We are closing in on the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, an achievement all the more amazing in retrospect considering the level of technology at the time, and our current inability to escape terrestrial orbit for all but the smallest robotic satellites. When Neil Armstrong stepped off the ladder, leaving a foot print on another planet, we seemed to be entering a new era.
Except, rather than signaling the beginning of an era, it was, in actual fact, the end of an era. From the moment the beeping of Sputnik was first heard, America's eyes and minds were turned toward the skies. That the obstacles toward something as relatively simple as getting off the ground safely had yet to be overcome (the newsreel footage of various rocket explosions on the launchpad reminded Americans that, at least at this stage, we hadn't, quite, got it right). With the orbit of Yuri Gragarin and the beginning of human space flight (or, at least, low earth orbit), the challenge was as much political as it was technological.
The captive imaginations of young people is difficult to remember over four decades later. My older brother, born two years after Sputnik, was fascinated by space travel. He even has a little cast iron bank in the shape of the moon with a tiny molded Apollo spacecraft attached. The introduction of the Mercury 7 astronauts, and their careful stage managing by the military and Life Magazine made heroes of test pilots willing to risk their lives in a venture that, as of yet, had not been successful.
Pres. Kennedy's 1961 speech that launched the race to the moon set the goal not as part of a larger endeavor for exploration for resources, but as a goal worthy in and of itself. Had space exploration been offered as part of a larger program of a search for exploitable minerals and other resources, the moon landings would most assuredly have been only the beginning. They were not. Set, rather, in the context of a Cold War alpha male pissing contest, the entire Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs existed for no other reasons than to go to the moon and come back. Period.
The times were also against further exploitation of the technology developed for space travel. From the assassination of Pres. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963 to the resignation of Pres. Nixon in 1974 were some of the most socially and politically turbulent times in our history. While it should not have been difficult to transform the space program from seeking a single goal - getting to the moon and back - to many goals - exploration not only for its own sake, but as a larger, practical search for resources for economic exploitation (the real reason for all those ignoble "voyages of discovery" in the 16th-18th centuries) - the various social, cultural, and political upheavals of the times pushed such a discussion further and further from the consciousness of the politicians whose job it was to make such a case. By the time Apollo 11 splashed down, the general feeling was, "Well, that's done, then." The original plan of 20 Apollo missions was trimmed down, funding continued to be cut, and the last human being left the moon in 1972 and we haven't been back.
In a practical sense there's no real reason to go back. While there have been interesting discoveries, such as water ice just below the surface to possible plate tectonics, there is little to attract human beings to the moon. It has no deposits of minerals that are rare on earth, and exploitable for economic gain. Furthermore, the lack of atmosphere restricts the time human beings can safely spend outside the confines of spacecraft. The twin assaults of no breathable air and various cosmic rays make the place uninviting, to say the very least. Lower gravity, combined with the zero-g environment of open space, plays havoc with muscle tone and bone mass, problems that have yet to be overcome.
In talks over the years, I have often heard proponents of a return to the moon use the phrase "terraforming", and I can only cringe. First of all, we have no idea what terraforming the Moon would mean in any practical sense. Second, even if we did, it would only be attempted if there would be a return on such an investment. At present, there are enough iron and nickel mines on the earth to serve our needs; mining on the moon would not exactly be an economic boon. Even the notion, floated a couple years ago by then Pres. George W. Bush that a return to the moon would be part of a larger project of an American Mars mission (why is it always Mars when there are other, far more interesting places humans can go?) was ridiculed by former NASA officials and others who do not see the need for such an extraterrestrial platform.
In the decades since Apollo 17 blasted off the lunar surface, America has become quite adept at the robotic exploration of space. We have orbited Venus, Mercury, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, sent robots past all the planets except Pluto, and landed on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and sent small information-gathering robots in to the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. When the Mars rovers landed in the 1990's, the entire country was galvanized as the small wandering robots rolled down the ramps of their transports, took a look around, and started their very slow trundling way across the Martian landscape. The cost of the various robotic orbiters and landers is minuscule compared to the cost of sending human beings to these places. Until we discover a reason to go there in person, as it were, we have wonderfully adept remote eyes and ears and even noses (in a sense; both the 1976 Viking landers and the Rovers two decades later had chemical sensors that tested the fatally thin Martian atmosphere) that can check these places out for us, with the risk being only to the reputations of those who are in charge of the various programs.
I see no reason at all to send human beings back to the moon. I have heard, over the past 20 years, that both the Japanese and the Chinese are planning on going. The Russians growl occasionally about doing so. While some people have pointed to these various statements and said, "See? We need to do so, also," my response is, "Why? Let 'em go and discover that, for all the effort, there's just no 'there' there." It should be pointed out that all these plans have come to naught, for a variety of reasons, so none of the arguments matter all that much.
I am not against the human exploration of space, per se. I do think that exploiting robotic exploration is far safer, cost efficient, and has yielded far more information than any trip burdened by the needs of keeping a group of human beings alive and in shape enough to do anything other than crawl out of a lander could have done. While I admire the twelve men who, alone among the billions of human beings who have ever lived, have walked on another planet, as a political and technological project, I just see no reason to go back. Find something worth going for, and I'd be all for it.
Otherwise, not so much.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Six Months Later
We are approaching the six-month mark of President Obama's first Administration, and I wanted to offer some reflections on his approach to governance, what I see as his view of the role of the Presidency, and what the prospects for the future of his Administration might be.
First, it should be said that not only was his election historic, considering his race and his relative youth; it was historic because it came at the end of eight of the most disjunctive years in the American Presidency. Far from "conservative" in the Edmund Burke/Russell Kirk tradition, the Bush years represented nothing more and nothing less than the attempt to make the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the office of the President of the United States in particular, in to a legally transcendent office. From the very beginning of the Bush's first term, when Vice President Cheney refused a legal order to turn over information on who was advising the Administration on energy policy (there were rumors, of course, but without the information in hand, there was no way to move forward). I remember those summer days of 2001, when Karl Rove managed through ham-handedness to insult a Senate backbencher enough to hand power back to the Democrats; when the burning issue was the poorly framed discussion of embryonic stem-cell research (I mean poorly framed from a scientific point of view), and Bush's decision to withhold federal funding for such research, in essence creating a scientific research vacuum that will take decades to restore; and the weird confrontation with China when an American military airplane was forced to land after violating Chinese airspace. I remember just days before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, telling my wife that Bush's Presidency was already lame-duck. Having lost the popular vote, and only narrowly winning a Electoral College majority in an election still unclear, Bush's poll numbers, after an initial bump thanks to American long-suffering, were sinking fast. Had the events of that beautiful, clear late-summer morning not occurred, my guess is American voters would have turned Bush, and the Republican Party, out of power four years earlier than they did.
With the events of that fateful day, however, and the public cowardice of too many Democrats in elected office to challenge the Bush Administration on any number of matters, we were faced with, and had to cope with, eight years of the last gasp of the Imperial Presidency, ignoring the legal strictures placed upon the Executive Branch (including the oversight role of Congress as the Executive manages public policy), and doing all it could to manage the country through an odd mixture of secrecy and judicious information leaking. The Republicans in the Bush Administration seemed to believe that what was key to governance, the currency of true power, was information; who had it, what other might do with what was out there, and so forth. It was, for all intents and purposes, governance by bureaucracy at its worst, with those who understood how to manipulate the flow of information being in the position of having the most power.
With little public information leading to no way to hold anyone accountable, the Executive went about its business without restraint, without concern for the ramifications of certain actions (or, in the case of the destruction of New Orleans in 2005, lack of action), the end result was the financial collapse, the crumbling physical infrastructure, a lack of trust in the good faith and word of our elected representatives and executive office-holders (thanks to myriad scandals, from sexual exploitation and their attempted cover-up to wide-ranging financial and influence-peddling), and a country on the brink of the worst crisis in national confidence in decades.
Against this backdrop, Barack Obama's candidacy of hopeful American resurgence struck a chord that swept him and the Democrats in to power in both the Executive and Congress. The first piece of major policy was the crafting and passing of an economic stimulus package to help revive our floundering economy. With even a few months hindsight, the management of that bill by the President should be seen as one of the keys to understanding his view of the Presidency. For decades, the President has been seen not only as the Chief Executive, carrying out the laws passed by the people's and state's representatives in Congress, but as a crafter of legislation. As a student and teacher of Constitutional Law, one of Barack Obama's first goals was a restoration of the balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government. To that end, rather than create some kind of New Deal style alphabet soup of new federal programs and agencies to dole out money directly, the President insisted the legislation use existing legal and regulatory structures for granting federal construction contracts to the states. In other words, while the Republicans were quite correct that the stimulus bill was nothing more and nothing less than the largest pork-barrel spending bill in the country's history, it was done with one-and-a-half eye's on a respect for the inherent Constitutional limitations on federal power.
As the months have passed, even as the President has made good on many of his campaign promises (his record of follow-through is unprecedented, really; he does as he said he would when he campaigned, a tribute to his personal and public integrity, as well as his belief in the necessity of restoring faith in elected officials), the President has been so restrained in his dealings with Congress that many of his liberal supporters have become frustrated with his relative reticence on many matters. Health care reform and the cap-and-trade bill would fare much better if only he would speak out in favor of them; not only his poll numbers, but the poll numbers of measures he favors jump every time he speaks. Yet, precisely because he respects the different roles of the executive and legislative branches, he maintains a certain silence as legislation is moving through Congress, seeing them as the chief arbiters of legislation. They know he may or may not support this or that measure, this or that law, but he is not a legislator, and his role is circumscribed by the Constitution.
In that sense, he has already gone a long way toward righting a very badly listing ship of state. For the first time in decades, we have a President who understands and practices the limitations of the Office of the Chief Executive.
By respecting that limitation, and moving toward a renewed respect for the law, however, part of his government is angering a key group of supporters. LGBT activists are seeking not only an overturning of the Clinton-era Don't As, Don't Tell regulation on gays in the military, but repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sexual minorities should know they have their first serious supporter in the White House, ever, yet are frustrated because Obama seems to be dragging his feet on setting DADT aside, and has actively defended the DOMA in federal court. Why, they ask, would he do so if he truly supports the rights of sexual minorities?
The answer should be clear, at least as far as DOMA is concerned. The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws. DOMA, for all it is a piece of silly legislation, is still the law of the land. In essence, Obama is trying to get supporters to work on Congress to repeal the law. His hands are tied with respect to enforcement; he has no choice. If the LGBT community wishes DOMA to be set aside, it is the business of Congress to do so. All he can do is carry out the law, not ignore it (again, something the Bush Administration did far too much of; while I am not happy with the way the current DoJ is defending DOMA in court, I understand why it is doing so, and have to nod in agreement, even as I cringe over the context).
On DADT, the problem is a bit more difficult, but my guess is that Obama, having some of the best political instincts I have ever seen (his are far better than the master of politics, Bill Clinton), understands he needs to move carefully, avoiding the kind of circus that erupted in 1993, when Bill Clinton signaled he was going to open military service to sexual minorities. I well remember Bob Dole and Sam Nunn having photo-ops on a submarine to show the close quarters, the implication being that a straight man might be uncomfortable being so close to a gay man (why, I don't know; the idea that gays are on the prowl for every man who comes within their vision is quite silly, really). In order to get DADT repealed, Obama is most likely courting key members of the Defense Department bureaucracy, including most especially those in uniform, who would be most resistant to change. When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, while it seemed radical, the upper reaches of the uniformed ranks were not only ready for it; they had been advocating it. With a military campaign ongoing in Afghanistan and the continued occupation of Iraq still a festering national sore, Obama does not need an internal squabble with senior military officers. While this may seem unfair, I would hazard a guess that once health care reform has passed, in whatever form, he will move forward on these issues sitting on back burner.
The first six months of the Obama Administration have shown us a new style of Presidency, a renewed respect for the rule of law and limitations of the Office of the Presidency, and a reticence to overstep Constitutional boundaries between the Executive and Legislative Branches. By example, he has shown us his respect for the rule of law, even those laws he does not like, and his understanding that he is tasked with enforcing those laws, not ignoring them at whim and will.
Without a doubt, his chances for a second term hinge on restoring the national economy. One thing in his favor is that most of the Bush-era tax cuts were passed with sunset provisions, passing out of law and restoring some taxation to pre-2001 levels in the next 12 to 18 months. While hardly a panacea, they will offer some fiscal relief to a federal government struggling to find ways to fund even the most basic programs, let alone new innovations such as national health care reform. While the prospects are still grim, my guess is that things will be looking better in the next 18 months or so, and by 2012, he will be able to point to a reviving national economy, an improved physical infrastructure, a health care sector where costs have been reduced even as care has expanded and improved as key components of his accomplishments. It won't be easy, and there are even some Democrats out there wary of come of his goals, but I believe that, even within the newly respected boundaries of a far less Imperial Presidency, Barack Obama will succeed, and the nation will be far better for it.
First, it should be said that not only was his election historic, considering his race and his relative youth; it was historic because it came at the end of eight of the most disjunctive years in the American Presidency. Far from "conservative" in the Edmund Burke/Russell Kirk tradition, the Bush years represented nothing more and nothing less than the attempt to make the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the office of the President of the United States in particular, in to a legally transcendent office. From the very beginning of the Bush's first term, when Vice President Cheney refused a legal order to turn over information on who was advising the Administration on energy policy (there were rumors, of course, but without the information in hand, there was no way to move forward). I remember those summer days of 2001, when Karl Rove managed through ham-handedness to insult a Senate backbencher enough to hand power back to the Democrats; when the burning issue was the poorly framed discussion of embryonic stem-cell research (I mean poorly framed from a scientific point of view), and Bush's decision to withhold federal funding for such research, in essence creating a scientific research vacuum that will take decades to restore; and the weird confrontation with China when an American military airplane was forced to land after violating Chinese airspace. I remember just days before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, telling my wife that Bush's Presidency was already lame-duck. Having lost the popular vote, and only narrowly winning a Electoral College majority in an election still unclear, Bush's poll numbers, after an initial bump thanks to American long-suffering, were sinking fast. Had the events of that beautiful, clear late-summer morning not occurred, my guess is American voters would have turned Bush, and the Republican Party, out of power four years earlier than they did.
With the events of that fateful day, however, and the public cowardice of too many Democrats in elected office to challenge the Bush Administration on any number of matters, we were faced with, and had to cope with, eight years of the last gasp of the Imperial Presidency, ignoring the legal strictures placed upon the Executive Branch (including the oversight role of Congress as the Executive manages public policy), and doing all it could to manage the country through an odd mixture of secrecy and judicious information leaking. The Republicans in the Bush Administration seemed to believe that what was key to governance, the currency of true power, was information; who had it, what other might do with what was out there, and so forth. It was, for all intents and purposes, governance by bureaucracy at its worst, with those who understood how to manipulate the flow of information being in the position of having the most power.
With little public information leading to no way to hold anyone accountable, the Executive went about its business without restraint, without concern for the ramifications of certain actions (or, in the case of the destruction of New Orleans in 2005, lack of action), the end result was the financial collapse, the crumbling physical infrastructure, a lack of trust in the good faith and word of our elected representatives and executive office-holders (thanks to myriad scandals, from sexual exploitation and their attempted cover-up to wide-ranging financial and influence-peddling), and a country on the brink of the worst crisis in national confidence in decades.
Against this backdrop, Barack Obama's candidacy of hopeful American resurgence struck a chord that swept him and the Democrats in to power in both the Executive and Congress. The first piece of major policy was the crafting and passing of an economic stimulus package to help revive our floundering economy. With even a few months hindsight, the management of that bill by the President should be seen as one of the keys to understanding his view of the Presidency. For decades, the President has been seen not only as the Chief Executive, carrying out the laws passed by the people's and state's representatives in Congress, but as a crafter of legislation. As a student and teacher of Constitutional Law, one of Barack Obama's first goals was a restoration of the balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government. To that end, rather than create some kind of New Deal style alphabet soup of new federal programs and agencies to dole out money directly, the President insisted the legislation use existing legal and regulatory structures for granting federal construction contracts to the states. In other words, while the Republicans were quite correct that the stimulus bill was nothing more and nothing less than the largest pork-barrel spending bill in the country's history, it was done with one-and-a-half eye's on a respect for the inherent Constitutional limitations on federal power.
As the months have passed, even as the President has made good on many of his campaign promises (his record of follow-through is unprecedented, really; he does as he said he would when he campaigned, a tribute to his personal and public integrity, as well as his belief in the necessity of restoring faith in elected officials), the President has been so restrained in his dealings with Congress that many of his liberal supporters have become frustrated with his relative reticence on many matters. Health care reform and the cap-and-trade bill would fare much better if only he would speak out in favor of them; not only his poll numbers, but the poll numbers of measures he favors jump every time he speaks. Yet, precisely because he respects the different roles of the executive and legislative branches, he maintains a certain silence as legislation is moving through Congress, seeing them as the chief arbiters of legislation. They know he may or may not support this or that measure, this or that law, but he is not a legislator, and his role is circumscribed by the Constitution.
In that sense, he has already gone a long way toward righting a very badly listing ship of state. For the first time in decades, we have a President who understands and practices the limitations of the Office of the Chief Executive.
By respecting that limitation, and moving toward a renewed respect for the law, however, part of his government is angering a key group of supporters. LGBT activists are seeking not only an overturning of the Clinton-era Don't As, Don't Tell regulation on gays in the military, but repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sexual minorities should know they have their first serious supporter in the White House, ever, yet are frustrated because Obama seems to be dragging his feet on setting DADT aside, and has actively defended the DOMA in federal court. Why, they ask, would he do so if he truly supports the rights of sexual minorities?
The answer should be clear, at least as far as DOMA is concerned. The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws. DOMA, for all it is a piece of silly legislation, is still the law of the land. In essence, Obama is trying to get supporters to work on Congress to repeal the law. His hands are tied with respect to enforcement; he has no choice. If the LGBT community wishes DOMA to be set aside, it is the business of Congress to do so. All he can do is carry out the law, not ignore it (again, something the Bush Administration did far too much of; while I am not happy with the way the current DoJ is defending DOMA in court, I understand why it is doing so, and have to nod in agreement, even as I cringe over the context).
On DADT, the problem is a bit more difficult, but my guess is that Obama, having some of the best political instincts I have ever seen (his are far better than the master of politics, Bill Clinton), understands he needs to move carefully, avoiding the kind of circus that erupted in 1993, when Bill Clinton signaled he was going to open military service to sexual minorities. I well remember Bob Dole and Sam Nunn having photo-ops on a submarine to show the close quarters, the implication being that a straight man might be uncomfortable being so close to a gay man (why, I don't know; the idea that gays are on the prowl for every man who comes within their vision is quite silly, really). In order to get DADT repealed, Obama is most likely courting key members of the Defense Department bureaucracy, including most especially those in uniform, who would be most resistant to change. When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, while it seemed radical, the upper reaches of the uniformed ranks were not only ready for it; they had been advocating it. With a military campaign ongoing in Afghanistan and the continued occupation of Iraq still a festering national sore, Obama does not need an internal squabble with senior military officers. While this may seem unfair, I would hazard a guess that once health care reform has passed, in whatever form, he will move forward on these issues sitting on back burner.
The first six months of the Obama Administration have shown us a new style of Presidency, a renewed respect for the rule of law and limitations of the Office of the Presidency, and a reticence to overstep Constitutional boundaries between the Executive and Legislative Branches. By example, he has shown us his respect for the rule of law, even those laws he does not like, and his understanding that he is tasked with enforcing those laws, not ignoring them at whim and will.
Without a doubt, his chances for a second term hinge on restoring the national economy. One thing in his favor is that most of the Bush-era tax cuts were passed with sunset provisions, passing out of law and restoring some taxation to pre-2001 levels in the next 12 to 18 months. While hardly a panacea, they will offer some fiscal relief to a federal government struggling to find ways to fund even the most basic programs, let alone new innovations such as national health care reform. While the prospects are still grim, my guess is that things will be looking better in the next 18 months or so, and by 2012, he will be able to point to a reviving national economy, an improved physical infrastructure, a health care sector where costs have been reduced even as care has expanded and improved as key components of his accomplishments. It won't be easy, and there are even some Democrats out there wary of come of his goals, but I believe that, even within the newly respected boundaries of a far less Imperial Presidency, Barack Obama will succeed, and the nation will be far better for it.
You, Madame, Are No Judge Bork . . . Thank God
There's a line in this analysis piece in The Washington Post that sums up the way the Republicans do Supreme Court nomination hearings:
Now, if we go back 22 years, to Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court, the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, had plenty of rhetorical, philosophical, and judicial ammunition to use against the nominee. In retrospect, some of the comments from Kennedy, especially those made prior to the hearings, were both over the top and inflammatory. Yet, Kennedy and other Democrats had the advantage that Bork not only had a judicial record that can only be called extreme. He also had a publishing and speaking record that could also only be called extreme. His position on the role of the judiciary, on law in society, could hardly be called a model of judicial restraint. On the contrary, he saw the law as reflective of a particular set of social values (which is true, as far as it goes) that can be used to construct certain desirable social and cultural ends (which may or may not be true). Judicial restrain, the hobgoblin of conservatives since the Warren Court of the 1950's, is a truly conservative legal approach; it is respect for precedent, the refusal to use a law, or legal or Constitutional principle, for anything other than the stated goal contained within the plain text. While this or that social or cultural end may be desirable, it is not the business of the law to do what the democratic process has failed to do. Thus, judges should be about making sure the law is applied today as it was applied yesterday.
Bork's position - and, I should add, Chief Justice Robert's, and Associate Justice's Scalia's and Alito's as well - is that the law should be a tool for social and cultural control. The social status quo is a good worthy to be protected; our traditional values are a good worthy to be protected; a legal or Constitutional principle that does not have some basis in a particular reading of the text of the Constitution can be destructive of the social contract as it exists, to the extent that it threatens the power structure that upholds society. While one could argue that this is certainly "conservative" in the sense that it is an approach to the law that sees it as a bulwark against unwanted, unnecessary, innovation that could threaten social stability, it is actually a kind of reactionary view of the law.
Judge Sotomayor continues to insist that, if one of the Senators on the panel wants to know what kind of Justice she would be, to look at her record. They want to know what her judicial philosophy is. John Cornyn of Texas wants, for a reason known only to him, to reconcile her judicial record and her public pronouncements. The reason for this need for reconciliation should be clear to anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together, yet seems to have escaped the keen intellect of the junior Senator from Texas - Judge Sotomayor's record, including her public pronouncements and speeches, is reflective of her judicial record to the extent that, in keeping with the best of American traditions, she sees the law as a sometimes positive good, sometimes obstacle to be overcome, but the glue that holds our society together. Our social contract is rooted not in this or that principle, whether it be something called Judeo-Christian values or something else. Adherence to some a priori set of principles or philosophy only distorts the reality that, in the end, what binds us together as Americans is the rule of law, passed by Congress, interpreted and applied by judges, whether they are a local traffic cop or a Supreme Court justice.
The other problem the Republicans are having is the reality that Judge Sotomayor isn't the radical bogeyman - Pat Buchanan's racist Latina woman - that public rhetoric has created. Hardly a judicial radical, she observes time-honored principles of respect for precedent and the careful application of those principles to cases. Even in the much-talked-about Ricci case, she was only applying a previously existing Supreme Court legal standard to a set of facts. It was the Supreme Court that changed that set of standards when it overturned her decision, not Judge Sotomayor who somehow was coming to the aid of privileged minorities trying to stick it to whitey.
In the end, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. The net result for the Republicans, at least those who have been most outspoken on the Judiciary Committee, will be they will look like what they are, tired old white men attempting to set up and knock down a caricature of a radical activist judge who doesn't exist. They are the last vestiges of a dying social and cultural elite, the last remnants of a power structure that not only no longer exists, but far outlived its usefulness decades ago. That the Republicans put a person with the racist record of Jeff Sessions as the point-man in this process should tell anyone with a modicum of sense all they need to know about who they are, what they are defending, and how much better Judge Sotomayor will look because of it.
[Judge Sotomayor's] nearly two-decade record has yielded few decisions that Republicans can exploit.
Now, if we go back 22 years, to Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court, the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, had plenty of rhetorical, philosophical, and judicial ammunition to use against the nominee. In retrospect, some of the comments from Kennedy, especially those made prior to the hearings, were both over the top and inflammatory. Yet, Kennedy and other Democrats had the advantage that Bork not only had a judicial record that can only be called extreme. He also had a publishing and speaking record that could also only be called extreme. His position on the role of the judiciary, on law in society, could hardly be called a model of judicial restraint. On the contrary, he saw the law as reflective of a particular set of social values (which is true, as far as it goes) that can be used to construct certain desirable social and cultural ends (which may or may not be true). Judicial restrain, the hobgoblin of conservatives since the Warren Court of the 1950's, is a truly conservative legal approach; it is respect for precedent, the refusal to use a law, or legal or Constitutional principle, for anything other than the stated goal contained within the plain text. While this or that social or cultural end may be desirable, it is not the business of the law to do what the democratic process has failed to do. Thus, judges should be about making sure the law is applied today as it was applied yesterday.
Bork's position - and, I should add, Chief Justice Robert's, and Associate Justice's Scalia's and Alito's as well - is that the law should be a tool for social and cultural control. The social status quo is a good worthy to be protected; our traditional values are a good worthy to be protected; a legal or Constitutional principle that does not have some basis in a particular reading of the text of the Constitution can be destructive of the social contract as it exists, to the extent that it threatens the power structure that upholds society. While one could argue that this is certainly "conservative" in the sense that it is an approach to the law that sees it as a bulwark against unwanted, unnecessary, innovation that could threaten social stability, it is actually a kind of reactionary view of the law.
Judge Sotomayor continues to insist that, if one of the Senators on the panel wants to know what kind of Justice she would be, to look at her record. They want to know what her judicial philosophy is. John Cornyn of Texas wants, for a reason known only to him, to reconcile her judicial record and her public pronouncements. The reason for this need for reconciliation should be clear to anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together, yet seems to have escaped the keen intellect of the junior Senator from Texas - Judge Sotomayor's record, including her public pronouncements and speeches, is reflective of her judicial record to the extent that, in keeping with the best of American traditions, she sees the law as a sometimes positive good, sometimes obstacle to be overcome, but the glue that holds our society together. Our social contract is rooted not in this or that principle, whether it be something called Judeo-Christian values or something else. Adherence to some a priori set of principles or philosophy only distorts the reality that, in the end, what binds us together as Americans is the rule of law, passed by Congress, interpreted and applied by judges, whether they are a local traffic cop or a Supreme Court justice.
The other problem the Republicans are having is the reality that Judge Sotomayor isn't the radical bogeyman - Pat Buchanan's racist Latina woman - that public rhetoric has created. Hardly a judicial radical, she observes time-honored principles of respect for precedent and the careful application of those principles to cases. Even in the much-talked-about Ricci case, she was only applying a previously existing Supreme Court legal standard to a set of facts. It was the Supreme Court that changed that set of standards when it overturned her decision, not Judge Sotomayor who somehow was coming to the aid of privileged minorities trying to stick it to whitey.
In the end, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. The net result for the Republicans, at least those who have been most outspoken on the Judiciary Committee, will be they will look like what they are, tired old white men attempting to set up and knock down a caricature of a radical activist judge who doesn't exist. They are the last vestiges of a dying social and cultural elite, the last remnants of a power structure that not only no longer exists, but far outlived its usefulness decades ago. That the Republicans put a person with the racist record of Jeff Sessions as the point-man in this process should tell anyone with a modicum of sense all they need to know about who they are, what they are defending, and how much better Judge Sotomayor will look because of it.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Manifesto I Like
Courtesy of ER, I love this:
Read the whole thing.
The Generation M Manifesto
Dear Old People Who Run the World,
My generation would like to break up with you.
Everyday, I see a widening gap in how you and we understand the world — and what we want from it. I think we have irreconcilable differences.
Read the whole thing.
When Worlds Collide - More Thoughts On Facebook
As my "Friends" list grows and diversifies, I have had more than a few occasions to ponder something odd. As various people from different times in my life - high school, seminary, local folks, folks I've come to know through the internet, even some family - comment on this or that status update, I realize not only how rich and diverse are the people I have called "friend", or the people I have at least called "acquaintance", but that this kaleidoscope of difference, from people with whom I grew up but lost contact, only to reconnect all these years later to a few people who I came to know at what was the most emotionally and intellectually vital and stressful (yet wonderful for all that) time of my life (my time in seminary), to some whom I have yet to "meet", formally, yet have come to know at a much more sedate, quiet, thoughtful time in my life.
It's kind of weird, in other words, to have your oldest sister, a friend or two from high school, an old seminary pal, a member of Lisa's church, and a fellow blogger, all commenting on this or that status update. Yet, it also is an opportunity to see oneself through various lenses, crafted at different times in ones life. Those with whom I went to school, a few at least, I can honestly say I have memories stretching back to kindergarten. The folks with whom I went to seminary are, in many ways, the people whose memories I cherish most, because I often think I came alive, really came alive, when I started at Wesley Theological Seminary in September, 1990. Everything in my life I measure pre- or post-1990. Those four years (the three years I was a student, and the year I was a student's spouse) set the tone and tenor for the rest of my life, so much so that Lisa and I have already decided that, once she retires, we are finding a nice little place in DC and settling down there.
I always try to keep things light at Facebook. I do not talk about politics. I do not talk about religion (except mentioning that I go to church, my wife is a minister, etc.). It's about keeping touch with others, letting others know about your day, something funny, occasionally sad, that happened, and best of all (to me) reconnecting with people you once thought were lost for good to your past. Yet, it also offers an opportunity to reflect on just how interesting it would be to actually have a selection of these people sit and a room and chat.
It's kind of weird, in other words, to have your oldest sister, a friend or two from high school, an old seminary pal, a member of Lisa's church, and a fellow blogger, all commenting on this or that status update. Yet, it also is an opportunity to see oneself through various lenses, crafted at different times in ones life. Those with whom I went to school, a few at least, I can honestly say I have memories stretching back to kindergarten. The folks with whom I went to seminary are, in many ways, the people whose memories I cherish most, because I often think I came alive, really came alive, when I started at Wesley Theological Seminary in September, 1990. Everything in my life I measure pre- or post-1990. Those four years (the three years I was a student, and the year I was a student's spouse) set the tone and tenor for the rest of my life, so much so that Lisa and I have already decided that, once she retires, we are finding a nice little place in DC and settling down there.
I always try to keep things light at Facebook. I do not talk about politics. I do not talk about religion (except mentioning that I go to church, my wife is a minister, etc.). It's about keeping touch with others, letting others know about your day, something funny, occasionally sad, that happened, and best of all (to me) reconnecting with people you once thought were lost for good to your past. Yet, it also offers an opportunity to reflect on just how interesting it would be to actually have a selection of these people sit and a room and chat.
The Senate And Sonia Sotomayor
Watching and reading about and listening to various old, white, and occasionally racist white men harrumph and shake their heads in disappointment at this phrase or that quote from Sonia Sotomayor would be comical if not for one simple fact - these men, especially Lindsay Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Sessions, can't hold a candle to her. Oh, I'm sure on a personal level Hatch, Graham, and Sessions are fine people. In this setting, though, they can't really touch her.
What it looks like more than anything is a group that knows their days of running things is over. Sonia Sotomayor is the face of the future, not just of the Supreme Court of the United States, but of the United States in general. She is smarter than they are, and each set of questions makes that more and more clear. She is articulate, measured, careful where they run the same, tired, rhetorical constructions that boil down to one simple thing - "We're going to vote against you because Pres. Obama nominated you, and if we can destroy your professional and personal reputation in the process, why that's OK, too, because you're Puerto Rican and a woman." I heard on NPR yesterday afternoon, as the first day of questions began, that Judge Sotomayor had the task of "convincing Republicans to vote for her." Since they aren't going to, all she really has to do is run their gauntlet of stupid, racist, attacks. Since she comes out the other side looking better and better while they just look smaller, I think this isn't a problem. As long as she doesn't really humiliate them, this should be a cake walk.
While I feel bad for her having to go through this process, the only ones who should realize how bad they look to the public are those three men I named. This is their swan song, and their true colors are shining through.
What it looks like more than anything is a group that knows their days of running things is over. Sonia Sotomayor is the face of the future, not just of the Supreme Court of the United States, but of the United States in general. She is smarter than they are, and each set of questions makes that more and more clear. She is articulate, measured, careful where they run the same, tired, rhetorical constructions that boil down to one simple thing - "We're going to vote against you because Pres. Obama nominated you, and if we can destroy your professional and personal reputation in the process, why that's OK, too, because you're Puerto Rican and a woman." I heard on NPR yesterday afternoon, as the first day of questions began, that Judge Sotomayor had the task of "convincing Republicans to vote for her." Since they aren't going to, all she really has to do is run their gauntlet of stupid, racist, attacks. Since she comes out the other side looking better and better while they just look smaller, I think this isn't a problem. As long as she doesn't really humiliate them, this should be a cake walk.
While I feel bad for her having to go through this process, the only ones who should realize how bad they look to the public are those three men I named. This is their swan song, and their true colors are shining through.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
On Cap And Trade Legislation And The Economy
Like Bill Clinton's economic/tax proposal in 1993, the carbon cap and trade legislation that Rep. Henry Waxman of California managed to get through the House of Representatives is being attacked as an economy killer. First, since our economy is currently in a vegetative state, I'm not sure how a measure designed to encourage innovation and investment in new technology, as well as provide liquidity to companies that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by trading their permits to companies that are less efficient is somehow damaging to the economy. I suppose its all those college courses I took at the same university; unlike Sarah Palin, I didn't diversify my education experience enough or something.
At the heart of the matter, however, is this. While hardly a cure-all for our environmental woes, this is a good first step toward changing the physical infrastructure of the manufacturing and energy sectors of the economy. I heard today that even Exxon-Mobil, Global Warming Denier No. 1 and still a profitable corporate giant even in our difficult times, is investing in renwable bio-fuels techonology in a big way because even they recognize oil reserves are running out. Rather than get left behind, they are using their enormous financial and market power to invest in new, what can only be called green technology, not because the Board of Directors is filled with tree-huggers, but because they want to survive in the long run.
For all those folks screeching about the end of the American economy as we know it I can only say, "You're right." Our entire economic superstructure is based on petroleum. We use it to produce the energy to run our factories, homes, automobiles. We use it to produce products we use all the time, from plastic shopping bags to the dashboards of automobiles. Yet, the reserves are running out. If we sit around and insist that we cannot change because change will only hurt us economically, my retort is a simple one - if we don't change, the result will be even more catastrophic. Since all these so-called conservatives (who aren't "conservative" in the Edmund Burke/John Adams/Russell Kirk fashion at all, but reactionaries and proto-fascists) are so obsessed with the whole "U.S.A! We're Number 1!" business, I should point out that not restructuring our economy in a way that is less dependent on carbon-based fuels (including not just petroleum but coal as well) will leave us far behind the curve as other industrialized nations begin encouraging their corporate and manufacturing entities to begin the process of switching to a post-carbon future.
I realize this may be difficult to grasp. Every time the subject comes up, you hear, "But there's oil in Alaska! Under the Rockies! Drill!" The reason these fields have not been utilized before now is not some vast conspiracy by environmentalists and liberals burrowed deep in the bureaucracy. Rather, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and other companies aren't exactly beating each other up to get contacts for drilling in these and other places for sound economic reasons. The cost of extracting oil, whether from Alaska's north slope, from under the Rocky Mountains, or further out on the Continental Shelf in the oceans, is the cost is prohibitive compared to the potential financial gain. The fact that even during the Bush years, government incentives for companies willing to drill in northern Alaska (just a form of corporate welfare) were needed to get companies to accept the idea should tell anyone paying attention that this isn't a good idea for more reasons than just caribou migration.
The reality is that our grandchildren will not live in a petroleum-based economy 100 years from now. Even if the US does nothing to encourage altering our dependence on fossil fuels, other nations will, and fifteen or twenty years down the line, we will be hurting, left behind, and it may be too late to make up the difference in the long run. You want to be competitive in a decade? Then, encourage everything from cleaner industrial physical plant to the development of new technologies!
I realize that change, especially the kind of change discussed whenever the issue of the roots of our economy comes up, is kind of scary. Yes, there will be a shake-up of our economy. The alternative, however, is a kind of relatively quick demise of the US to Third World status.
If that happens, at least we will know who to blame.
At the heart of the matter, however, is this. While hardly a cure-all for our environmental woes, this is a good first step toward changing the physical infrastructure of the manufacturing and energy sectors of the economy. I heard today that even Exxon-Mobil, Global Warming Denier No. 1 and still a profitable corporate giant even in our difficult times, is investing in renwable bio-fuels techonology in a big way because even they recognize oil reserves are running out. Rather than get left behind, they are using their enormous financial and market power to invest in new, what can only be called green technology, not because the Board of Directors is filled with tree-huggers, but because they want to survive in the long run.
For all those folks screeching about the end of the American economy as we know it I can only say, "You're right." Our entire economic superstructure is based on petroleum. We use it to produce the energy to run our factories, homes, automobiles. We use it to produce products we use all the time, from plastic shopping bags to the dashboards of automobiles. Yet, the reserves are running out. If we sit around and insist that we cannot change because change will only hurt us economically, my retort is a simple one - if we don't change, the result will be even more catastrophic. Since all these so-called conservatives (who aren't "conservative" in the Edmund Burke/John Adams/Russell Kirk fashion at all, but reactionaries and proto-fascists) are so obsessed with the whole "U.S.A! We're Number 1!" business, I should point out that not restructuring our economy in a way that is less dependent on carbon-based fuels (including not just petroleum but coal as well) will leave us far behind the curve as other industrialized nations begin encouraging their corporate and manufacturing entities to begin the process of switching to a post-carbon future.
I realize this may be difficult to grasp. Every time the subject comes up, you hear, "But there's oil in Alaska! Under the Rockies! Drill!" The reason these fields have not been utilized before now is not some vast conspiracy by environmentalists and liberals burrowed deep in the bureaucracy. Rather, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and other companies aren't exactly beating each other up to get contacts for drilling in these and other places for sound economic reasons. The cost of extracting oil, whether from Alaska's north slope, from under the Rocky Mountains, or further out on the Continental Shelf in the oceans, is the cost is prohibitive compared to the potential financial gain. The fact that even during the Bush years, government incentives for companies willing to drill in northern Alaska (just a form of corporate welfare) were needed to get companies to accept the idea should tell anyone paying attention that this isn't a good idea for more reasons than just caribou migration.
The reality is that our grandchildren will not live in a petroleum-based economy 100 years from now. Even if the US does nothing to encourage altering our dependence on fossil fuels, other nations will, and fifteen or twenty years down the line, we will be hurting, left behind, and it may be too late to make up the difference in the long run. You want to be competitive in a decade? Then, encourage everything from cleaner industrial physical plant to the development of new technologies!
I realize that change, especially the kind of change discussed whenever the issue of the roots of our economy comes up, is kind of scary. Yes, there will be a shake-up of our economy. The alternative, however, is a kind of relatively quick demise of the US to Third World status.
If that happens, at least we will know who to blame.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Simple Answers To Rhetorical Questions
Jamison Foser asks:
It's not only possible, it's likely.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Brzezinski wasn't criticized for saying many people agree with Palin; she was criticized for saying real Americans agree with Palin -- and thus implying that if you don't agree with Palin, you aren't a real American. Is it even possible that Brzezinski doesn't understand this?(emphasis added)
It's not only possible, it's likely.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Music For Your Monday
The early '80's have been on my mind a whole lot lately. My 25 years plus 1 high school reunion is thhis coming weekend. While I cannot (sadly) attend, connecting with folks I grew up with, and then grew apart from in the past quarter century, has been quite nice. At the same time, a tiny fit of nostalgia has dredged up memories I haven't paid attention to much over the years. One of those was the introduction of MTV to our little community my senior year in high school. Even though it debuted in major metro areas a year or so earlier, it didn't make it to our cable provider until sometime in late 1982.
For some inexpicable reason, this song was an early high-rotation song. Unlike the arty-farty Euro-pop and New Wave, it signaled the musical direction the American music industry would take through much of the decade, a kind of watered down hard-rock, differing from the arena rock of the mid- and late-1970's in that the former had the virtue of being kind of new and having the occasional really talented individual or band. I just can't say that about the following . . .
Along with promoting a kind of silly AOR playlist, MTV had to rely on what was at hand, and British bands had been creating interesting promo videos for a while. So while Pat Benatar may have been helped by MTV, so was Duran Duran.
Had I but known when I first saw this video that I was witnessing the emergence of one of the great bands of the rock era . . . "New Years Day" by U2, with a 12"-remix audio . . .
What are your memories, good and bad, of the early 1980's music scene?
For some inexpicable reason, this song was an early high-rotation song. Unlike the arty-farty Euro-pop and New Wave, it signaled the musical direction the American music industry would take through much of the decade, a kind of watered down hard-rock, differing from the arena rock of the mid- and late-1970's in that the former had the virtue of being kind of new and having the occasional really talented individual or band. I just can't say that about the following . . .
Along with promoting a kind of silly AOR playlist, MTV had to rely on what was at hand, and British bands had been creating interesting promo videos for a while. So while Pat Benatar may have been helped by MTV, so was Duran Duran.
Had I but known when I first saw this video that I was witnessing the emergence of one of the great bands of the rock era . . . "New Years Day" by U2, with a 12"-remix audio . . .
What are your memories, good and bad, of the early 1980's music scene?
Foreign Policy From Tom Clancy Novels
I was perusing this bit on Think Progress, reporting an interview Al Jazeera held with Newt Gingrich, and came across this little bit of blood-lusting doofishness.
It jogged something in my memory, and then I realized where he must have received this little bit of policy wisdom. Tom Clancy's farcical "novel" Red Storm Rising! A war between the Soviet Union and NATO breaks out because a group of Muslim terrorists in the southern oil producing regions destroys the one big refinery. See, the Reds were going to invade Iran and the Persian Gulf, but first had to neutralize NATO. Kind of like the Germans had to neutralize France before turning their attention to the Russians back in 1914 (I kid you not, that was the plot and strategic thinking of Clancy's book; the Russians decide to go to war with NATO so they can go to war with Iran and Iraq, because a refinery is destroyed by terrorists).
So, Newt wants the US to become like a group of Muslim terrorists in an ill-informed, badly written old book; messes up on some kind-of-important facts (there's a big difference between 1 and 9 refineries, Newt. . .) and somehow sees the destruction of Iranian refining capacity - upon whom would the Iranians place blame for such acts, certainly not Muslim terrorists - as leading to the end of the current Iranian regime.
I ask again, as I am quite sure I will be doing for years to come, why does anyone care what this guy has to say? His facts are wrong, the things he says exist on the border of crazy and stupid, and he has zero authority and power.
Al Jazeera’s Avi Lewis told Gingrich, “In the past, you’ve called for the bombing of Iran’s oil refineries.” Gingrich clarified, “I called for sabotage, not bombing. … Fundamental difference.” Gingrich explained that the U.S. should use “covert operations” against Iran’s refineries because they “have only one refinery that produces gasoline in the entire country.” (According to the Energy Information Administration, Iran has nine refineries operated by the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company.)
It jogged something in my memory, and then I realized where he must have received this little bit of policy wisdom. Tom Clancy's farcical "novel" Red Storm Rising! A war between the Soviet Union and NATO breaks out because a group of Muslim terrorists in the southern oil producing regions destroys the one big refinery. See, the Reds were going to invade Iran and the Persian Gulf, but first had to neutralize NATO. Kind of like the Germans had to neutralize France before turning their attention to the Russians back in 1914 (I kid you not, that was the plot and strategic thinking of Clancy's book; the Russians decide to go to war with NATO so they can go to war with Iran and Iraq, because a refinery is destroyed by terrorists).
So, Newt wants the US to become like a group of Muslim terrorists in an ill-informed, badly written old book; messes up on some kind-of-important facts (there's a big difference between 1 and 9 refineries, Newt. . .) and somehow sees the destruction of Iranian refining capacity - upon whom would the Iranians place blame for such acts, certainly not Muslim terrorists - as leading to the end of the current Iranian regime.
I ask again, as I am quite sure I will be doing for years to come, why does anyone care what this guy has to say? His facts are wrong, the things he says exist on the border of crazy and stupid, and he has zero authority and power.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Good One From Britain
It seems that the British Methodist Church has declared that no members of the British National Party, a racist, far-right party, can be full members of the denomination. In the course of the article, the author writes:
First of all, it is very good theology. Second, since the British Methodists are not an established Church - that would be the Church of England - the word "theocracy" has no place here.
The author of the piece does ask a legitimate question, however:
The issue, however, is one od denominational practice, rather than political ideology. Different denominations would draw different lines on acceptable public advocacy, one supposes. While the article makes clear that BNP members would not be barred from attending Methodist worship services, for very good reasons, it is also clear that by joining a party rooted in hatred of other human beings, there is a direct conflict with the Gospel inherent in publicly aligning oneself with such a group.
As to the abortion issue and Democratic politicians, I can only say that if the Roman Catholic Church seeks to excommunicate those who are pro-choice, then it would also have to deal with the pro-war, pro-death penalty crowd. Shoot, it might as well go through the wallets and purses of folks coming to mass to check for conception control. Compared to its public stance on abortion, the issues of war and state-sanctioned murder in the form of capital punishment are far more important, and of a far longer-standing interest to the Roman Catholic Church than abortion. Yet, if it chooses to behave this way, it needs to face the very real possibility that its membership would decline.
There are always trade-offs, but the British Methodists have declared that some practices in their country are not in keeping with the message of grace. Good for them.
Is this good theology or just PC theocracy?
First of all, it is very good theology. Second, since the British Methodists are not an established Church - that would be the Church of England - the word "theocracy" has no place here.
The author of the piece does ask a legitimate question, however:
Should the U.S. Catholic Church prohibit its members (including Sen. Edward Kennedy) from joining the Democratic Party, because of its support for legal abortion? Should the United Methodist Church preclude its members (including George W. Bush) from joining the Republican Party, because of its support for Bush's doctrine of preemptive war?
The issue, however, is one od denominational practice, rather than political ideology. Different denominations would draw different lines on acceptable public advocacy, one supposes. While the article makes clear that BNP members would not be barred from attending Methodist worship services, for very good reasons, it is also clear that by joining a party rooted in hatred of other human beings, there is a direct conflict with the Gospel inherent in publicly aligning oneself with such a group.
As to the abortion issue and Democratic politicians, I can only say that if the Roman Catholic Church seeks to excommunicate those who are pro-choice, then it would also have to deal with the pro-war, pro-death penalty crowd. Shoot, it might as well go through the wallets and purses of folks coming to mass to check for conception control. Compared to its public stance on abortion, the issues of war and state-sanctioned murder in the form of capital punishment are far more important, and of a far longer-standing interest to the Roman Catholic Church than abortion. Yet, if it chooses to behave this way, it needs to face the very real possibility that its membership would decline.
There are always trade-offs, but the British Methodists have declared that some practices in their country are not in keeping with the message of grace. Good for them.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Still More Letters
More email to Ron Waite:
Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that, rather than contact me directly via email, you decided it best to contact my mother-in-law, Sharon Holmes, to intervene on your behalf. I thought it best to address you directly, so that my mother-in-law, who had no knowledge of the events at Blaine UMC and is not involved in these matters in any way, would have no further involvement.
First, you expressed the repeated opinion that you did not even know my wife was present. As you have met both my wife and me on several occasions, I find it astonishing you did not recognize her. Furthermore, as I stated quite clearly that she was the main source for the information included in my first email, one could only conclude she was, indeed, present. She, however, was not the sole source of my information, but several people present expressed discomfort (to say the least) at your gleeful partisan attacks on former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, among other comments. That you do not recognize the potential danger to the tax-exempt status of a non-partisan house of worship by making partisan remarks is neither here nor there. The fact remains that it does indeed exist. As a member of Poplar Grove UMC, which is yoked to Blaine UMC through the cooperative parish set up at North Boone CoActive Ministry, I am an affiliate member at Blaine UMC. Any threat to the integrity of Blaine is of concern to me; any threat to the integrity of my wife's ministry is of concern to me.
You also seemed a bit put off because I was not present. I say, again, that is neither here nor there. I was writing as a constituent, whose concerns should have been addressed immediately and forthrightly. The facts are neither in question nor in dispute. It is your response, including attempting to engage a third party intermediary rather than address this matter directly I find troubling.
As to the matter of my daughter, a woman whose status was dubious - was she a member of your staff, or someone who you used to work the crowd? - approached my family and said out loud, pointing to my younger daughter, "Here's someone who would like a picture." My wife said, quite loudly, "I don't think so." Afterward, when you approached and asked about a photograph, this woman said, "Oh, they forgot their camera."
No. Someone who seemed to be looking for a good photo opportunity sought, without seeking the permission of the child's parent or in loco parentis to have a photo-op with that child. When the parent forthrightly declined, an excuse was concocted that had no basis in reality. As the father of the child in question, and as a constituent, may I say again that I would appreciate an apology for this dubious act on the part of someone who seemed to be acting on your behalf.
The Rockford Register-Star has declined to publish my initial open letter to you, so you may think the matter may go away. I found their reasoning - they called this "a personal matter" - very wrong. This is not a personal matter. You were acting in an official capacity, and in so doing, acted in ways inappropriate to say the least, and certainly unbecoming an elected official.
Your further refusal to deal directly with me, to not even give a constituent the benefit of an email written for you by a member of your staff, extremely odd. At the very least, you could have asked for more information, detail on the substance of the complaints (which I have herein provided), and made some kind of bland assurance that no offense was intended by any of your remarks. Rather than do that, you sought the assistance of a relative of mine whom you happen to know, who has no involvement in the matter in question. I was terribly embarassed to learn you had called her, and apologized to her.
While I am quite sure you will not pursue this matter as it will not receive a large public airing, I am disappointed, to say the very least, that you have not addressed this matter forthrightly and directly. I will continue to pursue some kind of response from you, even if it is only a denial that any of the events in question ever took place.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
PS: As a courtesy, again, this will be published on my weblog, and a link will be provided from my Facebook page.
Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that, rather than contact me directly via email, you decided it best to contact my mother-in-law, Sharon Holmes, to intervene on your behalf. I thought it best to address you directly, so that my mother-in-law, who had no knowledge of the events at Blaine UMC and is not involved in these matters in any way, would have no further involvement.
First, you expressed the repeated opinion that you did not even know my wife was present. As you have met both my wife and me on several occasions, I find it astonishing you did not recognize her. Furthermore, as I stated quite clearly that she was the main source for the information included in my first email, one could only conclude she was, indeed, present. She, however, was not the sole source of my information, but several people present expressed discomfort (to say the least) at your gleeful partisan attacks on former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, among other comments. That you do not recognize the potential danger to the tax-exempt status of a non-partisan house of worship by making partisan remarks is neither here nor there. The fact remains that it does indeed exist. As a member of Poplar Grove UMC, which is yoked to Blaine UMC through the cooperative parish set up at North Boone CoActive Ministry, I am an affiliate member at Blaine UMC. Any threat to the integrity of Blaine is of concern to me; any threat to the integrity of my wife's ministry is of concern to me.
You also seemed a bit put off because I was not present. I say, again, that is neither here nor there. I was writing as a constituent, whose concerns should have been addressed immediately and forthrightly. The facts are neither in question nor in dispute. It is your response, including attempting to engage a third party intermediary rather than address this matter directly I find troubling.
As to the matter of my daughter, a woman whose status was dubious - was she a member of your staff, or someone who you used to work the crowd? - approached my family and said out loud, pointing to my younger daughter, "Here's someone who would like a picture." My wife said, quite loudly, "I don't think so." Afterward, when you approached and asked about a photograph, this woman said, "Oh, they forgot their camera."
No. Someone who seemed to be looking for a good photo opportunity sought, without seeking the permission of the child's parent or in loco parentis to have a photo-op with that child. When the parent forthrightly declined, an excuse was concocted that had no basis in reality. As the father of the child in question, and as a constituent, may I say again that I would appreciate an apology for this dubious act on the part of someone who seemed to be acting on your behalf.
The Rockford Register-Star has declined to publish my initial open letter to you, so you may think the matter may go away. I found their reasoning - they called this "a personal matter" - very wrong. This is not a personal matter. You were acting in an official capacity, and in so doing, acted in ways inappropriate to say the least, and certainly unbecoming an elected official.
Your further refusal to deal directly with me, to not even give a constituent the benefit of an email written for you by a member of your staff, extremely odd. At the very least, you could have asked for more information, detail on the substance of the complaints (which I have herein provided), and made some kind of bland assurance that no offense was intended by any of your remarks. Rather than do that, you sought the assistance of a relative of mine whom you happen to know, who has no involvement in the matter in question. I was terribly embarassed to learn you had called her, and apologized to her.
While I am quite sure you will not pursue this matter as it will not receive a large public airing, I am disappointed, to say the very least, that you have not addressed this matter forthrightly and directly. I will continue to pursue some kind of response from you, even if it is only a denial that any of the events in question ever took place.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
PS: As a courtesy, again, this will be published on my weblog, and a link will be provided from my Facebook page.
Saturday Rock Show
My 25 year plus 1 high school reunion is next weekend, so the 80's have been on my mind a lot lately. I won't be able to attend, and I'm actually kind of bummed, because getting in touch with old friends and acquaintances has been fun and enlightening in any number of ways. I look forward to seeing pictures from the reunion on Facebook, although one person has threatened to put my senior yearbook picture up. Lord have mercy . . .
Lone Justice had the potential to break open mid-80's pop. I believe their debut release was produced by uber-produced Steve Lillywhite; the keyboard overdubs were done by Benmont Tench, keyboardist for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Lead-singer Maria McKee has a piercing soprano voice, and I always imagined that's what Janis Joplin could hsve sounded like if she didn't smoke unfiltered cigarettes by the carton and drink a bottle of Jack every day. Their initial release had some seriously good countrified, old-fashioned rock and roll with few frills, but the debut single is just a good old fashioned rocker. The keyboards are a kind of muted organ, rather than the odd Mini-Moog sounds of far too much mid-80's pop. While singer McKee has a Madonna-esque look to her, I believe that can be written off as a sign of the times. Once she opens her mouth to sing, you know she and the dance diva have their gender and occupation as their only commonalities. I love this song. "Sweet Sweet Baby".
I found this performance, and what I love about it is the way the song builds from just McKee and her guitar to the whole band gaining speed, volume, momentum, until by the end, they're just a bunch of rock-n-rollers having a great time.
So, the 1980's weren't a wasteland, after all. . .
Lone Justice had the potential to break open mid-80's pop. I believe their debut release was produced by uber-produced Steve Lillywhite; the keyboard overdubs were done by Benmont Tench, keyboardist for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Lead-singer Maria McKee has a piercing soprano voice, and I always imagined that's what Janis Joplin could hsve sounded like if she didn't smoke unfiltered cigarettes by the carton and drink a bottle of Jack every day. Their initial release had some seriously good countrified, old-fashioned rock and roll with few frills, but the debut single is just a good old fashioned rocker. The keyboards are a kind of muted organ, rather than the odd Mini-Moog sounds of far too much mid-80's pop. While singer McKee has a Madonna-esque look to her, I believe that can be written off as a sign of the times. Once she opens her mouth to sing, you know she and the dance diva have their gender and occupation as their only commonalities. I love this song. "Sweet Sweet Baby".
I found this performance, and what I love about it is the way the song builds from just McKee and her guitar to the whole band gaining speed, volume, momentum, until by the end, they're just a bunch of rock-n-rollers having a great time.
So, the 1980's weren't a wasteland, after all. . .
Liberals Being Really Stupid
For a while now, I've been frustrated with Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler for his barrage of criticisms against rising media stars Keith Olbermann (who is not really much of a liberal and not much of a journalist; he's a loud talker who made his name calling for the resignation of most of Bush's cabinet on a nightly basis in overheated, overwrought language) and Rachel Maddow (whom many libs on the internet love because she's smart and openly gay; her show, however, is a train wreck, as what follows will make clear). As should be obvious from the above parentheticals, while I hold neither Olbermann nor Maddow in much regard, I find Somerby's criticisms equally tiresome, for one reason - he's criticizing both of them as journalists when neither one really is. It's a bit like criticizing Obama as a theologian or Sarah Palin as a philosopher. It makes no sense.
After seeing this over at Crooks and Liars, however, I have to agree with Somerby's insistence that the dumbing-down of our public discourse, a process that began years ago, is not being halted even as the era of right-wing political dominance draws to a close.
Had I been listening to the Thom Hartmann radio show, or watching Maddow - or better yet hosting the program - I would have asked one question of the guest:
Look, I'm no fan of fundamentalist politicians or their agenda. I am also not a fan of really stupid, breathless conspiracy mongering on the order of "Watch out, the evil fundamentalists are organizing to take away your liberty at this very accessible boarding house where members of Congress whose views are widely known and whose policy preferences are public knowledge gather!"
Stupidity is leaking out all over the place, and it has caught, it seems, even some supposed liberals who should know better.
After seeing this over at Crooks and Liars, however, I have to agree with Somerby's insistence that the dumbing-down of our public discourse, a process that began years ago, is not being halted even as the era of right-wing political dominance draws to a close.
Had I been listening to the Thom Hartmann radio show, or watching Maddow - or better yet hosting the program - I would have asked one question of the guest:
How "secret" can such an organization be if we know its members, its location, its agenda, and the relationships among them?
Look, I'm no fan of fundamentalist politicians or their agenda. I am also not a fan of really stupid, breathless conspiracy mongering on the order of "Watch out, the evil fundamentalists are organizing to take away your liberty at this very accessible boarding house where members of Congress whose views are widely known and whose policy preferences are public knowledge gather!"
Stupidity is leaking out all over the place, and it has caught, it seems, even some supposed liberals who should know better.
Respect For Life
In a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), attacked a public option in health care, saying among other things that it would "kill people". He specifically called out Canada and Great Britain, saying that our former mother country and our cousin to the north “don’t have the appreciation of life as we do in our society.”
Every time our country, or western Europe, or European civilization, or Christian culture, runs up against opposition, the odd idea that we who are inheritors of western, mainly Christian, culture and ideas have a respect for human life and dignity that is absent in other places. I grew up hearing how the Japanese in WWII demonstrated their lack of appreciation for human life in a variety of ways. The Soviets were very often portrayed as little more than uncivilized barbarian hordes, ready to overwhelm western Europe and destroy it culturally. In the years since the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, we have heard far too often that Muslims have no respect for life, like we in the west do.
The idea that western Europe has demonstrated in its history, its culture, its religious and political ideas, an underlying respect for the dignity and sanctity of all human life is not only false, it is almost laughably ridiculous. To claim that the United States, alone among western English-speaking nations, has an appreciation for life not shared by Great Britain or Canada, is an insult to those two great nations, a lie so easily proved one wonders how Rep. Broun could say such a thing with a straight face.
There may be good arguments against a public option in health care reform, although to this point all I continue to hear is "socialism!" and "rationing!", repeated like some weird Zen koan that clears the mind of thought and is supposed to trump all practical arguments to the contrary. To claim the United States - land of slavery and Jim Crow; land of the genocide against our native peoples (beginning with Increase Mather in colonial Massachusetts urging the authorities to give smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians as a way of clearing space for colonial growth); land of hate crimes against Jews and Catholics, gays and Chinese, the internment of Japanese-Americans and the vilification of non-Protestant Christians as heretics - has a respect and appreciation for human life that is not only unique, but superior to that of other nations would make me laugh if the various trails of tears and blood that mark our history did not cry out from the ground for us to acknowledge.
Every time our country, or western Europe, or European civilization, or Christian culture, runs up against opposition, the odd idea that we who are inheritors of western, mainly Christian, culture and ideas have a respect for human life and dignity that is absent in other places. I grew up hearing how the Japanese in WWII demonstrated their lack of appreciation for human life in a variety of ways. The Soviets were very often portrayed as little more than uncivilized barbarian hordes, ready to overwhelm western Europe and destroy it culturally. In the years since the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, we have heard far too often that Muslims have no respect for life, like we in the west do.
The idea that western Europe has demonstrated in its history, its culture, its religious and political ideas, an underlying respect for the dignity and sanctity of all human life is not only false, it is almost laughably ridiculous. To claim that the United States, alone among western English-speaking nations, has an appreciation for life not shared by Great Britain or Canada, is an insult to those two great nations, a lie so easily proved one wonders how Rep. Broun could say such a thing with a straight face.
There may be good arguments against a public option in health care reform, although to this point all I continue to hear is "socialism!" and "rationing!", repeated like some weird Zen koan that clears the mind of thought and is supposed to trump all practical arguments to the contrary. To claim the United States - land of slavery and Jim Crow; land of the genocide against our native peoples (beginning with Increase Mather in colonial Massachusetts urging the authorities to give smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians as a way of clearing space for colonial growth); land of hate crimes against Jews and Catholics, gays and Chinese, the internment of Japanese-Americans and the vilification of non-Protestant Christians as heretics - has a respect and appreciation for human life that is not only unique, but superior to that of other nations would make me laugh if the various trails of tears and blood that mark our history did not cry out from the ground for us to acknowledge.
Friday, July 10, 2009
I, Waite, For A Response, Or, I'm Telling Mom!
Seems my little missive the other day has drawn a response. Unfortunately, Rep. Waite felt obliged to place a call to my mother-in-law, the four-time-elected County Clerk for DeKalb County, IL, hoping that she would talk to me and get back to him.
Welcome to junior high school, folks.
Welcome to junior high school, folks.
I Think An Apology Tour Is A Grand Idea
The President is overseas, right now for the G-8 meeting. Afterward, he is heading to Ghana. Every time the President goes overseas, the right carries on about Obama doing an apology tour.
Considering the world had to deal with Bush and his doofishness for eight years, I think an apology tour is a great idea.
Now, of course, Obama is doing no such thing. He signed what amounts to a letter of intent for negotiating another START treaty with the Russians. He will address the people of Ghana who have successfully navigated the rocky shoals of the democratic transference of power (the recently retired President serves the African Union now). At the G-9, chaired a meeting of the 8 and a group of developing nations on matters of energy and climate change.
Apparently, doing things the President of the United States should be doing, and Americans should be proud of him doing, amounts to saying, "I'm sorry we had such a lousy President for eight years," to conservatives. Just having Obama in office is a huge downpayment on contrition, if you ask me.
Considering the world had to deal with Bush and his doofishness for eight years, I think an apology tour is a great idea.
Now, of course, Obama is doing no such thing. He signed what amounts to a letter of intent for negotiating another START treaty with the Russians. He will address the people of Ghana who have successfully navigated the rocky shoals of the democratic transference of power (the recently retired President serves the African Union now). At the G-9, chaired a meeting of the 8 and a group of developing nations on matters of energy and climate change.
Apparently, doing things the President of the United States should be doing, and Americans should be proud of him doing, amounts to saying, "I'm sorry we had such a lousy President for eight years," to conservatives. Just having Obama in office is a huge downpayment on contrition, if you ask me.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Sarah Palin Quit
To all those who see some kind of secret double-reverse, drop-kick the ball for the first time in fifty years play by Sarah Palin to get her on the Presidential ticket in 2012, all I can say is - no.
She quit her office. Her reasoning is as incoherent as ever. She has not risen to any occasion, but face-planted herself on national television. While it is true the Republican base loves her as only a parent can love an ugly child, the rest of America, given the opportunity to meet her last fall, ran as quickly as possible (so all the encomiums about "real Americans" finding a spokesperson in soon-to-be-former-Gov. Palin are just wrong; real Americans find her frightening). While I do so hope she tries to prepare herself for a Presidential big in three years, it will only be a comedic distraction. All any opposition candidate will have to say is, "Former Gov. Palin, who's to say you won't quit if the job gets too tough?" The fact that Bill Kristol is backing her is all anyone needs to know about her chances.
She's a quitter. Good riddance.
She quit her office. Her reasoning is as incoherent as ever. She has not risen to any occasion, but face-planted herself on national television. While it is true the Republican base loves her as only a parent can love an ugly child, the rest of America, given the opportunity to meet her last fall, ran as quickly as possible (so all the encomiums about "real Americans" finding a spokesperson in soon-to-be-former-Gov. Palin are just wrong; real Americans find her frightening). While I do so hope she tries to prepare herself for a Presidential big in three years, it will only be a comedic distraction. All any opposition candidate will have to say is, "Former Gov. Palin, who's to say you won't quit if the job gets too tough?" The fact that Bill Kristol is backing her is all anyone needs to know about her chances.
She's a quitter. Good riddance.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
I Write Letters
Rep. Ron Waite,
My name is Geoffrey Kruse-Safford, my wife, the Rev. Lisa Kruse-Safford and our daughters attended a public meeting held today at Blaine United Methodist Church in northern Boone County. A couple incidents, as reported to me, are in the very least disturbing, with one I consider highly inappropriate.
During the course of the meeting, you made several partisan comments. Blaine UMC is a non-partisan, tax-exempt house of worship; any such comments you might make there threaten the tax-exempt status of Blaine United Methodist Church. As a member of the Illinois legislature, I would think you were aware of this. Lack of judgment, however, seems to have overcome propriety.
The second incident is far more personal. You sought a photo opportunity with my eight-year-old daughter, without seeking the permission of her mother first. Even had such permission been sought, it would not have been granted, precisely because, as a minister of the Gospel, having her daughter pose with a politician would be seen as an implicit, partisan endorsement. Yet, the very idea that you would seek to do so without asking the child's permission is highly inappropriate. As the child's father, let me assure you I would prefer a very public apology for this highly dubious act on your part.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
PS: Out of courtesy, I wish to inform you that this letter has bent for publication to the Rockford Register-Star, the Springfield State Journal-Courier, and will be published on my weblog, whatsleftinthechurch.blogspot.com, with a link provided from my Facebook page as well.
My name is Geoffrey Kruse-Safford, my wife, the Rev. Lisa Kruse-Safford and our daughters attended a public meeting held today at Blaine United Methodist Church in northern Boone County. A couple incidents, as reported to me, are in the very least disturbing, with one I consider highly inappropriate.
During the course of the meeting, you made several partisan comments. Blaine UMC is a non-partisan, tax-exempt house of worship; any such comments you might make there threaten the tax-exempt status of Blaine United Methodist Church. As a member of the Illinois legislature, I would think you were aware of this. Lack of judgment, however, seems to have overcome propriety.
The second incident is far more personal. You sought a photo opportunity with my eight-year-old daughter, without seeking the permission of her mother first. Even had such permission been sought, it would not have been granted, precisely because, as a minister of the Gospel, having her daughter pose with a politician would be seen as an implicit, partisan endorsement. Yet, the very idea that you would seek to do so without asking the child's permission is highly inappropriate. As the child's father, let me assure you I would prefer a very public apology for this highly dubious act on your part.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
PS: Out of courtesy, I wish to inform you that this letter has bent for publication to the Rockford Register-Star, the Springfield State Journal-Courier, and will be published on my weblog, whatsleftinthechurch.blogspot.com, with a link provided from my Facebook page as well.
Mid-Summer Doldrums
Exactly one House member voted "Nay" on a resolution recognizing the role of slave labor in building the United States Capitol. Some right-wingers of the tube get their racism jones on. Some other right-wingers on the intertubes continue to pretend they know something, when all they really do is sound scary and stupid.
And Robert McNamara is still dead.
Maybe if Todd Palin had gotten a blow job from someone in Sarah Palin's office, I'd feel sorry for her.
And Robert McNamara is still dead.
Maybe if Todd Palin had gotten a blow job from someone in Sarah Palin's office, I'd feel sorry for her.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Nothin'
Michael Jackson's funeral. More Sarah Palin incoherence. Al Franken in the Senate. The Democrats battle over the public option.
And Robert McNamara is still dead.
Had I more gumption, I suppose I could find something to write about. Truth is, it's the middle of the summer, and times are slow. Which can be a good thing.
I do love Sarah Palin saying she isn't a quitter, after quitting. Using that logic, she and McCain won the election last fall, after losing.
And Robert McNamara is still dead.
Had I more gumption, I suppose I could find something to write about. Truth is, it's the middle of the summer, and times are slow. Which can be a good thing.
I do love Sarah Palin saying she isn't a quitter, after quitting. Using that logic, she and McCain won the election last fall, after losing.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Wrong Again, Honey
Mika Brzezinski is just plain wrong.
See, it's like this, Mika. Real Americans voted back in November and pretty much sent the Princess of Wasilia packing.
These people are just stupid.
S.
T.
F.
U.
See, it's like this, Mika. Real Americans voted back in November and pretty much sent the Princess of Wasilia packing.
These people are just stupid.
S.
T.
F.
U.
Barking At The Moon
I saw this little piece - Ann Coulter defending Sarah Palin's chicken dance in Juneau - and got thinking about something I read a couple weeks ago. It seems Rush Limbaugh, in the course of blaming Pres. Obama for Gov. Mark Sanford's odd behavior, defended Sanford's decision to run out on his personal and public responsibilities in order to "live a little".
I think the public meltdown of these two very prominent Republican politicians are just extreme examples of Republicans and conservatives being quite howling mad.
I also think it's hysterical that all these conservatives are defending (a) adultery and (b) cowardice.
I think the public meltdown of these two very prominent Republican politicians are just extreme examples of Republicans and conservatives being quite howling mad.
I also think it's hysterical that all these conservatives are defending (a) adultery and (b) cowardice.
One Less War Criminal
So, Robert McNamara is dead. He outlived over 54,000 American service personnel whose presence in Vietnam he continued to support to keep his job. Of course, there are also the tens of thousands of people in Third World countries who died due to policies he supported as President of the World Bank.
I do hope he has to run the gauntlet on the way to the Pearly Gates. And who knows, maybe St. Pete may not find his name on the Holy Body Count list.
I do hope he has to run the gauntlet on the way to the Pearly Gates. And who knows, maybe St. Pete may not find his name on the Holy Body Count list.
Music For Your Monday
I was listening to "Sound Opinions" on NPR on Saturday, and they had a special on "Driving Songs". Their picks covered the gamut, from the Beach Boys to Kraftwerk. It got me thinking of a song, then a band, and I realized I had my Monday music post!.
I've never driven through the deserts of California, but for some reason this song has always made me think of driving a straight, old two-lane black top out in the middle of the desert, the top down, maybe pulling over and wandering a bit among the cactus and tumbleweeds and scorpions.
BTW, I was really ticked that Janet Jackson ripped off the opening guitar riff for a song a few years back.
I was embarrassed to learn that the lyrics to this song were originally written when the songwriter had been dumped by his girlfriend - at 16 or 17. Listening to them now, it should be pretty clear that's exactly when they were written. But, it's a pretty melody, even if the whole "We used to laugh. We used to cry" business reminds me of a Mark Sanford news conference . . .
It was my father who ruined "Horse With No Name" for me. I was listening to it, and he walked by and said, "That song is about herion, you know." I looked at him, and he said, "'Horse' is street slang for heroin." I was 12 so I didn't know that, and even though the song isn't about heroin, I can't listen to it without hearing him telling me that. That's why I picked this song, rather than "Horse". I like the harmony, the harmonies, and the fact it's a little darker than their usual fare.
I've never driven through the deserts of California, but for some reason this song has always made me think of driving a straight, old two-lane black top out in the middle of the desert, the top down, maybe pulling over and wandering a bit among the cactus and tumbleweeds and scorpions.
BTW, I was really ticked that Janet Jackson ripped off the opening guitar riff for a song a few years back.
I was embarrassed to learn that the lyrics to this song were originally written when the songwriter had been dumped by his girlfriend - at 16 or 17. Listening to them now, it should be pretty clear that's exactly when they were written. But, it's a pretty melody, even if the whole "We used to laugh. We used to cry" business reminds me of a Mark Sanford news conference . . .
It was my father who ruined "Horse With No Name" for me. I was listening to it, and he walked by and said, "That song is about herion, you know." I looked at him, and he said, "'Horse' is street slang for heroin." I was 12 so I didn't know that, and even though the song isn't about heroin, I can't listen to it without hearing him telling me that. That's why I picked this song, rather than "Horse". I like the harmony, the harmonies, and the fact it's a little darker than their usual fare.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The Explanatory Power Of Evolutionary Theory
I'm reading Ernst Mayr's massive The Growth of Biological Thought, an older yet still valuable introduction (for me, at any rate) to the history and development of the sciences of biology, with particular attention to the qualitative aspect of biology (as opposed to the centrality of quantification in the physical and chemical sciences). I'm still early in the book (it's a long slog, written as a textbook for advanced undergrads, or perhaps an introductory text for graduate students) yet, the overwhelming power of evolutionary theory, especially the twin concepts of population thinking and natural selection became clear as I was reading Mayr's all-too-brief synopsis of the developments in molecular biology and ethology (the study of animal behavior) in the 20th century.
The reality is quite simple. Studying myriad animal behaviors without having evolutionary theory as the background would leave one puzzled as to both "how" and "why" various behaviors developed. With evolution through the process of natural selection as one's operating assumption, and its central concepts of population thinking - any species is a group of conspecific individuals, unique in its own right, varying slightly in adaptive fitness - and natural selection - over time, individuals in a given population pass on their genetic material that are best adapted for survival - any number of behaviors, from predator avoidance to mating and parenting become clear. Without understanding the behavior, like any other adaptation, is part of a creatures genetic endowment, and that those behaviors more likely to ensure an individual's survival are more likely to be passed on to the population as a whole, the entire thing becomes meaningless, random, and unimportant.
Similarly, the realization that various proteins and other biological molecules, while strikingly similar in atomic makeup - carbon, of course, as well as oxygen, phosphorus, hydrogen, and nitrogen - are nevertheless strikingly unique in their physical structure (Mayr discusses all too briefly the breakthrough x-ray microscopy and electron microscopy provided by giving us access to the actual 3-D structure of these molecules). Their physical structure was discovered to be key to their functions, also very highly specific. These molecules, proteins whose development is the primary function of DNA (itself nothing more than a complex protein), are not just unique in structure and function, but vary according to species. Why would one species develop one protein with a structure only slightly altered - say, a nitrogen atom in a different space - from another species? Only through the process of natural selection.
Population thinking, combines with genetics and natural selection, reminds us that any given population has varying degrees of unique individuals, with random alterations in the genetic code scattered throughout the entire population. Evolution is occurring at all levels, and throughout a given population, all the time. Only through grasping the concept of "population" and its role in natural selection, does the entire array of biological breakthroughs in the 20th (and on into the 21st) century make sense.
The reality is quite simple. Studying myriad animal behaviors without having evolutionary theory as the background would leave one puzzled as to both "how" and "why" various behaviors developed. With evolution through the process of natural selection as one's operating assumption, and its central concepts of population thinking - any species is a group of conspecific individuals, unique in its own right, varying slightly in adaptive fitness - and natural selection - over time, individuals in a given population pass on their genetic material that are best adapted for survival - any number of behaviors, from predator avoidance to mating and parenting become clear. Without understanding the behavior, like any other adaptation, is part of a creatures genetic endowment, and that those behaviors more likely to ensure an individual's survival are more likely to be passed on to the population as a whole, the entire thing becomes meaningless, random, and unimportant.
Similarly, the realization that various proteins and other biological molecules, while strikingly similar in atomic makeup - carbon, of course, as well as oxygen, phosphorus, hydrogen, and nitrogen - are nevertheless strikingly unique in their physical structure (Mayr discusses all too briefly the breakthrough x-ray microscopy and electron microscopy provided by giving us access to the actual 3-D structure of these molecules). Their physical structure was discovered to be key to their functions, also very highly specific. These molecules, proteins whose development is the primary function of DNA (itself nothing more than a complex protein), are not just unique in structure and function, but vary according to species. Why would one species develop one protein with a structure only slightly altered - say, a nitrogen atom in a different space - from another species? Only through the process of natural selection.
Population thinking, combines with genetics and natural selection, reminds us that any given population has varying degrees of unique individuals, with random alterations in the genetic code scattered throughout the entire population. Evolution is occurring at all levels, and throughout a given population, all the time. Only through grasping the concept of "population" and its role in natural selection, does the entire array of biological breakthroughs in the 20th (and on into the 21st) century make sense.
Republican Governors Losing Their Minds
The more I think about Sarah Palin's resignation, the more I'm convinced that another Republican governor has just lost it.
Mark Sanford abandons his post, and then spends a couple news conferences waxing creepily on his "soul mate", without addressing the issue that he left without telling his staff, or leaving anyone in charge.
Now, Sarah Palin quits, blames the media, and people think it's some deep strategy, rather than, you know, her just being incapable of governing and quite possibly being a tad bit on the loony side.
I'd blame the water, but I doubt Alaska and South Carolina share an aquifer. I'd blame Obama (like Rush did for Sanford's goofiness) but . . . no. No, I think these people were always crazy and incapable of the administration of state government; reality is dope slapping them and they can't handle it, that's all.
Of course, this doesn't bode well for other Republicans running for their various State houses. It isn't good advertisement for your party that two of its most visible governors have quite publicly gone funny.
Mark Sanford abandons his post, and then spends a couple news conferences waxing creepily on his "soul mate", without addressing the issue that he left without telling his staff, or leaving anyone in charge.
Now, Sarah Palin quits, blames the media, and people think it's some deep strategy, rather than, you know, her just being incapable of governing and quite possibly being a tad bit on the loony side.
I'd blame the water, but I doubt Alaska and South Carolina share an aquifer. I'd blame Obama (like Rush did for Sanford's goofiness) but . . . no. No, I think these people were always crazy and incapable of the administration of state government; reality is dope slapping them and they can't handle it, that's all.
Of course, this doesn't bode well for other Republicans running for their various State houses. It isn't good advertisement for your party that two of its most visible governors have quite publicly gone funny.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Like Calling Halloween Revelers Devil Worshippers
The folks at The Washington Post have had a tough week - selling access to lobbyists and all that - so maybe the op-ed page editor missed this one trying to figure out how to start putting the pieces of the paper's shattered reputation back together.
First, as to the contingency of the poem's inclusion on the Statue of Liberty, all I can say is: So what? The Declaration of Independence was ratified by the Continental Congress, at least acting as the committee as a whole, on July 2, but final voting and signing was delayed due to in-fighting among the delegates. So, is Independence Day really July 4th, or is it July 2nd? The colonials could have lost the war, and the Declaration would have been burned, its words a mere rumor 233 years later.
History is full of contingencies, which does not make their symbolic import any less meaningful for their being singular events that could have been otherwise.
We are a nation of immigrants, from the Spanish settlers from Florida to the west coast, to the French from the upper Mississippi through the northeast, to the English and Scots-Irish along the eastern seaboard - immigrants all. The various waves of "new" immigrants - Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Chinese, Mexican and Central American, on and on - have added to the wealth of our culture, and the beautiful kaleidoscope that is the American public. For tens of thousands, the sight of the Statue in New York harbor was a sign they had made it from the shtetls Russian and Poland; the arbitrary and capricious rule of monarchs in Austria-Hungary; the chaos of anarchy on the Italian peninsula and the misnamed "Holy Roman Empire". Whatever else their reasons may have been for coming here, they came to breathe a little easier, to work a little harder, to live their lives without interference. The nation they have made has rarely lived up to the ideals of Ms. Lazarus' poem - our nation has occasionally turned its back on those who yearn to breathe free, and the golden door has slammed shut, the light beside it extinguished in a short-sited desire for non-existent purity - but the two together - the Statue and the promise of America embedded in Emma Lazarus brief yet powerful words - give to us, and those who have come here, a vision of what America should be, and can be when we listen to the better angels of our nature.
To erase the words of the poem, to eradicate that vision in the name of historical "accuracy", would do violence to the hope and promise we offer the world. It would eradicate the idea that we offer the world a better vision of what it means to live, and live freely, to be both American and Irish, or Italian, or Greek, or Korean, to add to the whole without subtracting from the parts.
Ugly words and bad history have no place on the one day when all Americans should remember the promise our nation has made, the on-going experiment in liberty and self-governance that is the United States of America, and the many gifts so many people from far-flung places have given to us.
. . . I'd like to suggest a little surgery that will make the symbol more appropriate today: Let's get rid of The Poem.
I'm talking about "Give me your tired, your poor . . . " -- that poem, "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, which sometimes seems to define us as a nation even more than Lady Liberty herself.
Inscribed on a small brass plaque mounted inside the statue's stone base, the poem is an appendix, added belatedly, and it can safely be removed, shrouded or at least marked with a big asterisk. We live in a different era of immigration, and the schmaltzy sonnet offers a dangerously distorted picture of the relationship between newcomers and their new land.
First, as to the contingency of the poem's inclusion on the Statue of Liberty, all I can say is: So what? The Declaration of Independence was ratified by the Continental Congress, at least acting as the committee as a whole, on July 2, but final voting and signing was delayed due to in-fighting among the delegates. So, is Independence Day really July 4th, or is it July 2nd? The colonials could have lost the war, and the Declaration would have been burned, its words a mere rumor 233 years later.
History is full of contingencies, which does not make their symbolic import any less meaningful for their being singular events that could have been otherwise.
We are a nation of immigrants, from the Spanish settlers from Florida to the west coast, to the French from the upper Mississippi through the northeast, to the English and Scots-Irish along the eastern seaboard - immigrants all. The various waves of "new" immigrants - Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Chinese, Mexican and Central American, on and on - have added to the wealth of our culture, and the beautiful kaleidoscope that is the American public. For tens of thousands, the sight of the Statue in New York harbor was a sign they had made it from the shtetls Russian and Poland; the arbitrary and capricious rule of monarchs in Austria-Hungary; the chaos of anarchy on the Italian peninsula and the misnamed "Holy Roman Empire". Whatever else their reasons may have been for coming here, they came to breathe a little easier, to work a little harder, to live their lives without interference. The nation they have made has rarely lived up to the ideals of Ms. Lazarus' poem - our nation has occasionally turned its back on those who yearn to breathe free, and the golden door has slammed shut, the light beside it extinguished in a short-sited desire for non-existent purity - but the two together - the Statue and the promise of America embedded in Emma Lazarus brief yet powerful words - give to us, and those who have come here, a vision of what America should be, and can be when we listen to the better angels of our nature.
To erase the words of the poem, to eradicate that vision in the name of historical "accuracy", would do violence to the hope and promise we offer the world. It would eradicate the idea that we offer the world a better vision of what it means to live, and live freely, to be both American and Irish, or Italian, or Greek, or Korean, to add to the whole without subtracting from the parts.
Ugly words and bad history have no place on the one day when all Americans should remember the promise our nation has made, the on-going experiment in liberty and self-governance that is the United States of America, and the many gifts so many people from far-flung places have given to us.
Saturday Rock Show - Independence Day Edition
Something different for your Independence Day celebration, it's Jefferson Airplane and "Volunteers In America":
Friday, July 03, 2009
Palin In Comparison UPDATE
Leaving aside the tabloid-like attention to the multiple dysfunctions of her family - which, in truth, are no different from most others, just writ large because of her role in national life last fall - I think Eric Kleefeld's take on Gov. Palin's announcement is both more interesting and important. Indeed, the whole TPM discussion on the matter seems to be spiraling in toward the simple reality that the multiple instances of (at the very least) unethical behavior would, given time, catch up with her. Whether it's harassing individuals through the state power, turning the state offices in to a private fiefdom for her cronies and friends, or the recent blitz of information on her relationship with members of the McCain campaign which show her not only in a bad light, but actively detrimental to the Republican Presidential campaign (this last, while hardly criminal, is some of the serious rough-and-tumble of politics that, apparently, she finds it difficult to take).
I'm not fond of depictions of Palin and her family as (in TBogg's phrase) Snowbillies, of discussions of her family, of her daughter and her life, or other aspects that reduce her personal foibles to the stuff of serious discussion. These distractions from the many reasons to be wary of her as a politician, captured nicely here by tristero (although I do not like the use of the word "hate" here), actually make her a sympathetic character. Part of what makes our politics less and less attractive to many people is the line between personal and public has been slowly erased over the past generation, to the point now where Gov. Mark Sanford waxes poetic on finding his soulmate at press conferences, and reporters continue to ignore the reality that he abandoned his office without leaving anyone in charge, regardless of the specific circumstances.
My guess is that Palin had her feelings hurt by recent revelations that her presence on the Republican ticket was viewed as a drag by members of the campaign staff; by the unfolding multiple investigations into possible criminal activity in the governor's office in Juneau; with her refusal to take federal stimulus funds, Palin is denying her state opportunities to build and repair infrastructure and improve employment.
In a place as cold as Alaska, serious heat must be difficult to take. The kitchen of the national spotlight and revelations of the many investigations in to her official conduct got to her, so she's leaving.
Buh-bye.
UPDATE: This interesting report on polls from the Presidential campaign last fall indicate something that, should it become widely-known, flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
Translated to mean - adding Sarah Palin to the ticket doomed McCain's chances at becoming President long before the economy went in to the tank. The first two graphs on the website, if juxtaposed, show quite clearly that Americans were running away from McCain before the financial crisis in September. It isn't the meltdown that doomed McCain, or his odd "suspension" of his Presidential campaign.
It was all Palin.
The moral of the story is simple. We have nothing to fear, electorally, from the right for a while. I believe even failure of Pres. Obama on major policy initiatives will not turn around Republican fortunes as long as they continue to adhere to far-right stances. All the blather is meaningless. The real worry isn't the right. It's corporate obstructionism to serious health-care reform, and bureaucratic obstructionism to repealing DADT. If the Democratic Party in Congress actually had some gumption, they'd laugh every time Mitch McConnell or some other doofus opens his or her mouth, and then go about the business of legislating.
The base loves her, but the truth is, the base is crazy.
I'm not fond of depictions of Palin and her family as (in TBogg's phrase) Snowbillies, of discussions of her family, of her daughter and her life, or other aspects that reduce her personal foibles to the stuff of serious discussion. These distractions from the many reasons to be wary of her as a politician, captured nicely here by tristero (although I do not like the use of the word "hate" here), actually make her a sympathetic character. Part of what makes our politics less and less attractive to many people is the line between personal and public has been slowly erased over the past generation, to the point now where Gov. Mark Sanford waxes poetic on finding his soulmate at press conferences, and reporters continue to ignore the reality that he abandoned his office without leaving anyone in charge, regardless of the specific circumstances.
My guess is that Palin had her feelings hurt by recent revelations that her presence on the Republican ticket was viewed as a drag by members of the campaign staff; by the unfolding multiple investigations into possible criminal activity in the governor's office in Juneau; with her refusal to take federal stimulus funds, Palin is denying her state opportunities to build and repair infrastructure and improve employment.
In a place as cold as Alaska, serious heat must be difficult to take. The kitchen of the national spotlight and revelations of the many investigations in to her official conduct got to her, so she's leaving.
Buh-bye.
UPDATE: This interesting report on polls from the Presidential campaign last fall indicate something that, should it become widely-known, flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
The correspondence between dynamics in her ratings and dynamics in McCain vote intentions is astonishingly exact. Her marginal impact in vote-intention estimation models dwarfs that for any Vice-Presidential we are aware of, certainly for her predecessors in 2000 and 2004. And the range traversed by her favorability ratings is truly impressive. But why? We are unaware of any theory that opens the door to serious impact from the bottom half of the ticket.
Translated to mean - adding Sarah Palin to the ticket doomed McCain's chances at becoming President long before the economy went in to the tank. The first two graphs on the website, if juxtaposed, show quite clearly that Americans were running away from McCain before the financial crisis in September. It isn't the meltdown that doomed McCain, or his odd "suspension" of his Presidential campaign.
It was all Palin.
The moral of the story is simple. We have nothing to fear, electorally, from the right for a while. I believe even failure of Pres. Obama on major policy initiatives will not turn around Republican fortunes as long as they continue to adhere to far-right stances. All the blather is meaningless. The real worry isn't the right. It's corporate obstructionism to serious health-care reform, and bureaucratic obstructionism to repealing DADT. If the Democratic Party in Congress actually had some gumption, they'd laugh every time Mitch McConnell or some other doofus opens his or her mouth, and then go about the business of legislating.
The base loves her, but the truth is, the base is crazy.
Hate Plus Lies Equals The Family Research Council
It would be far more honest to just say, "Don't Let This Faggot Near Your Children!" In the end, all the crap about the "homosexual agenda" and "special rights" are meaningless drivel, meant to cover up the simple reality that they hate queers.
Pushing back is not enough. We need to continually call them out as the haters they are. Bigots. Prejudiced. Say it loud and often.
Pushing back is not enough. We need to continually call them out as the haters they are. Bigots. Prejudiced. Say it loud and often.
The Course Of Human Events
N.B.: I know it's a day early, but I'm going to be busy tomorrow - who gets married on the the Fourth, I mean really! - so I thought I'd do this now, while I was thinking of it.
It's a remarkable document. It has no legal force, or else there wouldn't have been a Civil War. It doesn't set forth a system of government. It doesn't order the new nation it declares now exists. Had the war gone badly, the signatories would most assuredly been transported to London for trial and execution. As such, the words at the end take on a meaning far deeper than simple "declaration".
Yet, it is, nevertheless, the piece of paper that created the United States. two decades before the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, we Americans made the far more important, and practical, and workable, declaration that we will make our own way, without kings and parliaments an ocean away, for good or ill, because it is both a right nations have, and a burden a free people bear. Let us still recognize both the opportunity and the dread weight we Americans bear as free people.
One final note. The Declaration was ordered to be read in towns and villages throughout the newly-declared United States of America, so it might be a good idea to read it aloud, or perhaps listen to a recording of it being read. Just to get a feel for it.
It's a remarkable document. It has no legal force, or else there wouldn't have been a Civil War. It doesn't set forth a system of government. It doesn't order the new nation it declares now exists. Had the war gone badly, the signatories would most assuredly been transported to London for trial and execution. As such, the words at the end take on a meaning far deeper than simple "declaration".
Yet, it is, nevertheless, the piece of paper that created the United States. two decades before the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, we Americans made the far more important, and practical, and workable, declaration that we will make our own way, without kings and parliaments an ocean away, for good or ill, because it is both a right nations have, and a burden a free people bear. Let us still recognize both the opportunity and the dread weight we Americans bear as free people.
One final note. The Declaration was ordered to be read in towns and villages throughout the newly-declared United States of America, so it might be a good idea to read it aloud, or perhaps listen to a recording of it being read. Just to get a feel for it.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Not Norm, Just Common
Saw this little video of the decriminalization of same-sex practices in India, and loved the poster I saw on the screen-cap. It reads "Heterosexuality is not the norm, it's just common."
Love it.
A cheer or two for India.
Love it.
A cheer or two for India.
Not Only Are They Clueless, They Hate America And Democracy - Just Days Before Independence Day
AAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!
Ignorance piled on top of stupid with a dollop of creepy makes it all go down easy, but come back up in a rancid stench.
Like Michael Sheuer, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the nutty-right, we now get musings on a coup d'etat and its beneficent possibilities.
Hey, Eric, I got something to tell you - the Republicans have been in charge for the vast majority of the past generation and pretty much screwed up everything. We had an election last fall (remember it, it was in all the papers . . .) and you guys LOST because crazy-stupid-right-wing government is an abject failure.
How much more evidence is needed that the right-wing in America is a font of danger? Not a serious threat to our stability, but certainly dangerous in the potential for harm to innocent lives. All this musing about coups and the inherent danger of our gay-Marxist-Islamist-terrorist President is fueling the fires smoldering on the right. It has already boiled over in violence - from Idaho and Oklahoma City in the 1990's to Pittsburgh, Nashville, and even Washington, DC in the past year - and we can expect much more of it.
Here's a clue, if you have a big enough glove to catch it, Eric. There are mechanisms to register your discontent with our current governance. Write a letter to your Congressional Representative and US Senator. Set up an organization to lobby for your pet issue(s). Give money to legitimate groups that will advocate on your behalf. Sitting on your duff in Alabama and writing about the benefits of the destruction of America only confirms that you are crazier than an outhouse rat.
Ignorance piled on top of stupid with a dollop of creepy makes it all go down easy, but come back up in a rancid stench.
Like Michael Sheuer, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the nutty-right, we now get musings on a coup d'etat and its beneficent possibilities.
Hey, Eric, I got something to tell you - the Republicans have been in charge for the vast majority of the past generation and pretty much screwed up everything. We had an election last fall (remember it, it was in all the papers . . .) and you guys LOST because crazy-stupid-right-wing government is an abject failure.
How much more evidence is needed that the right-wing in America is a font of danger? Not a serious threat to our stability, but certainly dangerous in the potential for harm to innocent lives. All this musing about coups and the inherent danger of our gay-Marxist-Islamist-terrorist President is fueling the fires smoldering on the right. It has already boiled over in violence - from Idaho and Oklahoma City in the 1990's to Pittsburgh, Nashville, and even Washington, DC in the past year - and we can expect much more of it.
Here's a clue, if you have a big enough glove to catch it, Eric. There are mechanisms to register your discontent with our current governance. Write a letter to your Congressional Representative and US Senator. Set up an organization to lobby for your pet issue(s). Give money to legitimate groups that will advocate on your behalf. Sitting on your duff in Alabama and writing about the benefits of the destruction of America only confirms that you are crazier than an outhouse rat.
Evidence For An Uncaring Universe
Somewhere in the Third World, an Indian Reservation, or some other sinkhole of poverty and despair, a potential future Nobel Laureate is dying, and this guy is wasting his oxygen.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Changing The Argument
Neil doesn't like it when people point out that pro-life arguments aren't really about the Holy Fetus. In fact, Neil doesn't like it when he loses control of the terms of any debate; he can't apply "logic" and point out phalluses, er, fallacies, and somehow "win" the argument.
I would be amused, or concerned, if I cared. The simple reality is this - the right managed to hold itself together through the Civil Rights movement (except for the racist fringe who will always be there, of course). It was the one-two punch of the pill (1964) and legalized abortion on demand (1973) that set the stage for the culture wars and the politicization of the Christian right. Except for the Christian Identity folks, conservatives Christians could accept social, political, and legal equality for African-Americans, because they tended to be Christian, and the terms of the debate were, for the most part, "conservative" (adhering to constitutional principles, equality before God, etc.). The sexual emancipation of women, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of maleness, drove them batty.
Resurrecting certain ugly facts from the early conception-control movement (Margaret Sanger's indelicate support of eugenics and racism) allows anti-choice folks to paint the pro-choice movement with the brush of supporting the slow death of minorities through abortion. This isn't helped by the too-often-used arguments of some in the pro-choice movement of the poor, minority woman who needs abortion more than middle-class white women (I've never liked this particular argument, and cringe when I read or hear it).
The creation of the human embryo/fetus suddenly being a creature imbued with full Constitutional rights and an equal claim upon our moral feeling is actually a clever move. As a parent, I recognize the power inherent in pictures of a developing fetus - especially when it's my own. The problem, of course, is this is a distraction, a non-sequitur, and just plain wrong. The issue isn't the sacred pre-born. The issue is full human agency for women, a threat to small-penised men everywhere. As long as women are objects of male sexuality, they are no threat. Once free to make the full spectrum of choices that were formerly the sole provenance of men, they become not objects, but fully-realized subjects. As objects, women cannot - and would not - turn down a man. As subjects, they are perfectly free to agree to a tryst or not. They can decide when, where, and with whom to have sexual relations without any input from men (especially from their husbands).
The facts are ugly, and the reality is that Neil is just plain wrong. The issue isn't the fetus. The issue is women's freedom. I realize he thinks he has the market cornered on arguments. Sad to say, he's wrong there, as well.
With the recent shift toward an uneasy consensus on abortion, the anti-choice movement has shifted toward a more vociferous voice on conception-control, as I noted yesterday. The long and short of it is this - these folks don't want women having sex, except with them. When they do, they should be publicly humiliated, regarded as the sluts and whores they are, dismissed from our care and consideration. Anything else is just a bunch of babble and burble.
I would be amused, or concerned, if I cared. The simple reality is this - the right managed to hold itself together through the Civil Rights movement (except for the racist fringe who will always be there, of course). It was the one-two punch of the pill (1964) and legalized abortion on demand (1973) that set the stage for the culture wars and the politicization of the Christian right. Except for the Christian Identity folks, conservatives Christians could accept social, political, and legal equality for African-Americans, because they tended to be Christian, and the terms of the debate were, for the most part, "conservative" (adhering to constitutional principles, equality before God, etc.). The sexual emancipation of women, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of maleness, drove them batty.
Resurrecting certain ugly facts from the early conception-control movement (Margaret Sanger's indelicate support of eugenics and racism) allows anti-choice folks to paint the pro-choice movement with the brush of supporting the slow death of minorities through abortion. This isn't helped by the too-often-used arguments of some in the pro-choice movement of the poor, minority woman who needs abortion more than middle-class white women (I've never liked this particular argument, and cringe when I read or hear it).
The creation of the human embryo/fetus suddenly being a creature imbued with full Constitutional rights and an equal claim upon our moral feeling is actually a clever move. As a parent, I recognize the power inherent in pictures of a developing fetus - especially when it's my own. The problem, of course, is this is a distraction, a non-sequitur, and just plain wrong. The issue isn't the sacred pre-born. The issue is full human agency for women, a threat to small-penised men everywhere. As long as women are objects of male sexuality, they are no threat. Once free to make the full spectrum of choices that were formerly the sole provenance of men, they become not objects, but fully-realized subjects. As objects, women cannot - and would not - turn down a man. As subjects, they are perfectly free to agree to a tryst or not. They can decide when, where, and with whom to have sexual relations without any input from men (especially from their husbands).
The facts are ugly, and the reality is that Neil is just plain wrong. The issue isn't the fetus. The issue is women's freedom. I realize he thinks he has the market cornered on arguments. Sad to say, he's wrong there, as well.
With the recent shift toward an uneasy consensus on abortion, the anti-choice movement has shifted toward a more vociferous voice on conception-control, as I noted yesterday. The long and short of it is this - these folks don't want women having sex, except with them. When they do, they should be publicly humiliated, regarded as the sluts and whores they are, dismissed from our care and consideration. Anything else is just a bunch of babble and burble.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Morality Police
There are few things guaranteed to make me want to beat my head against a wall more forcefully than the constant barrage of statements that boil down to this: "Being a Christian means being a good person."
I would challenge those who make this statement to show me where, exactly, in the Bible it says this. Now, I know people will point to Colossians, various passages in the Gospels, Hebrews, and even the Revelation to John. My counter-argument to this is quite simple - reading these passages in a simplistic, moralistic sense, misses the deeper point that these are addressed as opportunities through grace rather than a new moral code mandated by God. Even as we are offered a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the new life offered by Jesus Christ, there is the recognition that some will fall short. Congratulating oneself and one's fellow Christians on one's good behavior is as meaningless as talking about the final disposition of oneself or others before the throne of God.
Yet, we hear it again and again. From alleged Protestants no less - it's as if Luther's simul iustus et peccator was never uttered. Luther is, indeed, a prime example of this very dictum. His private behavior, as revealed in his table talk, would make most Lutherans (and others) blush; yet, his abounding sense of the saving power of the Holy Spirit, his deep affection for his family, his voluminous musings on the power of grace to overcome sin and his own view of the Devil as an active force in personal and social life are ample testimony against any simplistic reduction of Christianity to some kind of middle-class morality.
The possibilities in the Christian life become stunted if we start worrying whether or not God wants us to be good little boys and girls. God becomes reduced to a stringent, prudish parent. We become afraid that our lives are unfolding before the cosmic censor, notepad on a clipboard, putting checks beside various things we do and say.
The first thing we are to do is to love God. We are called, then, to love our neighbors, defined as pretty much anyone in any given state. As far as I'm concerned, that leaves things pretty much open as far as how we go about living our lives. We are not offered salvation to become citizens of a divine dictatorship. Indeed, St. Paul is more than clear - we are freed for freedom's sake. We are to be about the work of returning the world to God, always remembering that God loves it enough that Jesus Christ volunteered to come and die for it. While there are ample quotes that purport to show otherwise, world-hating, world-denying is antithetical to the Christian life. We are called to love the world as it is, but also to make it better.
We should consort with drunkards and prostitutes. We should not worry whether or not someone or other is cheating on his or her spouse, but offer our love and help, seeking to assist that person in figuring out what's wrong, so that the relationship can heal. We should celebrate the real love of real people, and not worry whether or not the couple is of different genders or not. After all, there is little enough real love in this world.
Like my previous post on abortion, this is kind of a repeat. I say it again, however, to make the point that I have no interest in discussing morality in the context of the Christian religion, with anyone. Morality is for people who have something to hide, as far as I'm concerned. They are far more worried they're going to get caught, so they deflect attention to the actions of others.
I would challenge those who make this statement to show me where, exactly, in the Bible it says this. Now, I know people will point to Colossians, various passages in the Gospels, Hebrews, and even the Revelation to John. My counter-argument to this is quite simple - reading these passages in a simplistic, moralistic sense, misses the deeper point that these are addressed as opportunities through grace rather than a new moral code mandated by God. Even as we are offered a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the new life offered by Jesus Christ, there is the recognition that some will fall short. Congratulating oneself and one's fellow Christians on one's good behavior is as meaningless as talking about the final disposition of oneself or others before the throne of God.
Yet, we hear it again and again. From alleged Protestants no less - it's as if Luther's simul iustus et peccator was never uttered. Luther is, indeed, a prime example of this very dictum. His private behavior, as revealed in his table talk, would make most Lutherans (and others) blush; yet, his abounding sense of the saving power of the Holy Spirit, his deep affection for his family, his voluminous musings on the power of grace to overcome sin and his own view of the Devil as an active force in personal and social life are ample testimony against any simplistic reduction of Christianity to some kind of middle-class morality.
The possibilities in the Christian life become stunted if we start worrying whether or not God wants us to be good little boys and girls. God becomes reduced to a stringent, prudish parent. We become afraid that our lives are unfolding before the cosmic censor, notepad on a clipboard, putting checks beside various things we do and say.
The first thing we are to do is to love God. We are called, then, to love our neighbors, defined as pretty much anyone in any given state. As far as I'm concerned, that leaves things pretty much open as far as how we go about living our lives. We are not offered salvation to become citizens of a divine dictatorship. Indeed, St. Paul is more than clear - we are freed for freedom's sake. We are to be about the work of returning the world to God, always remembering that God loves it enough that Jesus Christ volunteered to come and die for it. While there are ample quotes that purport to show otherwise, world-hating, world-denying is antithetical to the Christian life. We are called to love the world as it is, but also to make it better.
We should consort with drunkards and prostitutes. We should not worry whether or not someone or other is cheating on his or her spouse, but offer our love and help, seeking to assist that person in figuring out what's wrong, so that the relationship can heal. We should celebrate the real love of real people, and not worry whether or not the couple is of different genders or not. After all, there is little enough real love in this world.
Like my previous post on abortion, this is kind of a repeat. I say it again, however, to make the point that I have no interest in discussing morality in the context of the Christian religion, with anyone. Morality is for people who have something to hide, as far as I'm concerned. They are far more worried they're going to get caught, so they deflect attention to the actions of others.
Once More, With Feeling
I've said it before. I'm quite sure I'll say it again. Today, Duncan says it.
He is commenting on this little nugget from Matt Yglesias.
Which is why I get so peeved when people start shedding crocodile tears for all those "pre-born" babies, fully-human fetuses (feti?), and other non-existent fetishes. It isn't about the poor suffering fetus, screaming with non-existent vocal chords from the depths of non-existent lungs from pain felt through non-existent nerves.
It's all about power over women, and the deep fear of women's sexuality.
And, of course, forcing poor people to pay for their sins, but not rich, white, Republican governors.
Lots of people are squishy about abortion, though I firmly believe the vast majority of people in this country are pro-choice for me if not for thee, but those involved in the anti-abortion movement don't just care about embryos and fetuses, they care about punishing women for unapproved fucking.
He is commenting on this little nugget from Matt Yglesias.
It’s precisely because of stances like this that it’s very hard to take the “abortion is murder” crowd seriously when they say abortion is murder. Their revealed behavior indicates that they don’t actually find abortion especially problematic, but just place it on a spectrum containing a general aversion to women controlling their own sexuality
Which is why I get so peeved when people start shedding crocodile tears for all those "pre-born" babies, fully-human fetuses (feti?), and other non-existent fetishes. It isn't about the poor suffering fetus, screaming with non-existent vocal chords from the depths of non-existent lungs from pain felt through non-existent nerves.
It's all about power over women, and the deep fear of women's sexuality.
And, of course, forcing poor people to pay for their sins, but not rich, white, Republican governors.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Health Care Competition
TPM has a little post up making a point too often lost in the ill-informed hysteria over "OBAMACARE!!!"
During his press conference last week, the President made it abundantly clear that the arguments about the public option were illogical on their face. Since no one is seeking to replace private insurance with a single-payer program, but rather offer a public option as something to compete with private health insurance; and, since this is true, and conservatives and Republicans argue continuously that a public plan would be costly, inefficient, and riddled with bureaucratic obstacles, what in the world are they worried about?
The answer is pretty clear.
I have yet to read a substantive criticism of a public health care plan. All one hears is "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" And, of course, the "r" word, which is meaningless since we already ration health care based on ability to pay. So, on the one hand we have the insurance companies and a few of their mindless enablers screeching meaningless drivel. On the other side we have a large majority of the American people, the President of the United States, several members of the United States Senate (not including, unfortunately, Max Baucus, who has come out forcefully against any public option whatsoever, favoring "co-ops" which are just HMOs by another name).
I am confident my Senators, Roland Burris and Richard Durbin, will do the right thing. I am also confident my Representative, Don Manzullo, will not. I would urge you, if you even suspect either your Senator or Representative is wavering, on the fence, could go either way (and not in a good way), send an email, give 'em a call, send a letter. Don't send a petition.
One note. I do not urge people to call Senators or Representatives from outside one's own state or district. What possible reason would a Senator from California have to listen to anything I say?
This won't come as the slightest surprise to those versed in health care policy issues. But I fear it's only barely permeated the health care reform debate in the country, certainly in Washington. And that's this: the opposition to a so-called 'public option' comes almost entirely from insurance companies who have developed monopolies or near monopolies in particular geographic areas. And they don't want competition.
Note, I'm not saying more competition. I'm saying any competition at all. As Zack Roth explains in this new piece 94% of the health care insurance market is now under monopoly or near-monopoly conditions -- the official term of art is 'highly concentrated'. In other words, there's no mystery why insurance costs keep going up even as the suck quotient rises precipitously. Because in most areas there's little or no actual competition.
During his press conference last week, the President made it abundantly clear that the arguments about the public option were illogical on their face. Since no one is seeking to replace private insurance with a single-payer program, but rather offer a public option as something to compete with private health insurance; and, since this is true, and conservatives and Republicans argue continuously that a public plan would be costly, inefficient, and riddled with bureaucratic obstacles, what in the world are they worried about?
The answer is pretty clear.
I have yet to read a substantive criticism of a public health care plan. All one hears is "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" And, of course, the "r" word, which is meaningless since we already ration health care based on ability to pay. So, on the one hand we have the insurance companies and a few of their mindless enablers screeching meaningless drivel. On the other side we have a large majority of the American people, the President of the United States, several members of the United States Senate (not including, unfortunately, Max Baucus, who has come out forcefully against any public option whatsoever, favoring "co-ops" which are just HMOs by another name).
I am confident my Senators, Roland Burris and Richard Durbin, will do the right thing. I am also confident my Representative, Don Manzullo, will not. I would urge you, if you even suspect either your Senator or Representative is wavering, on the fence, could go either way (and not in a good way), send an email, give 'em a call, send a letter. Don't send a petition.
One note. I do not urge people to call Senators or Representatives from outside one's own state or district. What possible reason would a Senator from California have to listen to anything I say?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Be Warned
A longish post is stewing in the innards of my brain on the history and present state of nuclear weapons policy and diplomacy. It is only half-formed, will likely stir a few of my more liberal readers to post great "Harrumphs" of outrage, and probably be as wrong as it is right. In any event, since the news has been taken over by Michael Jackson's corpse, and the lid is tightening on Iran, and no one seems to care that violence in Iraq goes on unabated, there is little else going on.
Some pre-posting thoughts on the issue might be nice.
Some pre-posting thoughts on the issue might be nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
