I do not hang out with any Muslims. If I do that, I become scum and deserve to be exterminated. Last week, I heard that some Hindu women, not willing to be outdone, were pissed about St. Valentine’s Day, because it is not a Hindu holy day. Today, Valentine's day, some Muslim women had the same idea. No shit, girls, it’s a Hallmark holy day. Some people are just dense.
We have these dumb asses in government running the world, claiming to be your good friends. I have a lot of trouble with someone who says, “God is my friend, so please send your son to my war so he can die.” The more they claim to be your buddy, the worse their records look. We have these other dumb asses in government who refuse to do anything about the first dumb asses running amok with our money, our kids, and our standing in the world.
Like I said before, please don’t take any of this personally. I know that your friends are not You. I just do not like to hang out with people who destroy for the fun of it, whether it is a snake or an environment, an office building full of people, or young soldiers’ lives. I always pictured You as being creative and nurturing. So what’s with your friends?
Please don’t take this personally, but I really think I have had quite enough of your followers. They all seem like nice people until I get to watching them, and then it all falls apart. Granted, I am not perfect, and I do not claim to be a lot better, but these followers of yours, well, they seem downright dangerous.
Take, for example, Christians. They all want me to hang out with them, until I express an opinion that they do not agree with. Then they call me a sinner. I don’t get it. Because I think a really bad marriage ought not be a life sentence, I am sinful. Then there was this man at church who was called to help a woman who saw a snake. His solution to the woman’s fear was to kill it. When I pointed out that snakes eat rodents, and therefore have a place in the environment, he answered, “That snake had two [places in the environment].” Very funny, but not for the snake.
And then there are these Muslims. They seem nice enough, except they say bad things about me (like that I’m a loose woman) because I don’t cover my hair. You gave me red hair. Why would I want to hide that? They also have this thing about blowing things and people up. If I get bummed about dead snakes, You can imagine how bummed I am about busloads of dead people. And they have this other thing about the Jews that just drives me bonkers. They are all cousins, but anyone would think they were fighting for the last crust of bread on earth, the way they carry on. And of course, if I think there should be Jews, then I am a Zionist, and deserve to die. If I go around India way, I have to be careful not to hang out with or befriend either Sikhs or Hindus, because they are also good-for-nothing infidels.
Now the Jews think I am okay, as long as I do not hang out with any Muslims. If I do that, I become scum and deserve to be exterminated. Last week, I heard that some Hindu women, not willing to be outdone, were pissed about St. Valentine’s Day, because it is not a Hindu holy day. Today, Valentine's day, some Muslim women had the same idea. No shit, girls, it’s a Hallmark holy day. Some people are just dense.
We have these dumb asses in government running the world, claiming to be your good friends. I have a lot of trouble with someone who says, “God is my friend, so please send your son to my war so he can die.” The more they claim to be your buddy, the worse their records look. We have these other dumb asses in government who refuse to do anything about the first dumb asses running amok with our money, our kids, and our standing in the world.
Like I said before, please don’t take any of this personally. I know that your friends are not You. I just do not like to hang out with people who destroy for the fun of it, whether it is a snake or an environment, an office building full of people, or young soldiers’ lives. I always pictured You as being creative and nurturing. So what’s with your friends?
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Forgive Us Our Tresspasses
About 12 years ago, I joined an organization where I met a man I’ll call “Joe”. Joe is one of those people everyone knows, because he’s nothing if not memorable. A generally happy fellow, he works hard, plays hard, and speaks gently. Joe never met a stranger. His cheerfulness is matched by vigor and generosity.
Joe is no great intellect, and he doesn’t apologize for it. He has a place in the world, knows what that place is, and fulfills his station in life admirably. He aims to be the best technician he can possibly be, and by all accounts, he is.
Several years ago, Joe quit his good job to take care of a sick family member. When the family member died, Joe went back to work. To hear him talk, it was a privilege to care for the person, not a chore.
Joe works hard for the organization we belong to. He helps people whenever he can, and makes newcomers welcome. He does whatever the organization asks him to do without complaint, often doing jobs others avoid.
Probably the most enlightening thing to be said about Joe is this: In all the years I’ve known him, I have never heard him say an unkind word to anyone or about anyone.
About two years ago, Joe came to me because I am a writer. He was discouraged because his application for pardon had been denied for the second time.
Joe had not always been the pillar of society he is now. At one time, he suffered from an addiction that all but ruined his life. His guilt over hurting his mother made him turn his life around, but not before he was convicted of a felony.
Turning his life around was not a walk in the park; he had legal complications to deal with, and he dealt with them. He had to work to regain the trust of his family and the few friends he had left after years of addiction. Then he had to learn how to live life in the real world, the world those of us without addictions take for granted. And he did.
Patiently, day by day, Joe paid his debt to society and made a new life. He learned to pay his bills, work at a job, and be a member of society. It wasn’t easy, but he did it. At 15 years of sobriety, Joe decided that the one thing he wanted was for the State of Texas to forgive him. He was not looking for a pat on the back. He just wanted the state to tell him that it was true—he was one of those rare gems of the criminal justice system—a fully rehabilitated member of society.
The Texas State Board of Pardons and Paroles did not see it his way.
Joe is not alone. In the last four years, the full board has considered 895 petitions for full pardons. It has recommended clemency in 191 of those cases, or just over 21 percent. The governor is not bound by the recommendation of the board, and Governor Rick Perry, that bastion of rectitude, has seen fit to pardon a mere 76 souls. That is fewer than 9 percent of all applications for pardons. God might forgive Joe for his misdeeds, but the State of Texas will not.
One can understand taking a tough stance on crime, but where does tough become overbearing? Joe paid his debt to society, and then some. He is a contributing member of society who pays taxes, supports charities, and helps his neighbors. He has never been in trouble with the law since the day he decided to make his change, but none of this is good enough for the state.
What kind of place cannot recognize rehabilitation after more than 10 years of spotless, indeed exemplary, behavior? One run by politicians whose only concern is staying in office. One where pardoning such a person is perceived as being “soft on crime”. One run by the neo-conservative Republican Party. One I’d like to see changed.
© 2005
Joe is no great intellect, and he doesn’t apologize for it. He has a place in the world, knows what that place is, and fulfills his station in life admirably. He aims to be the best technician he can possibly be, and by all accounts, he is.
Several years ago, Joe quit his good job to take care of a sick family member. When the family member died, Joe went back to work. To hear him talk, it was a privilege to care for the person, not a chore.
Joe works hard for the organization we belong to. He helps people whenever he can, and makes newcomers welcome. He does whatever the organization asks him to do without complaint, often doing jobs others avoid.
Probably the most enlightening thing to be said about Joe is this: In all the years I’ve known him, I have never heard him say an unkind word to anyone or about anyone.
About two years ago, Joe came to me because I am a writer. He was discouraged because his application for pardon had been denied for the second time.
Joe had not always been the pillar of society he is now. At one time, he suffered from an addiction that all but ruined his life. His guilt over hurting his mother made him turn his life around, but not before he was convicted of a felony.
Turning his life around was not a walk in the park; he had legal complications to deal with, and he dealt with them. He had to work to regain the trust of his family and the few friends he had left after years of addiction. Then he had to learn how to live life in the real world, the world those of us without addictions take for granted. And he did.
Patiently, day by day, Joe paid his debt to society and made a new life. He learned to pay his bills, work at a job, and be a member of society. It wasn’t easy, but he did it. At 15 years of sobriety, Joe decided that the one thing he wanted was for the State of Texas to forgive him. He was not looking for a pat on the back. He just wanted the state to tell him that it was true—he was one of those rare gems of the criminal justice system—a fully rehabilitated member of society.
The Texas State Board of Pardons and Paroles did not see it his way.
Joe is not alone. In the last four years, the full board has considered 895 petitions for full pardons. It has recommended clemency in 191 of those cases, or just over 21 percent. The governor is not bound by the recommendation of the board, and Governor Rick Perry, that bastion of rectitude, has seen fit to pardon a mere 76 souls. That is fewer than 9 percent of all applications for pardons. God might forgive Joe for his misdeeds, but the State of Texas will not.
One can understand taking a tough stance on crime, but where does tough become overbearing? Joe paid his debt to society, and then some. He is a contributing member of society who pays taxes, supports charities, and helps his neighbors. He has never been in trouble with the law since the day he decided to make his change, but none of this is good enough for the state.
What kind of place cannot recognize rehabilitation after more than 10 years of spotless, indeed exemplary, behavior? One run by politicians whose only concern is staying in office. One where pardoning such a person is perceived as being “soft on crime”. One run by the neo-conservative Republican Party. One I’d like to see changed.
© 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
When in Rome, Don't Smuggle Drugs
According to reports from the Associated Press, Singapore hanged a 25-year–old Australian man this morning for drug trafficking. The execution came amid pleas for clemency from all over the world, and accusations that the clemency process in Singapore lacks transparency.
While the death penalty is arguably one of humankind’s more barbaric customs, it is rather difficult to support a claim that the government of Singapore should have done something different, or in the future should do something different.
The man, Nguyen Tuong Van, was caught leaving Singapore with nearly a pound of heroin 3 years ago. Singaporean law dictates that drug smuggling of this sort is a capital offense. Nguyen knew, or should have known that heroin was illegal in Singapore. Failing to know and understand the laws of a country where one travels is reckless at best.
The man broke the law of a sovereign nation and got caught. The nation has established its own laws, which is part of the right of sovereignty. The penalty attaches to the act, not the person, which is to say that Nguyen was hanged because of his crime, not because he was Nguyen.
The young man’s lawyer complained that he was “completely rehabilitated,” and therefore should not receive the full punishment, especially because he was so young. Of all the people who should understand the matter, the lawyer is the most surprising. Of course the young man was rehabilitated. Under pain of death, many persons have acquired virtue they otherwise lacked. There was no guarantee that this young man would have remained rehabilitated. In fact, having eluded the penalty would as likely make him bolder as keep him in the straight-and-narrow path. There is one guarantee, however; Nguyen Truong Van will not be smuggling any more heroin anywhere, ever.
His youth is even less reason to refrain from punishment. The world needs many things, but more young men to whom the laws do not apply is not among those needs. Singapore is very clear about where it stands. They hang drug smugglers. Young, old, rehabilitated or not. Their rationale is that while “dead men build no fences,” neither do they traffic in drugs.
The government of Singapore has been criticized for having a clemency process that lacks transparency. The process does not need transparency. The law has transparency aplenty: Smuggle drugs, get caught, get hanged. A five-year-old could understand it. The point of the harsh penalty is to discourage the drug trade. It works, but it takes an occasional high-profile case like this one to make it work.
Some find fault with the clemency process because during the last 40 years, all the prisoners granted clemency were Singaporean. These fault-finders might also note that all of those Singaporeans could fit in an elevator at once—there have only been six.
The outrage expressed by the Australian government is the hardest thing to understand. Australians’ choice not to impose the death penalty seems slender grounds to ask another country to break its own laws. The Australians may think Singaporean law harsh and barbaric; judging from the outcry, they do. Nevertheless, Australians are subject to the laws on the ground. One wonders if Nguyen might have had more respect for the drug laws of Singapore if those of Australia were harsher.
Persons of foreign nationality who disagree with the laws of Singapore are under no duress to visit. The concept of civil disobedience takes on another dimension here. Anyone who goes to a foreign country and decides that the laws that country do not apply to him or her, for whatever reason, takes a life-or-death chance.
Nguyen gambled and lost. Asians have a very different way of looking at things from westerners. They see that there are many, many people in the world, and that laws are the dikes that keep chaos out. Asia is so heavily populated that three children were born before Nguyen’s body was cut down from the gallows. He was replaceable. There is room enough for those who do not disturb the tranquility of society, but little room for those who do.
Nguyen is now deceased. It seems unlikely that anyone is lining up to try to succeed where he failed. From that point of view, who could argue that the law does not work? No one has to applaud the law or like the law. Laws are not made for celebrating, but for keeping order. In this case, it seems to be doing exactly that.
© 2005
While the death penalty is arguably one of humankind’s more barbaric customs, it is rather difficult to support a claim that the government of Singapore should have done something different, or in the future should do something different.
The man, Nguyen Tuong Van, was caught leaving Singapore with nearly a pound of heroin 3 years ago. Singaporean law dictates that drug smuggling of this sort is a capital offense. Nguyen knew, or should have known that heroin was illegal in Singapore. Failing to know and understand the laws of a country where one travels is reckless at best.
The man broke the law of a sovereign nation and got caught. The nation has established its own laws, which is part of the right of sovereignty. The penalty attaches to the act, not the person, which is to say that Nguyen was hanged because of his crime, not because he was Nguyen.
The young man’s lawyer complained that he was “completely rehabilitated,” and therefore should not receive the full punishment, especially because he was so young. Of all the people who should understand the matter, the lawyer is the most surprising. Of course the young man was rehabilitated. Under pain of death, many persons have acquired virtue they otherwise lacked. There was no guarantee that this young man would have remained rehabilitated. In fact, having eluded the penalty would as likely make him bolder as keep him in the straight-and-narrow path. There is one guarantee, however; Nguyen Truong Van will not be smuggling any more heroin anywhere, ever.
His youth is even less reason to refrain from punishment. The world needs many things, but more young men to whom the laws do not apply is not among those needs. Singapore is very clear about where it stands. They hang drug smugglers. Young, old, rehabilitated or not. Their rationale is that while “dead men build no fences,” neither do they traffic in drugs.
The government of Singapore has been criticized for having a clemency process that lacks transparency. The process does not need transparency. The law has transparency aplenty: Smuggle drugs, get caught, get hanged. A five-year-old could understand it. The point of the harsh penalty is to discourage the drug trade. It works, but it takes an occasional high-profile case like this one to make it work.
Some find fault with the clemency process because during the last 40 years, all the prisoners granted clemency were Singaporean. These fault-finders might also note that all of those Singaporeans could fit in an elevator at once—there have only been six.
The outrage expressed by the Australian government is the hardest thing to understand. Australians’ choice not to impose the death penalty seems slender grounds to ask another country to break its own laws. The Australians may think Singaporean law harsh and barbaric; judging from the outcry, they do. Nevertheless, Australians are subject to the laws on the ground. One wonders if Nguyen might have had more respect for the drug laws of Singapore if those of Australia were harsher.
Persons of foreign nationality who disagree with the laws of Singapore are under no duress to visit. The concept of civil disobedience takes on another dimension here. Anyone who goes to a foreign country and decides that the laws that country do not apply to him or her, for whatever reason, takes a life-or-death chance.
Nguyen gambled and lost. Asians have a very different way of looking at things from westerners. They see that there are many, many people in the world, and that laws are the dikes that keep chaos out. Asia is so heavily populated that three children were born before Nguyen’s body was cut down from the gallows. He was replaceable. There is room enough for those who do not disturb the tranquility of society, but little room for those who do.
Nguyen is now deceased. It seems unlikely that anyone is lining up to try to succeed where he failed. From that point of view, who could argue that the law does not work? No one has to applaud the law or like the law. Laws are not made for celebrating, but for keeping order. In this case, it seems to be doing exactly that.
© 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Freedom of Agreement
George Bush went to church today in Beijing. As usual, he had an agenda. The Washington Post reports that Bush spoke to reporters after the service, saying, "My hope is that the government of China will not fear Christians who gather to worship openly. A healthy society is a society that welcomes all faiths."
It is interesting that Bush was silent when the Chinese government was cracking down on the Falun Gong. As neo-conservatives mis-label themselves pro-life when they are actually pro-birth, when Bush campaigns for religious freedom, it is only the freedom to agree with him. I’ve been accused of Bush-bashing in the past, so I want to make it clear that my disdain for his actions have little or nothing to do with my disdain for the man.
For the leader of the United States, whose party is doing its level best to abolish the first amendment, to lecture another country on the importance of freedom of religious expression is hypocrisy at its most bald-faced. The religious right have decided that it is time to take over the United States of America, and give it some morals.
Several years ago, a family of our acquaintance decided to “live the Christian values” they held. They home schooled their children, dressed their daughters exclusively in frumpy dresses, never allowed them to cut their hair, and attended church. They also swore off birth control. The mother of the family worked at taking care of the family, which grew by one member each year.
The children were not allowed to watch TV, go to movies that did not have a “G” rating or even look at Pokemon cards. That’s right: they were not allowed to look at or touch Pokemon trading cards. Naturally, nothing was more inviting than those forbidden playthings, which the parents continually derided as the ruination of the soul, as “pocket devils.” The crowning rejection of secular society was when the family (read: parents) decided not to exchange presents at Christmas.
The family,never rich by any standards, descended deeper into poverty with each passing year, as they continued to tithe their stagnant income to their church and add a member to its ranks. The older children, products of previous marriages, quickly bailed out of the family as their lives became more and more constricted.
The parents expressed sadness that their children did not embrace their Christian values, and continued on the path. Their son began to rebel in subtle ways. At eight, he could fearlessly tell me that my buying a single lottery ticket was gambling, then walk into my house and steal Pokemon cards, that soul-scourge of the devil.
The point is that this brand of Christian values has more to do with bondage to a system that preys on the weakest than with freedom. Those on whom it is imposed from above will inevitably rebel. Bush encourages the Chinese to be tolerant of religion, but only the brand of religion endorsed by the neo-conservatives.
When an Episcopal priest preached that the war in Iraq was at root sinful, the church where he preached was promptly (for the government) investigated by the IRS. Religion that encourages people to think about things in the light of their own consciences has not earned the neo-con seal of approval.
Religion is a wonderful tool for keeping people in line. The fear of eternal damnation is a powerful incentive to follow the rules. The founders were well aware of the tyrannical uses of religion, and attempted to short-circuit their implementation by forbidding the establishment of a state religion. Arguments that separation of church and state is an invention of the Supreme Court, rather than a tenet of the U.S. Constitution are not difficult to find these days. Unfortunately, although they are easy to refute logically, those advancing such arguments are not susceptible to logic.
© 2005
It is interesting that Bush was silent when the Chinese government was cracking down on the Falun Gong. As neo-conservatives mis-label themselves pro-life when they are actually pro-birth, when Bush campaigns for religious freedom, it is only the freedom to agree with him. I’ve been accused of Bush-bashing in the past, so I want to make it clear that my disdain for his actions have little or nothing to do with my disdain for the man.
For the leader of the United States, whose party is doing its level best to abolish the first amendment, to lecture another country on the importance of freedom of religious expression is hypocrisy at its most bald-faced. The religious right have decided that it is time to take over the United States of America, and give it some morals.
Several years ago, a family of our acquaintance decided to “live the Christian values” they held. They home schooled their children, dressed their daughters exclusively in frumpy dresses, never allowed them to cut their hair, and attended church. They also swore off birth control. The mother of the family worked at taking care of the family, which grew by one member each year.
The children were not allowed to watch TV, go to movies that did not have a “G” rating or even look at Pokemon cards. That’s right: they were not allowed to look at or touch Pokemon trading cards. Naturally, nothing was more inviting than those forbidden playthings, which the parents continually derided as the ruination of the soul, as “pocket devils.” The crowning rejection of secular society was when the family (read: parents) decided not to exchange presents at Christmas.
The family,never rich by any standards, descended deeper into poverty with each passing year, as they continued to tithe their stagnant income to their church and add a member to its ranks. The older children, products of previous marriages, quickly bailed out of the family as their lives became more and more constricted.
The parents expressed sadness that their children did not embrace their Christian values, and continued on the path. Their son began to rebel in subtle ways. At eight, he could fearlessly tell me that my buying a single lottery ticket was gambling, then walk into my house and steal Pokemon cards, that soul-scourge of the devil.
The point is that this brand of Christian values has more to do with bondage to a system that preys on the weakest than with freedom. Those on whom it is imposed from above will inevitably rebel. Bush encourages the Chinese to be tolerant of religion, but only the brand of religion endorsed by the neo-conservatives.
When an Episcopal priest preached that the war in Iraq was at root sinful, the church where he preached was promptly (for the government) investigated by the IRS. Religion that encourages people to think about things in the light of their own consciences has not earned the neo-con seal of approval.
Religion is a wonderful tool for keeping people in line. The fear of eternal damnation is a powerful incentive to follow the rules. The founders were well aware of the tyrannical uses of religion, and attempted to short-circuit their implementation by forbidding the establishment of a state religion. Arguments that separation of church and state is an invention of the Supreme Court, rather than a tenet of the U.S. Constitution are not difficult to find these days. Unfortunately, although they are easy to refute logically, those advancing such arguments are not susceptible to logic.
© 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
A Voice in the Wilderness
President Jimmy Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis renews my faith that the United States can turn the ship of state around before it runs aground on the shoals of fascism. His essay in the LA Times yesterday sums up much of what I have been trying to say since I started this blog.
Mr. Carter speaks clearly and unsentimentally about the detour our great country has taken from the course charted for it over 200 years ago. His words have the unmistakable ring of truth and the warrant of Carter's personal integrity to back them up.
Carter admonishes us about the erosion of our first amendment rights. That first amendment is the mother of all civil rights. It begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Churches have turned political, and an alarming number of politicians are exhibiting an unsavory tendency to run on the platform of their personal religious beliefs. In many countries, clergy may not hold parliamentary office. Not so in the United States, but it may be time to consider creating such a law.
". . .or abridging the freedom of speech. . ." While no one has yet attempted the direct public abrogation of free speech, Valerie Plame is certainly an example of the wages of unapologetic refusal to toe the party line. Intimidating against the use of free speech critical of the government is no different in practical terms from making it illegal. The right was not legislated out, but the freedom was still abridged.
" . . .or of the press. . ." Judith Miller recently ended a 2-month jail stay for refusing to name her journalistic sources. While protection of journalistic sources is not a constitutional right, without the ability to assure the anonymity of a source, journalists face the possibility of having access to the party line only. Big Brother hasn't tried to control the press overtly, but nary a journalist in this country missed the handwriting on the wall over Valerie Plame.
". . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . ." this right is also an endangered species. The government did not attack it directly; preferring simply to fail to protect it from private-sector poachers. Wal-Mart has usurped their employees' right to associate with others who think building a business empire by cheating employees is wrong. The fastest way to get fired from Wal-Mart is to repeat the magic words aloud: "Labor Union."
“. . . and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The current trend known as tort reform is the final aspect of the abolishment of the first amendment. When persons are limited in their ability to petition the government for relief of wrongs, which is the point of award caps, and other tort reform devices, the government is no longer obligated to protect the weak against the strong. Here, certain power brokers are trying to get Americans to support laws that violate their rights with alarmist chatter about frivolous lawsuits. Certain interests think that the right of American citizens to ask the government to protect them from well-funded commercial enterprises is frivolous. The first thing people seem to think of when tort reform comes up is the woman who sued McDonalds because she got burnt with hot coffee. The last thing they seem to think of, because this part is kept out of the discussion by the tort-reform champions, is that the woman who filed the lawsuit was injured so badly she needed skin grafts. It only sounds frivolous before the facts come out. Tort reform is the final nail in the first amendment’s coffin.
Americans are the only ones who can save the first amendment. It is not the whole of American civil liberties, but without it, maintaining the rest will be difficult, if not impossible. It is good that Mr. Carter has taken the time to warn of the impending crisis. I hope everyone who reads this can find a copy of his book and the time to read it.
© 2005
Mr. Carter speaks clearly and unsentimentally about the detour our great country has taken from the course charted for it over 200 years ago. His words have the unmistakable ring of truth and the warrant of Carter's personal integrity to back them up.
Carter admonishes us about the erosion of our first amendment rights. That first amendment is the mother of all civil rights. It begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Churches have turned political, and an alarming number of politicians are exhibiting an unsavory tendency to run on the platform of their personal religious beliefs. In many countries, clergy may not hold parliamentary office. Not so in the United States, but it may be time to consider creating such a law.
". . .or abridging the freedom of speech. . ." While no one has yet attempted the direct public abrogation of free speech, Valerie Plame is certainly an example of the wages of unapologetic refusal to toe the party line. Intimidating against the use of free speech critical of the government is no different in practical terms from making it illegal. The right was not legislated out, but the freedom was still abridged.
" . . .or of the press. . ." Judith Miller recently ended a 2-month jail stay for refusing to name her journalistic sources. While protection of journalistic sources is not a constitutional right, without the ability to assure the anonymity of a source, journalists face the possibility of having access to the party line only. Big Brother hasn't tried to control the press overtly, but nary a journalist in this country missed the handwriting on the wall over Valerie Plame.
". . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . ." this right is also an endangered species. The government did not attack it directly; preferring simply to fail to protect it from private-sector poachers. Wal-Mart has usurped their employees' right to associate with others who think building a business empire by cheating employees is wrong. The fastest way to get fired from Wal-Mart is to repeat the magic words aloud: "Labor Union."
“. . . and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The current trend known as tort reform is the final aspect of the abolishment of the first amendment. When persons are limited in their ability to petition the government for relief of wrongs, which is the point of award caps, and other tort reform devices, the government is no longer obligated to protect the weak against the strong. Here, certain power brokers are trying to get Americans to support laws that violate their rights with alarmist chatter about frivolous lawsuits. Certain interests think that the right of American citizens to ask the government to protect them from well-funded commercial enterprises is frivolous. The first thing people seem to think of when tort reform comes up is the woman who sued McDonalds because she got burnt with hot coffee. The last thing they seem to think of, because this part is kept out of the discussion by the tort-reform champions, is that the woman who filed the lawsuit was injured so badly she needed skin grafts. It only sounds frivolous before the facts come out. Tort reform is the final nail in the first amendment’s coffin.
Americans are the only ones who can save the first amendment. It is not the whole of American civil liberties, but without it, maintaining the rest will be difficult, if not impossible. It is good that Mr. Carter has taken the time to warn of the impending crisis. I hope everyone who reads this can find a copy of his book and the time to read it.
© 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Name It. Claim It. Dump it
There are times when I feel like the world’s biggest failure. I read the display ads in The Economist for managers to administer UN projects to feed the poor, minimum qualifications, a doctorate in international affairs and 10 years experience in international aid programs, and I know I won’t ever get there.
But sometimes, every once in a great while, I read the paper and get a glimpse of my life in relation to the “movers and shakers” out there, and I may be puny, but at least I still have a spine.
Recently, ABC ran a story on national TV about getting some interns into a number of nuclear facilities at colleges and universities, without having to pass a background check, or even be searched. The evidence was incontrovertible. There were sound and video recordings of the deeds in progress.
The program had an effect here at Texas A&M University. Everyone and the president is standing up to cover their collective butt. “It’s not my arse,” you can almost hear them say, but friends, it really is somebody’s arse.
Compare this to the conversation I had with my daughter about the dent in her motorcycle gas tank.
“Where’d that come from?” said I.
“Remember you dropped it? You put it there, Mom,” says she.
“Sorry,” I replied.
The PR guys at the university are still spinning. There was an article denying the seriousness of the charges in the Battalion on Friday. Arguments ad hominum are quite the thing when facts are indisputable.
Somebody, some lowly nobody, somewhere in the bowels of the university has already suggested the following as a course of action and been severely rebuked for it: Name it. Claim it. Dump it.
Name it: we let god-knows-who into our nuclear reactor without taking proper steps to ensure that they were not bad people. Claim it: yup, it was wrong. A lot of people could have been hurt. We did it. Oops, our bad. Dump it: That’s why nobody gets into our facility anymore without making an appointment a week in advance, filling out a form, and passing a background check.
Sadly, that is not what is happening. Instead, a bunch of grown people are standing around, trying to outdo each other with their claims: It’s not my fault. It’s not my weenie showing. In the meantime, everything is just as ABC found it last summer. Unfortunately, someone is likely to come along and barbecue all those weenies that aren’t showing. We will all know who owns them then, because our collective goose gets cooked when something big goes wrong.
All this, so a couple of guys, who already have life by the tail, can save face. I’m sure glad they have their priorities straight.
The speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America is under indictment in Austin, Texas for money laundering and racketeering. That trial will be the greatest arse-covering Olympics of all time.
Few people name Richard Nixon as a role-model, but when he painted himself into a corner, he did the only honorable thing he could do; he resigned. It may be the last honorable act any politician ever does during my lifetime.
We did not scramble jet fighters on 9/11. It must be the jets’ fault, since the politicians are not owning up to anything.
We did not intervene in Darfour. It must be the fault of the army, or perhaps the fault of the corpses rotting in the African sun. It certainly cannot be because our priorities are skewed. Keeping gasoline prices below $3 a gallon is much more important than genocide.
We could not get to New Orleans when it flooded. It must be the fault of the poor people who were stranded there. They should have worked harder so they could have bass boats in which to leave the city we couldn’t get to because it was flooded at the mouth of a river on the Gulf of Mexico. Bad poor people. And what a stupid place to build a port, in the middle of all that water.
The Iraqis are sending our kids home in boxes at a steady rate of way too many. It must be because they are evil, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with invading a sovereign country without cause. Or maybe it’s the kids’ fault. . .
Name it: Neoconservatism. Claim it: What a monumental mistake. Okay, now dump it.
© 2005
But sometimes, every once in a great while, I read the paper and get a glimpse of my life in relation to the “movers and shakers” out there, and I may be puny, but at least I still have a spine.
Recently, ABC ran a story on national TV about getting some interns into a number of nuclear facilities at colleges and universities, without having to pass a background check, or even be searched. The evidence was incontrovertible. There were sound and video recordings of the deeds in progress.
The program had an effect here at Texas A&M University. Everyone and the president is standing up to cover their collective butt. “It’s not my arse,” you can almost hear them say, but friends, it really is somebody’s arse.
Compare this to the conversation I had with my daughter about the dent in her motorcycle gas tank.
“Where’d that come from?” said I.
“Remember you dropped it? You put it there, Mom,” says she.
“Sorry,” I replied.
The PR guys at the university are still spinning. There was an article denying the seriousness of the charges in the Battalion on Friday. Arguments ad hominum are quite the thing when facts are indisputable.
Somebody, some lowly nobody, somewhere in the bowels of the university has already suggested the following as a course of action and been severely rebuked for it: Name it. Claim it. Dump it.
Name it: we let god-knows-who into our nuclear reactor without taking proper steps to ensure that they were not bad people. Claim it: yup, it was wrong. A lot of people could have been hurt. We did it. Oops, our bad. Dump it: That’s why nobody gets into our facility anymore without making an appointment a week in advance, filling out a form, and passing a background check.
Sadly, that is not what is happening. Instead, a bunch of grown people are standing around, trying to outdo each other with their claims: It’s not my fault. It’s not my weenie showing. In the meantime, everything is just as ABC found it last summer. Unfortunately, someone is likely to come along and barbecue all those weenies that aren’t showing. We will all know who owns them then, because our collective goose gets cooked when something big goes wrong.
All this, so a couple of guys, who already have life by the tail, can save face. I’m sure glad they have their priorities straight.
The speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America is under indictment in Austin, Texas for money laundering and racketeering. That trial will be the greatest arse-covering Olympics of all time.
Few people name Richard Nixon as a role-model, but when he painted himself into a corner, he did the only honorable thing he could do; he resigned. It may be the last honorable act any politician ever does during my lifetime.
We did not scramble jet fighters on 9/11. It must be the jets’ fault, since the politicians are not owning up to anything.
We did not intervene in Darfour. It must be the fault of the army, or perhaps the fault of the corpses rotting in the African sun. It certainly cannot be because our priorities are skewed. Keeping gasoline prices below $3 a gallon is much more important than genocide.
We could not get to New Orleans when it flooded. It must be the fault of the poor people who were stranded there. They should have worked harder so they could have bass boats in which to leave the city we couldn’t get to because it was flooded at the mouth of a river on the Gulf of Mexico. Bad poor people. And what a stupid place to build a port, in the middle of all that water.
The Iraqis are sending our kids home in boxes at a steady rate of way too many. It must be because they are evil, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with invading a sovereign country without cause. Or maybe it’s the kids’ fault. . .
Name it: Neoconservatism. Claim it: What a monumental mistake. Okay, now dump it.
© 2005
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Anybody Home?
On September 8, the Baltimore Sun printed a column by Gordon Adams calling for the impeachment of our illustrious president. Adams gives us a bevy of good reasons to "throw the bum out," but he seems to have missed a crucial point. The public has been calling the current administration to task in for its misdeeds for four years. In all that time, the word impeachment has been bandied about, but in the Senate, where the job must get done, it seems to be the elephant in the living room.
While it is certain that many Americans would like to see George W. Bush impeached, it is equally certain that few in Congress have the political will to do so. In fact, senators who have served their country long and well and have been betrayed by the duplicitous promises of the president himself refused to take him on. Perhaps they believe that biding their time for three more years will preserve their political standing. Meanwhile, regular folk wonder if there will be a political system in three years.
The larger public is becoming increasingly impatient with the president, but an increasing number are also becoming impatient with politicians who do nothing in the face of the rape of this country. If a single party was attempting to dismantle all regulations that prevented it from establishing absolute hegemony with respect to the economic system, it would be unfortunate. However as time goes by, and the Democrats continue to do nothing, one begins to suspect them of complicity.
There is no "working with" this administration. Democrats who use this as an excuse for inaction are liars. Democratic senators and representatives who receive letters and petitions from their constituents calling for impeachment and do nothing about them have failed to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them when they were elected.
A president was impeached for lying about a consensual sexual act. His successor lied to Congress, the press, the public, and the United Nations in order to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States, causing the death of nearly 2000 U.S. citizens, and the word impeachment has not come up. Is extramarital sex really that much more important than the thousands of lives that have been lost as a result of Bush policies? Judging by the actions of Congress, it is.
Talk of class warfare in politics is discouraged, but in the current situation, where no one is standing up against the establishment of a plutocracy, such talk is nearly inevitable. People are rarely motivated to do things to others; they do things to benefit themselves. Why would Democratic representatives ignore calls for impeachment, unless they had something to gain from doing so? While Democrats have always considered themselves the "people's party," Democratic politicians typically derive from the same socioeconomic stratosphere as their Republican counterparts.
The first concern of the wealthy and powerful is to secure and maintain wealth and power. In light of the policies enacted over the last five years, the gutting of federal agencies intended to protect ordinary people, and the blatant profiteering seen at the highest levels of government, Democrats would be hard-pressed to prove they were doing anything other than securing and maintaining their own positions.
© 2005
While it is certain that many Americans would like to see George W. Bush impeached, it is equally certain that few in Congress have the political will to do so. In fact, senators who have served their country long and well and have been betrayed by the duplicitous promises of the president himself refused to take him on. Perhaps they believe that biding their time for three more years will preserve their political standing. Meanwhile, regular folk wonder if there will be a political system in three years.
The larger public is becoming increasingly impatient with the president, but an increasing number are also becoming impatient with politicians who do nothing in the face of the rape of this country. If a single party was attempting to dismantle all regulations that prevented it from establishing absolute hegemony with respect to the economic system, it would be unfortunate. However as time goes by, and the Democrats continue to do nothing, one begins to suspect them of complicity.
There is no "working with" this administration. Democrats who use this as an excuse for inaction are liars. Democratic senators and representatives who receive letters and petitions from their constituents calling for impeachment and do nothing about them have failed to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them when they were elected.
A president was impeached for lying about a consensual sexual act. His successor lied to Congress, the press, the public, and the United Nations in order to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States, causing the death of nearly 2000 U.S. citizens, and the word impeachment has not come up. Is extramarital sex really that much more important than the thousands of lives that have been lost as a result of Bush policies? Judging by the actions of Congress, it is.
Talk of class warfare in politics is discouraged, but in the current situation, where no one is standing up against the establishment of a plutocracy, such talk is nearly inevitable. People are rarely motivated to do things to others; they do things to benefit themselves. Why would Democratic representatives ignore calls for impeachment, unless they had something to gain from doing so? While Democrats have always considered themselves the "people's party," Democratic politicians typically derive from the same socioeconomic stratosphere as their Republican counterparts.
The first concern of the wealthy and powerful is to secure and maintain wealth and power. In light of the policies enacted over the last five years, the gutting of federal agencies intended to protect ordinary people, and the blatant profiteering seen at the highest levels of government, Democrats would be hard-pressed to prove they were doing anything other than securing and maintaining their own positions.
© 2005
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A New Venture
As much as I think about the state of the government in this country, I have come to realize that almost all of my opinions and thoughts are colored solely by my knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And while these may be two of the most seminal documents in modern history, they are the result of a great deal of deep thought on the part of their authors. In general, my education has tended to assume that what scholars have to say about primary sources is somehow more intelligible or more important than the primary sources themselves. The reasons for this tendency are unimportant; the results, however, are quite important because this tendency has left me in ignorance of the thinking and motivations of the founders of this country, except as interpreted by others.
I have undertaken a careful reading of the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and published in 1787-1788. For my own benefit, I will attempt to apply my understanding to our government in general, and the current political state of affairs. I invite readers to join in a lively discussion, to comment, and benefit in any way they can from this venture.
Each posting will include a link to the document discussed.
I have undertaken a careful reading of the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and published in 1787-1788. For my own benefit, I will attempt to apply my understanding to our government in general, and the current political state of affairs. I invite readers to join in a lively discussion, to comment, and benefit in any way they can from this venture.
Each posting will include a link to the document discussed.
The Federalist Papers, No.1, by Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers was a series of newspaper columns published between the Fall of 1787 and the Spring of 1788. Their authors were the movers and shakers of the day. They were the best educated men of their day, the products of an educational system that placed more emphasis on discovering knowledge than on rote learning.
The first of the Federalist Papers was a preamble to the rest and an explanation of their purpose and scope. By no means, however, does it lack substance. The United States of America has often been called the "great experiment." Hamilton was aware of the experimental status of this country and its government and took it seriously:
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
Many of the founders subscribed to a belief called Deism. Deists believed that the world had been created by a Supreme Being, who set it in motion, then sat back and watched, without interfering further. In many ways, this is what the founders did with our government. Perhaps they believed that once we had made a conscious choice, the government we created would continue on its course carried by momentum. Surely they never foresaw the country we live in today.
It is possible that they envisioned a government that would evolve as the country matured. However it is almost certain that the trust they placed in their successors in government was predicated on their successors having a similar education to their own. Such is not and has not been the case. The founders were schooled in philosophy, logic, and mathematics; they studied Aristotle, Plato, and Euclid. Today, many students do not know these authors, and fewer have read them. If my own case is typical, they have had much more exposure to commentators than to the great thinkers themselves.
Hamilton discusses the factors that would motivate voters to accept or reject the Constitution. His words on the subject are almost prophetic:
“Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.”
Hamilton hoped for public service; he anticipated self-service, and we got what he expected, in spades. Hamilton noted that the establishment of a federal government would affect people of this country in a fundamental way, but he expressed the hope that they would consider the Constitution based on its merits rather than on their fears or selfishness. He was also aware of what he called "a class of men" who were hungry for power. This class of men still exists, unfortunately many of them have satisfied their hunger, often with the aid of others much like themselves. Nevertheless, Hamilton thought that the founders' vision for this country was viable, noble and good.
“So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.”
Hamilton was careful not to demonize dissenters. His was a more genteel time; his interest was in abolishing tyranny, and his education conditioned him to engage them in rational discussion to help them discover the truth for themselves. Just as the Bill of Rights would decree that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, Hamilton generously assumes that those who disagree with him are good, if misled.
“...nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”
Again prophetically, Hamilton warns readers that those who disagree with them are not their enemies and should be tolerated. It is interesting how many political movements have completely disregarded Hamilton's advice. Names like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung spring to mind. Sadly, this has become the dominant feature of political discussion in the United States today. Politicians play an all-or-nothing game, even if compromise is appropriate. It is not uncommon for the minority party to search relentlessly for something with which to discredit members of the other party in positions of authority. At times, this has the effect of preventing such persons from doing their jobs, from being effective, and from carrying out their own or their party's agenda, whether or not it is the perpetrators' intention.
© 2005
The first of the Federalist Papers was a preamble to the rest and an explanation of their purpose and scope. By no means, however, does it lack substance. The United States of America has often been called the "great experiment." Hamilton was aware of the experimental status of this country and its government and took it seriously:
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
Many of the founders subscribed to a belief called Deism. Deists believed that the world had been created by a Supreme Being, who set it in motion, then sat back and watched, without interfering further. In many ways, this is what the founders did with our government. Perhaps they believed that once we had made a conscious choice, the government we created would continue on its course carried by momentum. Surely they never foresaw the country we live in today.
It is possible that they envisioned a government that would evolve as the country matured. However it is almost certain that the trust they placed in their successors in government was predicated on their successors having a similar education to their own. Such is not and has not been the case. The founders were schooled in philosophy, logic, and mathematics; they studied Aristotle, Plato, and Euclid. Today, many students do not know these authors, and fewer have read them. If my own case is typical, they have had much more exposure to commentators than to the great thinkers themselves.
Hamilton discusses the factors that would motivate voters to accept or reject the Constitution. His words on the subject are almost prophetic:
“Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.”
Hamilton hoped for public service; he anticipated self-service, and we got what he expected, in spades. Hamilton noted that the establishment of a federal government would affect people of this country in a fundamental way, but he expressed the hope that they would consider the Constitution based on its merits rather than on their fears or selfishness. He was also aware of what he called "a class of men" who were hungry for power. This class of men still exists, unfortunately many of them have satisfied their hunger, often with the aid of others much like themselves. Nevertheless, Hamilton thought that the founders' vision for this country was viable, noble and good.
“So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.”
Hamilton was careful not to demonize dissenters. His was a more genteel time; his interest was in abolishing tyranny, and his education conditioned him to engage them in rational discussion to help them discover the truth for themselves. Just as the Bill of Rights would decree that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, Hamilton generously assumes that those who disagree with him are good, if misled.
“...nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”
Again prophetically, Hamilton warns readers that those who disagree with them are not their enemies and should be tolerated. It is interesting how many political movements have completely disregarded Hamilton's advice. Names like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung spring to mind. Sadly, this has become the dominant feature of political discussion in the United States today. Politicians play an all-or-nothing game, even if compromise is appropriate. It is not uncommon for the minority party to search relentlessly for something with which to discredit members of the other party in positions of authority. At times, this has the effect of preventing such persons from doing their jobs, from being effective, and from carrying out their own or their party's agenda, whether or not it is the perpetrators' intention.
© 2005
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Chooser's Choice
I have known several people who made a practice of deceiving others without telling any "lies." Their method-of-choice invariably involved selective truth-telling. Such persons would respond to the question" Where's Mary?" with, "She's not here," thus leaving the interrogator with the impression that Mary's whereabouts were unknown, when in fact they were known to them. These same people would all vigorously object to being called liars. They followed the letter of the law, while breaking the spirit.
Neoconservatives seem intent on destroying of the Bill of Rights using the same methods. The state school board in Kansas supplied a prime example this week when they approved a measure allowing science teachers in Kansas schools to teach "intelligent design theory," as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Intelligent design theory posits that the world as we know it is too complex to have come about through evolution, and therefore reflects the existence of a divine being or higher intelligence.
The intelligent design camp pushes a thinly veiled agenda in offering this explanation in place of a theory that works just as well with a higher intelligence motivating it as it does without one. It never seems to cross our friends' minds that it is certainly possible that the higher intelligence they are so desperate to prove could have caused evolution.
Perhaps the Neocons find this explanation of the origin of life on our earth unacceptable because they did not imagine it; it is more likely, however, that this explanation is unacceptable because the definition of "God" is left to the individual.
No Neocon would ever admit to attempting to establish a state religion, much less to dismantling the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, words notwithstanding, this is the very thing they are doing. It is not difficult to see why individual freedoms are so threatening to them. After all, who would choose to be without a choice?
Ironically, one of the chief tenets of evangelical Christianity (to which most Neocons subscribe) is that their Creator endowed human beings with free will. Not so ironically, the first sin consisted of humans serving their own wills rather than God's.
© 2005
Neoconservatives seem intent on destroying of the Bill of Rights using the same methods. The state school board in Kansas supplied a prime example this week when they approved a measure allowing science teachers in Kansas schools to teach "intelligent design theory," as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Intelligent design theory posits that the world as we know it is too complex to have come about through evolution, and therefore reflects the existence of a divine being or higher intelligence.
The intelligent design camp pushes a thinly veiled agenda in offering this explanation in place of a theory that works just as well with a higher intelligence motivating it as it does without one. It never seems to cross our friends' minds that it is certainly possible that the higher intelligence they are so desperate to prove could have caused evolution.
Perhaps the Neocons find this explanation of the origin of life on our earth unacceptable because they did not imagine it; it is more likely, however, that this explanation is unacceptable because the definition of "God" is left to the individual.
No Neocon would ever admit to attempting to establish a state religion, much less to dismantling the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, words notwithstanding, this is the very thing they are doing. It is not difficult to see why individual freedoms are so threatening to them. After all, who would choose to be without a choice?
Ironically, one of the chief tenets of evangelical Christianity (to which most Neocons subscribe) is that their Creator endowed human beings with free will. Not so ironically, the first sin consisted of humans serving their own wills rather than God's.
© 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Headed for the Ditch
Cindy Sheehan has made the most difficult sacrifice any mother can for her country. Her son, 24-year-old Army Specialist Casey Sheehan died in Sadr City in April 2004, prosecuting a war that Ms. Sheehan no longer believes in.
She has now traveled to Crawford, Texas to ask the president why her son died. She and about 50 other protesters arrived in Crawford on Saturday, with plans to stay for the month of August if necessary.
She and her fellow protesters have been kept well away from Bush; they were stopped four miles from the entrance to the Bush ranch, because they walked on the roadway rather than in the tall grass in the bar ditch beside it. The McLennan County Sheriff ordered the demonstrators to stop because they broke “their part of the bargain.”
The protesters had reasons for not walking in the ditch, although non-Texans could hardly know what they are. Rattlesnakes come to mind first, but the Great State of Texas’ Department of Transportation rarely mows country roads, and never ever picks up road-kill. It’s probably a safe bet that a middle-aged woman from Vacaville, California wore tennis shoes (bad) and shorts (really bad) for her stroll through aforementioned bar ditch.
Texas has some really interesting flora with very descriptive names: spear grass, devil’s claw, bull nettle. Some of the fauna can be rather unpleasant as well, including red wasps, scorpions, chiggers, and horse flies. Of course, if Ms. Sheehan must make a scene, the least she can do is walk in the ditch in 100-degree heat and not complain.
The Sheriff claims to be concerned that the protest was disrupting traffic; however representatives of the news media were only ordered off the road when the demonstrators were stopped.
There are two forces operating here. First, the sheriff sets up a requirement for protesters to walk where a sensible person would not walk, where common sense dictates that one is safer on the right-of-way than in the grass. Second, after the protesters failed the requirement, as law enforcement officers knew they would, the protest was stopped, and the media was out-waited for the story.
There are no main-stream media stories about Cindy Sheehan in today’s news. The media went away, rather than cover the story that the president of the United States left this mother of a dead soldier waiting for answers on the side of the road in the Texas sun in August.
© 2005 Ann Weaver Hart
She has now traveled to Crawford, Texas to ask the president why her son died. She and about 50 other protesters arrived in Crawford on Saturday, with plans to stay for the month of August if necessary.
She and her fellow protesters have been kept well away from Bush; they were stopped four miles from the entrance to the Bush ranch, because they walked on the roadway rather than in the tall grass in the bar ditch beside it. The McLennan County Sheriff ordered the demonstrators to stop because they broke “their part of the bargain.”
The protesters had reasons for not walking in the ditch, although non-Texans could hardly know what they are. Rattlesnakes come to mind first, but the Great State of Texas’ Department of Transportation rarely mows country roads, and never ever picks up road-kill. It’s probably a safe bet that a middle-aged woman from Vacaville, California wore tennis shoes (bad) and shorts (really bad) for her stroll through aforementioned bar ditch.
Texas has some really interesting flora with very descriptive names: spear grass, devil’s claw, bull nettle. Some of the fauna can be rather unpleasant as well, including red wasps, scorpions, chiggers, and horse flies. Of course, if Ms. Sheehan must make a scene, the least she can do is walk in the ditch in 100-degree heat and not complain.
The Sheriff claims to be concerned that the protest was disrupting traffic; however representatives of the news media were only ordered off the road when the demonstrators were stopped.
There are two forces operating here. First, the sheriff sets up a requirement for protesters to walk where a sensible person would not walk, where common sense dictates that one is safer on the right-of-way than in the grass. Second, after the protesters failed the requirement, as law enforcement officers knew they would, the protest was stopped, and the media was out-waited for the story.
There are no main-stream media stories about Cindy Sheehan in today’s news. The media went away, rather than cover the story that the president of the United States left this mother of a dead soldier waiting for answers on the side of the road in the Texas sun in August.
© 2005 Ann Weaver Hart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)