Note: President Josiah Bartlett made a comment in a Second Year episode along the lines of: 'the complexities of this are staggering. There is no way 82% of the population can have a reasoned opinion on the subject."

I point this out after seeing a recent poll of likely voters by TIme Magazine, which has Bush ahead by eleven points: 52% to 41%. Yet a similar poll taken at the beginning of August showed Kerry ahead by six points. Almost gets me to think there should be mandatory testing of voters to evaluate their suitability to the task of electing Americas political representatives. Also, that the Conventions should be held on the same week, or certainly limited to within a restrained time frame with a maximal spread between the conventions and the general election.

Maybe the prohibition of alcohol sales on election day still points to a real problem, and in the age of electronic media saturation the electorate may need a reasonable separation period to avoid being swept up in unreasoned political emotions.
- posted by Richard @ 8:37 PM

 
"As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.

In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq.

Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level."
NBC News
September 2nd, 2004
<====================>
Note: Unfortunately we must now add to these numbers: "in the past ten day...", the number of dead has risen by over 500 people, at least 150 of these being children.
- posted by Richard @ 8:15 PM

 
Suicide bombing gaining new converts, expert says
Militants see no other solutions to despair
The Globe and Mail
By MICHAEL VALPY
Saturday, August 7, 2004 - Page A6

GENEVA PARK, ONT. -- Suicide bombers are rational, sane human beings whose choice to end their lives as they kill others is considered perfectly normal in the societies they grow up in, says a U.S. psychiatrist who worked for the CIA.

Jerrold Post has put together personality profiles for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency for more than 20 years and spoken to scores of accused Palestinian and al-Qaeda terrorists. In an interview yesterday, he said that the appeal of suicide bombing is broadening.

The practice was once limited to very young men, a huge percentage of them teenagers.

"Now women, mothers, have joined this pathway, and middle-aged men, a 43-year-old father. I see it as a trend," he said.

Dr. Post spoke yesterday at the Couchiching Institute on Public Affairs annual conference, held north of Toronto. This year's theme is "God's Back with a Vengeance: Religion, Pluralism and the Secular State."

He said his colleagues have given up asking people why they join their militant organizations to become suicide bombers. "Because we would get these weird looks: 'Why do we join? Everybody is joining. It's only the weird individuals who don't join,' " he said. "This is troubling to hear and understand."

Asked to explain why it has happened, Dr. Post responded with a single word: "Despair."

He said suicide bombers are people who see no other solution for the forces they see arrayed against them, no other way of avenging their family's losses.

"I think one has to look to the despair that they are experiencing. . . . These are not deviant, psychologically disturbed individuals. Every one of them I've talked to has made perfect sense," he said.

"Terrorists groups, in fact, carefully screen those who want to join -- people are lined up to join these groups -- and they do not allow emotionally disturbed people to join. They'd be a security risk."

He said that before "the broadening and deepening" appeal of suicide bombing took root, the profile of a suicide bomber was that of a man aged 17 to 22 -- an "uneducated, unmarried, unemployed and unformed youth looking forward to a life of despair.

"At the forefront of revolutions are youth, always. It's part of the psychological imperative of youth to overthrow the parental generation and become adults on their own and, when there is a corrupt authority internationally, that becomes a surrogate for the parent that they need to overthrow," he said.

"Youthful energy is very idealizing and very demonizing."

Dr. Post said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackers fit a different paradigm. They were older, comparatively well-educated men from middle-class backgrounds, who subordinated their personalities to a destructive charismatic organization and its leader.

"To use this metaphor of a war on terrorism is nonsense. It implies a winner and a loser and a surrender ceremony at the end of it. We need to be struggling . . . for hearts and minds," he said. "You can't win this war with smart bombs and missiles.

"We have abdicated the arena of ideas and values."

- posted by Richard @ 8:09 PM

 
John F. Kennedy: Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association: September 12th 1960

"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him* [sic] as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself.

But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics.

But let me stress again that these are my views.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God.


- posted by Richard @ 6:41 PM

 
Rational, educated and prosperous: just your average suicide bomber
By Deborah Smith, Science Editor
May 14, 2004

Suicide bombers are not all poor, uneducated, religious fanatics or madmen, as many people believe.

Research on the social and psychological background of terrorists show they tend to be more prosperous and better educated than most in their societies, and no more religious or irrational than the average person.

A study of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide terrorists from the late 1980s to 2003 found only 13 per cent were from a poor background, compared with 32 per cent of the Palestinian population in general, according to a New Scientist report.

Suicide bombers were also three times more likely to have gone on to higher education than the general population, Claude Berrebi, an economist at Princeton University in the US, found.

Ariel Merare, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel, said he had changed his view that most suicide bombers were mentally ill after studying the background of every suicide bomber in the Middle East since 1983.
Advertisement Advertisement

"In the majority you find none of the risk factors normally associated with suicide, such as mood disorders or schizophrenia, substance abuse or a history of attempted suicide," he said.

Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who studied 188 suicide attacks worldwide between 1980 to 2001, said the phenomenon had increased in that period not because of religious fundamentalism but because terrorists had learnt the strategy worked.

He said the leading perpetrators of suicide terrorism were the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist group. Its members were from a Hindu background but were hostile to religion.

The experts said resistance groups tended to adopt suicide tactics when they were losing political ground to rival groups, and used psychological techniques to ensure recruits went through with the act.

A sense of duty to a brotherhood was the most important way rational people could be persuaded to kill themselves, said Scott Atran, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan.
- posted by Richard @ 6:29 PM

 
From a Prepared Speech Given at the Convention::

"When I say that the contest is a contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man."

The maxim of Jefferson, “equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.

The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when it promises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.

"Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt."

"For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right to criticize the {ires} policies of the administration, but upon investigation they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize a President during the progress of the Mexican war."

"Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing with the {Iraqi} question, the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation."

{Iraq} does not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement not only to the {Iraqis}, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared to censure all who have used language calculated to make the {Iraqis} hate foreign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.

Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense of popular government when the present advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.

Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.

Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider, not only the effect of imperialism on the {Iraqis}, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in {Iraq} without weakening that principle here.

Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.

Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence of imperialism. Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the Western Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power.

If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of popular government.

Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." And again he said: "Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government."

If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement. That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but not openly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by indorsing its policy at the polls?

A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a Republican form of government.

The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.

There is no place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere "possessions" and deal with them unrestrained by the constitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have already departed from the ancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a career of empire.

But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs.

Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may not be out of place to quote the opinions of others. Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said:

"I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively."

Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea in even stronger language when he said:

"Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."

Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right.

A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of the battle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written "All ye are brethren." Let us hope for the coming day when human life -- which when once destroyed cannot be restored -- will be so sacred that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime already committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed.

It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in {Iraq}. I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrines against which our whole national life has been a protest. It is argued by some that the {Iraqis} are incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them.

"It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannot command universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose that he has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled on by kings. Self-government is the natural government of man."

Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people the capacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right to seize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force -- brute force -- the only foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot.

Republicans ask, "Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in {Iraq}?" The same question might have been asked, when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by the United States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independence and self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag government held in place by bayonets. The United States and Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as "benevolent assimilation."

“Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it own conduct.

The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.”

And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights.

"Would we tread in the paths of tyranny,
Nor reckon the tyrant's cost?
Who taketh another's liberty
His freedom is also lost.
Would we win as the strong have ever won,
Make ready to pay the debt,
For the God who reigned over Babylon
Is the God who is reigning yet."

Some argue that American rule in {Iraq} will result in the better education of the {Iraquis}. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated {Iraqi} are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and mock us for our inconsistency.

It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated others have been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty other have fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutions have been adopted.

The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires that have risen and fallen since time began.

The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:

“We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in {Iraq} solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.”

This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied:

"To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoever valuable, is an object for which men may justly spill each other's blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise."

I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood.

It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.

When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.

Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to {Iraq} and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure without return and risk without reward.

Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systems which place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.

In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government.

It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism.

The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief that Providence delivered the {Iraquis} into our hands, for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the natives (Iraqis) until they understand who we are,” and that “every bullet sent, every cannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.”

We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil.

If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.

Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” has no Gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him, some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose he had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.

Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.

Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of an empire.

A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us.

When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance.

Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that the destiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washington’s definition of destiny from the Republican definition!

The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the republican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to American hands.

Immeasurable responsibility!

The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for this nation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea of the nation’s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself to contribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge the debt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.

I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past -- a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury -- a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments -- a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness.

Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes -- a republic whose history, like the path of the just, "is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

Note: This address was delivered by WIlliam Jennings Bryant on April 8th, 1908 and the editor has taken the liberty of substituting Iraqi for the The Phillippines.
- posted by Richard @ 4:29 PM

 
Note: During the 2004 Conventions speakers used select words to address certain particulars. For example, the most frequently used key words for Pres. Bush were: We, Our, America, and You, which were almost exactly the same word frequency used by Sen. Kerry.

Decending from that, the most frequently used words by Pataki, Miller, and Guiliani were: "Bush", "President", and "We". Some noteworthy variances were: Miller's low usage of "We", and "Our", (perhaps showing he was not associating himself with the people in the audience). Also Kerry and Guilini used the word: "World" many more times than any of the others.

Certain words were simply not spoken: Pataki is the only one who said "Bin Laden". Other words were seldom used: "Social Security", "Women", "Jobs", (except by Kerry), "Faith", where Kerry mentioned it eight times, and Bush only once. The word "Economy" was not mentioned once by either, Miller, Guilini, or McCain. The word: "He", referring to either Bush or Kerry by the Speaker, was used frequently by all, except Kerry. "Iraq" was also seldom used by any of the speakers, with Bush's saying the word eleven times, to Kerry's four times.
-Results obtained using: Version 1.5.5.6 of WordMetry from Findsolution Workshop


- posted by Richard @ 1:58 PM

 

Separation of Church and State: A Detailed Primer

Note: One of the most comprehensive online sources for information on this vital issue is here.

Now if only the participants in the discussion would approach the matter with the breath of knowledge shown here, a lot of the vitriolic nonsense could be avoided. Unfortunately a significant portion of Christian fundamentalist commentators appears to have no interest in nuances, interpretations, or the historial record; but rather seem intent only on "flaming" those who have a more secular perspective of the role of Religion to the State.
- posted by Richard @ 11:42 AM

 

More of "They just don't get it!"

Heads in the Sand
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: September 3, 2004

When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said, adding, "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We've been in West Germany for 50 years."

Reporters have come to expect candor from Senator McCain, and in this case he didn't disappoint. But there weren't any speakers mounting the podium at the Republican National Convention to hammer home the message that G.I.'s would be in Iraq for a decade or two.

That's not the understanding most Americans had when this wretched war was sold to them, and it's not the view most Americans hold now.

If Senator McCain is correct (and the belief in official Washington is that he is), then boys and girls who are 5 or 10 years old now will get their chance in 2015 or 2020 to strap on the Kevlar and engage the Iraqi "insurgents" who, like the indigenous forces we fought in Vietnam, will never accept the occupation of their country by America.

Marcina Hale, a protester who came to New York this week from suburban Westport, Conn., said she has two teenage boys and that Iraq "is not a war that I'm willing to send my sons to." As the years pass and the casualties mount, that sentiment will only grow.

The truth is always the first casualty of politics. But there was a bigger disconnect than usual between the bizarre, hermetically sealed perspective that was on display in Madison Square Garden this week and the daunting events unfolding without respite in the real world.

Iraq is a mess. While the cartoonish Arnold Schwarzenegger was drawing huge laughs in the Garden and making cracks about economic "girlie men," reports were emerging about the gruesome murder of 12 Nepalese hostages who had traveled to Iraq less than two weeks earlier in search of work.

At the same time, an effort to disarm insurgents in the militant Baghdad slum of Sadr City collapsed, and the death toll among American forces in Iraq continued its relentless climb toward 1,000.

The Los Angeles Times noted yesterday that a report by the respected Royal Institute of International Affairs in London has concluded that Iraq will be lucky if it avoids a breakup and civil war. The often-stated U.S. goal of a full-fledged Iraqi democracy is beyond unlikely.

In Afghanistan, a legitimate front in the so-called war against terror, much of the country remains in the hands of warlords, and the opium trade is flourishing. Experts believe substantial amounts of money from that trade is flowing to terrorist groups.

In Israel, 16 people were killed by suicide bombers who blew themselves up on a pair of crowded buses on Tuesday. In Russia, a series of horrific terror attacks, in the air and on the ground, have cast a pall across the country.

Despite all the macho posturing and self-congratulating at the Republican convention, the wave of terror that's been unleashed on the world is only growing. The American-led war in Iraq is feeding that wave, causing it to swell rather than ebb.

Any serious person who looked around the world this week would have to wonder what the delegates at the G.O.P. convention were so happy about.

The Republican conventioneers spent the entire week reminding America that we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But interestingly, there was hardly a mention by name of those actually responsible for the attacks - Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Discussions about the nation's real enemies were taboo. We don't know where they are or what they're up to. The over-the-top venom of some of the speakers and delegates was reserved not for Osama, but for a couple of mild-mannered guys named John.

What Americans desperately need is a serious, honest discussion of where we go from here. If we're going to be in Iraq for 10 or 20 more years, the policy makers should say so, and tell us what that will cost in money and human treasure. The violence associated with such a long-term occupation is guaranteed to be appalling.

Vietnam tore this nation apart. As we've seen in this campaign, the wounds have yet to heal. Incredibly, we're now traveling a similarly tragic road in Iraq.
- posted by Richard @ 10:21 AM

 

Update on Kerry's "Shrinking Middle Class" -- Still Shrinking in 2003 We said his claim was based on stale numbers. Now some fresh statistics support what he said.

September 1, 2004
FactCheck.org
Modified: September 1, 2004

In our Aug. 3 article , "Kerry's Dubious Economics," we said Kerry based his claim that "our great middle class is shrinking" on some pretty stale numbers. We said his statement "may well be untrue" because it was based on 2002 figures and didn't account for recent economic growth. Now fresh numbers are available -- and Kerry's statement is looking more accurate.

Kerry's other economic statements remain at least as dubious as we reported. Recent figures show inflation-adjusted hourly earnings actually went up in July just as Kerry was announcing that "wages are falling," for example.

However, Kerry's description of a declining middle class is supported by new Census Bureau figures showing median household income failed to grow in 2003. And a look at income-distribution tables shows the decline that took place in middle-income households in 2001 and 2002, which we previously reported, may well have continued in 2003.
Analysis

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US. These more up-to-date figures show that Kerry may well have been correct when he said the middle class is shrinking, using present tense.

There's no standard definition of "middle class," so we looked at households with pre-tax income of between $25,000 and $75,000 -- a group occupying roughly the middle half of the Census income distribution tables. As we noted before, that group grew smaller during the economic recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. Now the new Census figures indicate it continued to decline in 2003, and while this time some of the middle group were moving up , a larger portion were moving down
- posted by Richard @ 4:57 PM

 

Results Matter !!

Medicare premiums to rise 17 percent in 2005, largest ever
Friday, September 3, 2004

BY MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Medicare premiums for doctor visits will rise 17 percent next year, the largest increase in the program's 40-year history, the Bush administration said Friday.

Note: President Bush has said several times: "...not on my watch" in reference to terrorism, economic stagnation, corporate crime, setbacks in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, etc, etc, yet more bad news comes every day from almost every angle, whether one looks at the economy, job losses, fundamentalist extremism, worldwide condemnation of Americas actions in the Middle East, the Federal Budget Deficits, US Military readiness, Medicare and Medicaid funding problems, perscription drugs pricing and availability, on and on.

Does this man not see the problems? If he has not been able to do anything about them in four years why should he still be considered for re-election as CEO for another four years? Would stockholders or corporate America accept this kind of performance from a CEO of any other company? Also remember in the 2000 Campaign, Pres. Bush used every opportunity to speak of his "business experience", and how he would run the country from a "business perspective".

What seems to be keeping him in the running is the electorates fear, fear of the unknown, fear that without him things would be worse, and the fear that having supported him in the past, these same supporters would have to admit to themselves that they made a mistake in selecting him in 2000.

Get over it folks! He is a failure as CEO, and should be replaced. If the electorate needs someone to bolster their faith, strenghten traditional family values, and work toward universal human rights and the dignity of mankind, then I suggest they take themselves to religious and social agencies that actually work in these fields, and not mearly expend their meager efforts in lazily assigning political blame onto those who do their work in these areas but are not in accord with Bush's principles, practices, and allied methods. Bush himself said: "Results matter". Yes, they absolutely do !
- posted by Richard @ 4:50 PM

 

Comparing the performance of the daughters at the Convention

"A comparison of Vanessa and Alexandra to Jenna and Barbara is like an
exaggerated comparison of Kerry to Bush. Stable to flighty, smart to flip,
prepared to not. Perhaps I should not be harsh on them, but if you were to
go on the daughters alone, Kerry would win by 10 points."

Courtesy of The West Coast Correspondent
- posted by Richard @ 8:03 AM

 

Continuing the Literary Allusions in re: G.W. Bush

Note: Kristof likens GW to King Henry V of England:

"The most common literary allusion to President Bush is Shakespeare's Prince Hal, the hard-drinking, wild-living young man who sobers up, reforms and emerges as the great English warrior King Henry V.

So, as the Republicans once again crown Mr. Bush as their nominee, I decided to seek lessons from an expert on King Henry who is also one of the shrewdest analysts of current American politics and international affairs. That's right: Shakespeare. I went to Ashland for my annual pilgrimage to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, then started thinking about what Shakespeare might say if he were speaking at the Republican convention this week.

The paramount lesson in Shakespeare's plays is that the world is full of nuances and uncertainties, and that leaders self-destruct when they are too rigid, too sure of themselves or - Mr. President, lend me your ears - too intoxicated by moral clarity.

You see Shakespeare's passion for nuance in the way he portrays Henry V himself (you also see his prurience, for "Henry V" is Shakespeare's most obscene play, laced with X-rated double-entendres that make it an attractive introduction to the Bard for teenagers).

Shakespeare admires Henry, who, like Mr. Bush, is strong, decisive and funny to be around, as well as a victor in overseas battles that help soothe doubts about his legitimacy. Thus for several hundred years, the play "Henry V" was regarded as a celebration of Henry's invasions of France, and for that reason George Bernard Shaw and other liberal critics recoiled from it.

Yet beginning in the 20th century, critics began to see another subtext in "Henry V": an unblinking examination of the brutality and inevitable excesses of war, even depicting the Abu Ghraib scandal of the 15th century: Henry's order to murder French prisoners at Agincourt. Shakespeare's play can be seen as scorning the empty-headed jingoism that inflicts so much suffering as the ruler wraps himself in the flag. As Shakespeare writes in "Henry V" about wars of choice:

"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make when all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in a battle shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such and such a place,' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeared there are few die well that die in a battle."

A related lesson for Mr. Bush, if he has time to read Shakespeare, is the inevitability of intelligence failures. In just about every play, characters put their faith in information that turns out to be catastrophically untrue. Lear believes his elder daughters; Romeo believes that Juliet is dead; Othello believes Iago's lies.

Shakespeare begins "Henry IV, Part 2," with the character of Rumor (who could today be played by Ahmad Chalabi), and he shows how kings get in trouble by relying on partial truths or flattery spun by sycophants like Goneril Tenet and Regan Wolfowitz.

"All these figures in Shakespeare suffer from hubris, and that's what W. is suffering from," says Kenneth Albers, a veteran Shakespearean actor who is playing Lear in Ashland.

Indeed, the only person who seems to provide Shakespeare's kings with sound advice is the court fool, who cannot be punished for saying unpalatable truths because jesting is his job. I urge Mr. Bush to appoint a White House fool.

Shakespeare is warning us against rash actions on the basis of flawed intelligence. Hamlet is sometimes seen as an indictment of indecision, but his "to be or not to be" soliloquy is a careful examination of the pros and cons of immediate action - a measured approach that Mr. Bush might have emulated before the Iraq war.

Instead, Mr. Bush emulates Coriolanus, a well-meaning Roman general and aristocrat whose war against barbarians leads to an early victory but who then proves so inflexible and intemperate that tragedy befalls him and his people.

Unless Mr. Bush learns to see nuance and act less rashly, he will be the Coriolanus of our age: a strong and decisive leader, imbued with great talent and initially celebrated for his leadership in a crisis, who ultimately fails himself and his nation because of his rigidity, superficiality and arrogance.
- posted by Richard @ 8:31 PM

 

Politics is the Second Oldest Profession and Bears Lots of Resemblence to the First

In 1992 Sen. Zill Miller gave the keynote speech to the DNC.

...and today he gave the Wednesday Evening Keynote at the RNC.

In 1992 Miller spoke against the Republican Party and George H. Bush who he said "just doesn't get it" with respect to jobs, healthcare, hope, taxes, and the needs of ordinary Americans. Tonight he was alloted fifteen minutes to address the gathering, and used it to promote three main themes: 1. He "knows" (and approves of) the character of G.W. Bush; 2. He chastises Sen. Kerry for voting against the development or funding for military systems; 3. And since his children are more important to him than anything else, and he considers G.W. Bush to be a better choice as President for his childrens sake, he came to the RNC to say so.

One wonders why Miller does not join the Republican party if he is so unenamored of the current Democratic Party. He and many other Georgia Republicans, including the current Governor, formerly were members of the the Democratic party for most of their political lives. Perhaps he realizes that were he to formally change parties, he would probably not even be selected as a delegate to the convention, let alone be invited to give a keynote address. If there is one thing politicians like Miller don't like, it's to be viewed as a politician without resolve.



- posted by Richard @ 8:02 PM

 

Word of the Day: Resolute

resolute: \Res"o*lute\ (r?z"?-l?t), a. [Cf. F. r['e]solu. The L. resolutus (p. p. of resolvere) means, relaxed, enervated, effeminate. See Resolve, v. t. & i.] 1. Having a decided purpose; determined; resolved; fixed in a determination; hence, bold; firm; steady.

Note: As applied to Pres. Bush, (and to the other Chicken Hawks by extention courtesy of David Brooks), the most logical way I see of viewing their resolve is highly reminiscent of Don Quichote de la Mancha, especially when confronted with the windmills.
<------------------------------------->
Courtesy of Titus Rivas

The French word "donquichottery" refers to the novel "Don Quijote (original spelling: Quixote) de La Mancha" by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. The dictionary explains Donquichottery as: an unpractical-idealist course of action, and of course it is derived from the dreamy chivalrous ideals of this first real romance novel hero.

It's interesting to determine when Cervantes wrote his book. This was the 17th century: the renaissance had passed and the Middle Ages were ancient history. Just like many people nowadays like to watch series based on the novels of for instance Jane Austen, and later have "even started" reading her books, in 17th century Spain chivalry novels were very popular. These were epic tales, in which the high-strung ideals of the caballeros were glorified, including courtly love and the honorary code of the knights. During Cervantes' time the chivalry novels were a way of escaping the much more prosaic and banal reality of every day.

One of the most famous layers, of course, is Don Quichote's fascination with chivalry novels, which goes much further than the more usual private idolization. Quichote is one of the first "wannabes" in world literature. He identifies himself to a mad degree with the figures from his "libros de caballeria" and completely loses sight of reality. His ideals aren't just difficult to attain in practice, but in his case they are totally free from the sober correction of reality. With that, the tale that is mostly comical is finally also a tragic romance. Only on his deathbed does Don Quichote see how foolish he was in mixing up ideal and reality.

Opposite the tragic-comedian - and thereby for the readers the most sympathetic - figure of Don Quichote, Cervantes places his just as attractive sidekick Sancho Panza; a fat, dedicated little and very hedonistic peasant (Panza = paunch). Mostly typical for Sancho are especially the countless proverb he bandies about. He represents a common cliché-wisdom that would in fact be of more use than the donquichottery of his master.

Our ideals are said to be illusory and in fact unattainable. Instead of chasing them, it would be better to resign ourselves like a Sancho Panza and to reach compromises that wouldn't affect social reality in any real sense.

Don Quichote will never realize his ideals. He can only maintain his delusion that he is fighting for an attainable cause, or either he can wake up. But is this the right way to look at idealists in our current context? There are plenty of thinkers and groups who use valid arguments to fight the paternalistic ridiculing of a struggle for social alternatives.

Within the framework of this Passion-project I think it's time for a breakthrough of the "quichottisation" of alternative viewpoints. Instead of the archetype of Don Quichote, who is a caricature of ancient knights, we could for instance go back to an even older archetype. For instance that of King Arthur who fights injustice with his knights of the round table (an image by the way that has been monopolized from an ultra right-wing corner for too long) from a sort of sacred, passionate understanding of right and wrong. A feeling that deserves more respect than the amused compassion that Don Quichote receives.
<------------------------------------->
Bush and the “H” Word
By James P. Pinkerton | Thursday, December 19, 2002

President Bush takes great pride in his command of historical dynamics. He does so in the sense that history has a direction, even a mission. But what the world wonders about is whether he has truly been reading history — or merely relying on his cue cards. James Pinkerton, who served the first President Bush in the White House as an intellectual guru, presents his answer.

For President Bush to be a true history buff would require evidence of a feeling on his part that history has a pattern — and that it offers up precedents and parallels, as well as cautions.

Clio, the Greek Muse of history, offers a sad lesson to all humans: The highest hopes can lead to — indeed provoke — chain reactions which ultimately lead to the deepest debacles. Self-glorifying kings, emperors and presidents have learned such a lesson — but only after surveying the ruins of their dreams and domains.

The greatest value of history is the practical lessons it teaches — not the poetry it provides.

Wise leaders study those examples, striving to avoid those mistakes. Which brings us to George W. Bush. It’s too soon to see how history will judge him — but it’s easy to see how he misjudges history.

To be sure, he likes to throw around the “H” word a lot. In his speech to Congress on September 20, 2001, he declared that all those terrorists who attacked the United States nine days before will follow the “path all the way to where it ends — in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

In a similar vein, he told the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that “history will record our response — and judge, or justify, every nation in this hall.”

And at West Point on June 1, 2002 he said to the cheering graduates, “West Point classes are also commissioned by history — to take part in a great new calling for their country.”

That all sounds great, in its oozy-woozy Hegelianism — that is, deterministic view of the world. But the greatest value of history is the practical lessons it teaches — not the poetry it provides. And so if one misapprehends history, one is likely to make policy mistakes, too.

Let’s examine some of the problems arising when President Bush misstates the historical record. For example, just recently when he spoke in Bucharest on November 23, 2002, he welcomed Romanians into alliance with NATO — and, more to the point, with the United States.

It’s too soon to see how history will judge George W. Bush — but it’s easy to see how he misjudges history.

He started by praising them for their “moral clarity,” thus conveniently neglecting the salient historical fact that Romania is one of the least reconstructed of the Soviet-bloc countries.

New York City-based Freedom House, for example, gave the Balkan country a “not free” rating for two years after the Ceaucescu regime was overthrown — and a “partially free” rating for five years after that.

Mr. Bush’s statement glossed over the fact that the country holds a mottled political record. That not only undercuts any “moral clarity” — but also any clear lesson that Bush sought to draw from that record.

But maybe George Bush didn’t know that record. He didn’t seem to, as he plowed through his speech, pushing reams of weighty words toward his audience: “The people of Romania understand that aggressive dictators cannot be appeased — or ignored. They must always be opposed.”

History will judge. But those who don’t learn its teachings will be judged most harshly.

And so, he concluded, Romania should join the United States in the struggle against the likes of Saddam Hussein.

But the lesson of the Cold War for Romanians was just the opposite. They eventually prevailed against totalitarianism through internal rebellion, not external invasion.

With that experience in mind, the Romanians might look back at their own history — and remember how they were badly bloodied in World War I and badly defeated in World War II.

Given those painful experiences, they may well conclude that multilateralism — being part of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — is a much better route to freedom and security than more war.

It was the English writer Alexander Pope who warned us to either drink deep from history, or drink not at all — because, he wrote, “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”

The lesson of the Cold War for Romanians was that they could prevail against totalitarianism through internal rebellion — not external invasion.

Had President Bush been better read in history — as opposed to being merely cue-carded — he might have hesitated before he declared in 2001 that he would get Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive.”

That was a good “Texasism” — but it was a poor plan for statecraft. After all, history abounds with rebels and freedom fighters who could not be caught, from Robin Hood to Ho Chi Minh.

Now, with Bin Laden still on the loose, critics can say that Mr. Bush might feel compelled to go after Iraq because at least he can occupy Baghdad. Where’s the caution from the annals of history? Once again, there’s no guarantee that he can actually bring Saddam Hussein to the bar of international justice.

That’s why wise leaders, who know that Clio can be hard to please, shy away from sweeping black-and-white pronouncements. They have learned in their dealings with human affairs that ambiguity can be as good a tool as clarity.

But the incumbent President of the United States of America may not be worried. To him, things are simple. History is rhetorical garnish, not intellectual meat.

But all Americans will have to live with the consequences of his actions, actions which will be a chapter in some future syllabus. And so history will judge. But those who don’t learn its teachings will be judged most harshly.
- posted by Richard @ 5:19 PM

 

It Has the Feel of a Revival

Note: Watching the RNC reminds me of my childhood and going to a Southern Baptist revival in town...twenty miles from my local Church...but further than that in my perception. Forty years later I still remember hearing the stories of faith, healing, and witness that weekend. Ordinary folks who had experienced the power of the Lord in answering their prayers spoke openly of their faith.

In my memory there were no Elizabeth Dole flavored stories: nothing was said then about the sanctity of every life, nothing was said about protecting marriage from an unspecified threat, nothing was said blaming some entity for affronts to our religious traditions. Then it was only the stories of people, and how God had changed their lives.

During parts of the RNC, I felt the revival feeling welling up again...but it had a distinct edge to it that I did not feel comfortable with. GW Bush was presented by the speakers as an almost mythic figure, possessed of extra-ordinary abilities, faith, and personal characteristics. The most frequently used, or misused descriptive word was "leader", but the projection was that he was the One, not simply the preferred candidate for CEO of the United States; but rather a person with semi-divine powers.

GW Bush has been primarily a politician for twenty five years at least...not a rancher, not a businessman, not a missionary...a politician. One who has demonstrated his ease with character assasinations against politial rivals, with alliances of convenience with those who promote positions diametrically opposite to his stated positions, and with a tendency to favor select sections of American society at the expense of disenfranchisement of other segments.

As the playright wrote: "He's just a man, like so many men...". Let's not make GW Bush into something he is not. Judge his performance as America's CEO these past four years and decide if he deserves another term; but please lose the Appointed One bombast. American needs a talented CEO to guide us through the next several years...we do not need to worship a Hero, nor devolve into slavishly favoring a convenient messenger to the exclusion of the important messages.

- posted by Richard @ 8:31 PM

 

What's with the rolled up sleeve bit guys?

Ugh...Stupid Here Again:

Note: Have you ever gotten the idea that politicians who want to get your vote, or hucksters trying to win your confidence, employ simple cues to attempt to ingratiate themselves into your perceptions? Nothing shows this better than the "rolled up sleeves" motif.

In this election cycle, Howard Dean never missed an opportunity to roll up the sleeves, (hereafter called RUTS), regardless of the weather, the audience, or the setting. John Kerry showed he could do the RUTS routine as well; as did Edwards, Clark, and even Al Sharpton.
<------------------------------------->
From Matt Labash: Senior Writer at The Weekly Standard.

DURING THE DEBATE, another dialogue goes off under the stewardship of Anderson Cooper, whom TV critics frequently mistake for "edgy"--though in fairness to Cooper, it's an easy mistake to make since he shares a line-up with Aaron Brown. Over the last few months, candidates have attempted to make inroads into the youth vote: Howard Dean has identified himself as a metrosexual, John Kerry has gigged with Moby, and Dennis Kucinich has consorted with rappers like Noyeek the Grizzly Bear, picking up endorsements such as "Yo, I love this fool."

Throughout the debate, it's clear that young people like to be pandered to, and politicians like to pander--the perfect marriage. This is evident in the 30-second candidate videos (Wes Clark, never known as the class clown, is actually seen having an earnest discussion about the potential break-up of Outkast, before bumping knuckles with a young voter). But it is more evident in the candidates' dress. While a good portion of the young audience are in coat and tie, Dean comes out with no jacket and rolled-up sleeves. John Edwards wears a coat, but no tie. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, perhaps feeling overdressed, both ditch their jackets before the debate gets started. By the first commercial break, Edwards loses his jacket and rolls up his sleeves. Later, Al Sharpton sheds his jacket and unbuttons his vest. Wesley Clark, in jacket and black mock turtleneck, looks like he's on his way to a humanities professor party. And Dennis Kucinich, wearing the exact same rig, looks as if Clark's mother laid out his clothes. (Clark, perhaps not wanting to be outdone by Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Sharpton, also ends up ditching his jacket.)

That settled, they get onto the issue young people care about most: antebellum racism. An audience member pounces on a tempest-in-a-teapot, Dean's lazily phrased attempt at outreach to southern voters with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks (allowing grandstanders Edwards and Sharpton to establish, once and for all, that the Democratic party is no longer pro-slavery). There are plenty of non-youth-vote-type questions, on everything from the Cuban embargo to Iraq. But all the questions that are unorthodox, and could only be asked by Rock the Vote-ish audience members, tend to remind observers how painful it is when presidential candidates try to "keep things real," as Cooper implores them to do. (Even Bill Clinton--who was better than anybody at keeping it real in a fake way--let slip to the kids that his favorite musician was Kenny G.)

During the obligatory pot-smoking question, several candidates seem willing to drink bong-water if it would establish their credentials. When one woman asks which of their fellow candidates they'd most like to party with, Lieberman creeps-out the room by saying, "I hope my wife understands this. I'd like to party with the young lady who asked that question." Sharpton takes it further, saying he'd like to party with John Kerry's wife. Kerry sheds his long-faced Easter Island mask, adopts a self-conscious smile, and says he'd wanted to party with Carol Moseley Braun, but now he'd better stick with Sharpton "so I can keep an eye on my wife." Sharpton and Kerry then clasp hands in what is the first, and it is to be hoped last, soul-brother handshake of this election.

Back in the spin room after the debate, the candidates enter one by one. On a TV platform, Gideon Yago is complaining to Paula Zahn that the candidates failed to "really open up a dialogue." Yet they are willing enough to talk freely about their youth-vote outfits. When I ask Wes Clark what was going through his mind when he showed up in the same clothes as Kucinich, he looks as startled as a possum in the high beams, but regains his composure, and answers, "I thought Dennis Kucinich had excellent taste." When I ask Edwards why he stripped down during the debate, he seems to have trouble keeping it real. "Sometimes, formality...can push people away. Especially young people. Sometimes they feel uncomfortable. I want them to feel comfortable."

Outside, I run into a group of middle schoolers from Newton. "You're the children, you're our future, get in there," I say to them, in the interest of establishing a dialogue. They can't get into the party, they complain, because alcohol is being served. The youth issues that concern them most, they tell me, are gay rights and birth control. "It happens every day in our lives," says one 11-year-old girl. I have to admit, I'm taken aback. When I was 11, the only issues I cared about were football cards and "Gilligan's Island" reruns. Ihadn't yet formed my political worldview, unlike the junior-high boy who told me, "I like Al Sharpton. He's awesome! He's not, like, boring."

Being not boring is what it's all about. As Rock the Vote president Jehmu Greene says, "Now that we are done rocking the candidates on live television, for the next month we will keep on rolling and build on the energy and excitement . . . with a Rock the Video contest"--in which youths can select their favorite candidate video--the "perfect way to keep the party going." It gives them, she says, "a direct way to provide feedback." Establishing dialogue is, like, a two-way street.
<------------------------------------->
Note: The most brazen make-over candidate for the 2004 RUTS Commemorative Award has to be GW Bush, who today: (the second day of the RNC 2004) is featured on the cover of Time, Newsweek, NY TImes, and others in classic RUTS regalia. I wish I had time to see how many photos show GW in RUTS historically. Betcha it wasn't many...and certainly none that were front page.

As distasteful as this craven mechanism is, it could be worse: when global warming becomes so bad we all have to go around wearing hats outdoors, the man-of-the-people RUT move might require some dexterity with the chapeau...or perhaps it might have something to do with bermuda shorts? Ugh

- posted by Richard @ 7:48 AM

 

Re-Activist Judges?

For Immediate Release: The White House: Office of the Press Secretary
May 17, 2004
Statement by the President

The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today.
<------------------------------------->
From Owen in The Silicon Valley:
"Question, the problem for strict constructionists is that the world has changed and continues to change. If we relied on "settled law" much of what we take for granted in terms of rights wouldn't exist...which may be what some people want. On the other hand, only a court presence that combines respect for Constitutional precedent with an honest view of contemporary society and law can address the issues of the 21st century and maintain respect for our judicial system. Besides, at root, all law is medieval (or even more ancient, depending on who you view as source law) until somebody interprets it anew. Why is an activist a bad judge and a reactivist good?
<------------------------------------->
From an article in the New York Times by Dahlia Lithwick:
"Re-activist judges are able to present themselves as "strict constructionists" or "originalists" by arguing, as does Justice Clarence Thomas, that any case decided wrongly (i.e., not in accordance with the framers of the Constitution) should simply be erased, as though erasure is somehow a passive act. And while there is an urgent normative debate underlying this issue -- over whether the Constitution should evolve or stay static -- no one ought to be allowed to claim that the act of clubbing a live Constitution to death isn't activism.
<------------------------------------->
Phyllis Schlafly's latest!
The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It

The gravest threat to American democracy is the supreme power of judges over political, social, and economic policy. In this bracing indictment, Phyllis Schlafly exposes the courts’ 50-year conquest of legislative authority, made possible by presidents, congressmen, and voters who surrendered without a fight. The Supremacists is both a warning that self-government is in peril and a battle plan for overthrowing the tyranny of judges.
<------------------------------------->
From the Denver Post by Mike Soraqhan:
""Activist judges" difficult to define
As the debate on a gay-marriage ban heats up, legal experts say the term is, at best, imprecise and, at worst, used by people who simply disagree with a ruling.

Washington - Ban supporters will be blaming these black-robed rogues for pushing gay marriage onto the American stage, requiring them to push back with a constitutional amendment. "I do feel the courts are out of hand, and they've gone too far on this particular issue," Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Loveland and the Senate author of the ban, said at a forum last week.

President Bush, too, has lashed out at "activist judges." But confusion reigns over just what is an "activist" judge.

Even legal scholars who rail against them say the term suffers from imprecision. Some legal scholars say an "activist" judge is simply one who made a decision someone didn't like. "I think it's more of an insult than a philosophy," said University of Colorado constitutional law professor Richard Collins.

Others say "activist judges" are simply convenient scapegoats for gay-marriage opponents who don't want to attack gay people directly. "We heard this about 'activist courts' during civil rights," said Wayne Fields, an English professor at Washington University who studies political rhetoric. "Instead of saying, 'We don't want black people going to our schools,' we say, 'We don't want the courts making that decision."'

Conservative legal scholars, however, say activist judges are out there, eroding the Constitution and the ability of people to make decisions through their elected officials. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage, they say, is a textbook example. "Massachusetts is a clear case of judicial activism," said lawyer and Princeton University professor Robert George. "Whether or not an activist decision is good or bad policy, it always is an unconstitutional action. The proper forum to raise these kind of issues is the legislative forum."

The gay-marriage debate highlights a long national tug-of-war over how far judges can go in interpreting the Constitution. As in Massachusetts, the argument is increasingly trickling down to state and local courts.

Generally, the "activist" label is hung on socially liberal decisions. The trend generally took off with the federal courts' role in desegregation, starting with the 1954 Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision, and the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing access to abortion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun.

Conservatives say the trend soared from there, with judges increasingly willing to find new rights, use tenuous theories and overrule elected lawmakers.

Desegregation and civil rights gained acceptance, giving judges a reputation in many quarters for doing what politicians lack the will to do, said University of Colorado law professor Robert Nagel. But he said rulings like those on abortion and banning school prayer inspired sustained bitterness against the courts from social conservatives.

In recent years, liberals charged that conservative jurists developed their own brand of activism, a complaint that reached its zenith when the Supreme Court handed the 2000 presidential election to Bush.

Critics of judicial activism like Princeton's George say there are plenty of examples to offend liberal sensibilities. In the first part of the 20th century, the Supreme Court was tossing worker protections. And he said the 1857 Dred Scott case, which struck down a ban on slavery in the territories, was a case of judicial activism.

"The very institution that was on the right side of racial justice in Brown vs. Board was on the wrong side of Dred Scott vs. Sanford," George said. "The power to do good is also the power to do evil."
<------------------------------------->
From Sean Cahill in the Advocate:
"Bush’s denunciation of “activist judges” is particularly rich coming from a man who would not occupy the Oval Office were it not for the intervention of a bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, a ruling that ignored the will of the American people as expressed in the popular vote.
<------------------------------------->
From Patridiots.com by Poppy:
"February 25, 2004
Activist Judges?

George Bush, Bill Frist and the other right wing ideologues ludicrously blame "activist judges" for the need for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. This line of argument is not about gay marriage, but another attack by the American conservative movement on the independence of the judiciary.

The current movement for gay marriage is not a creature of the courts. There has been only one case decision in favor of gay marriage, and that was the recent Massachusetts case. Other than that, the movement has had victories with legal civil unions in Vermont a few years ago and New Jersey just last month, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and New Mexico's Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap offering marriage licenses.

That means two legislatures and governors have signed civil union laws, and an elected Mayor and elected County Clerk have offered marriage licenses to same sex couples. Not courts, but legally elected American citizens. Courts have been used to stop Dunlap in New Mexico and are being geared up against Newsom.

This social issue is being handled by the people and not the Courts, and to blame this on "activist courts" is just an effort to minimize the size and energy of the movement. By blaming a few judges off in the hinterlands, Bush and his friends can ignore and obscure the people who support same sex marriage.

The argument that "activist judges" are destroying this country is trotted out every time the right wing is upset over some cultural case they lose. "Activist" is code for liberal, so when a culturally conservative decision comes down they are strangely silent. They were thrilled with the activist Supreme Court decision that put Bush into the White House in 2000. Or the recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the Federal Appeals Court.

The federal judiciary can't be that liberal because the Republican Party has held the White House 24 of the past 36 years, controlling judicial appointment. Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans. This judiciary is not liberal, but the laws they are charged with interpreting are liberal, as is the Constitution.

The call for a gay marriage amendment is an attempt to appeal to the conservative base, and nothing else. I doubt if the corporations – most of which offer domestic partner benefits – that support the Republicans care that much, but the cultural conservatives do. If the GOP can get Democrats on record voting against the amendment it will make great literature pieces in October, and "prove" that Democrats are on the side of the "activist" judges and not the good working class people of America.

The same tactic was used in 2002 with the authorization for Bush to go to war in Iraq. It worked then, and they are hoping it will work again today.
<------------------------------------->
From a Ruling in the 1967 Loving vs Virginia Case:
Loving v. Virginia

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
<------------------------------------->
From Borowitzreport.com via Calpundit:
"70% OF EXISTING MARRIAGES MAY ALREADY BE GAY

New Study Jolts White House

The Bush White House’s plan to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages suffered a surprising setback today as a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay.

The study, conducted by Dr. Charles Cranborn of the University of Minnesota, confirmed what many social scientists have long suspected: that within the first five years of marriages, most men become, for all intents and purposes, gay.

“Soon after marrying, most men stop hitting on women and start shopping for furniture,” Dr. Cranborn said. “Scientifically speaking, how gay is that?”

Within ten years of marriage, Dr. Cranborn added, a significant number of married men stop having sex with women altogether.

“There’s only one way to describe someone who does not have sex with women, does not hit on women, and spends his free time shopping for furniture,” Dr. Cranborn added. “That word, to be scientific about it, is gay.”

FROM borowitzreport.com VIA TBOGG
<------------------------------------->
From Sen. Orrin Hatch's Website:

"We must amend the Constitution to defend traditional marriage from being undermined by activist judges. The bedrock of American society is the family, and it is traditional marriage that undergirds the American family. But recent court decisions have proven that courts are usurping the role of legislatures by imposing their own definitions of marriage on the people.

I whole-heartedly support the passage of the Allard Amendment to allow the American people — rather than a few activist judges — to define this fundamental unit of our society.

In addition, it is my belief that adhering strictly to the Constitution and the system of government our Founders outlined is the best guarantee of the freedoms we cherish as Americans. We need legislators, judges, and citizens who understand the view of the Constitution envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

I believe strongly in the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights, and that it is the duty of every American to uphold those freedoms. But I also believe that these rights are sometimes misinterpreted by over-reaching judges. We should not take freedom of speech so far as to mean that pornographers may target our children. And we should not turn freedom of religion on its head, reasoning that all references to God must be removed from public life.

Our Constitution is an inspired document that has preserved the unity of our nation, protected the rights of its citizens, and made America a beacon of freedom and prosperity for the world. I consider my pledge to defend the Constitution, and all that it stands for, to be among my most sacred duties.
<------------------------------------->
And finally, the wrap up from a Feb 25th Washington Post article by Professor Peter Edelman of the Georgetown University Law Center:

""Judicial Activism": What Does It Even Mean Anymore?

Time to Bench 'Judicial Activism'

President Bush, in calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, has once again condemned activist judges in Massachusetts for ruling that the state's constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages. "Judicial activism" is a ubiquitous epithet, especially at election time, but it's time for both liberals and conservatives to enter into a disarmament agreement and give it up. It has become a cliche -- a scare phrase for either side to hurl at the other in place of a substantive argument that a particular judicial decision is wrong on its merits.

From the 1950s until recently, such charges were mainly a staple of conservative rhetoric. Recall "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards and President Richard Nixon's promise to appoint "strict constructionists." But attacks on judicial overreaching are hardly the monopoly of one party. Franklin D. Roosevelt complained: "The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body. We must take action to save the Constitution from the Court."

A succession of Warren Court landmark decisions made the judicial activism charge seem the property of one political camp. Signers of the Southern Manifesto condemned Brown v. Board of Education as "a clear abuse of judicial power." Conservatives all over the country decried Miranda and other expansions of the rights of criminal suspects.

Beginning with President Nixon, the rhetoric and the reality diverged. The mantra of "judicial activism" stayed consistent enough from the conservative side. What confused things was the substance. Presidents who campaigned against activist judges appointed 10 justices to the Supreme Court between 1969 and 1992, but it was "their" court that protected abortion and commercial speech, legitimated busing and affirmative action, restricted sex discrimination and aid to parochial schools, and even imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. Liberals, winning more than they expected to, kept quiet about judicial activism.

Over the past 15 years or so, the court has gotten more conservative. Liberals have found ammunition to turn the conservative mantra on its head, and the charges of judicial activism now flow in both directions. It is the liberals who point out that the current Supreme Court has struck down nearly 30 federal laws in the past decade, compared with fewer than 130 during the two centuries after the Constitution was ratified. It is liberals who now ask why the court does not defer to the political majority as expressed through legislative enactments. It is the liberals who now cry "activism" when the court strikes down laws establishing gun-free school zones, set-asides for minority contractors, state damages for discrimination based on age or disability, civil remedies for violence against women, and citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act. To many on the left, judicial activism will forever be defined by the court's decision in Bush v. Gore.

Which brings us back to Massachusetts and President Bush.

Is it judicial activism for that state's highest court to decide that the state constitution protects the rights of gay men and lesbians, or is it simply a decision with which President Bush disagrees? Bush did not use the rhetoric of judicial activism when the mainly conservative Rehnquist Court said last summer that state laws jailing gays for consensual sodomy are unconstitutional, even though he perhaps disagreed with the merits of the decision.

The Massachusetts court is sparking a national debate, just as occurred after Brown, but that debate, properly couched, is not about judicial activism. The issue is whether it is time to broaden the American dream once again by opening up the same basic opportunities to gay men and lesbians that had to be won -- sometimes in the courts -- by women, religious dissidents, racial minorities, disabled people and others without political clout.

Of course, in an election year, between flipping pancakes and kissing babies, politicians of all parties will find time to attack "activist" judges -- meaning different things by the term. The work of courts certainly deserves substantive criticism. But it would improve public debate over the right way to read our Constitution if the politicians agreed to remove the charge of judicial activism from their campaign arsenals. It's a tempting missile to lob at one's opponent, but it confuses far more than it clarifies. All sides would do well to remember Judge Alfred Goodwin's trenchant remark. "If the court makes a decision someone likes," he said, "it's applauded as 'judicial statesmanship.' If not, it's called 'judicial activism.' "

- posted by Richard @ 10:25 PM

 

Army Times Magazine Editorial May 2004

Published: May 17, 2004
Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels

Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war. Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership. The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late. Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush. He was said to have been left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence. To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action. That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.
— Military Times editorial, May 17 issue
- posted by Richard @ 8:04 PM

 

A Better Distorted View

The physics of diffusion offers a new way of generating maps
Ivars Peterson

A map can show much more than rivers, roads, and political boundaries. It can express an attitude. Saul Steinberg's famous New Yorker cover illustration, called "View from 9th Avenue," shows a foreshortened map of New York City and its environs. Beyond the city's avenues and the Hudson River, Steinberg's map looks westward toward vaguely defined regions: Jersey, the rest of the United States, the Pacific Ocean, and a barely visible Asia and Europe. The map neatly encapsulates a Manhattanite's self-centered perspective on the world.

A map can also illuminate the way people live. It can incorporate census results, disease incidence, or the number of telephones in use. A simple color code, for example, can show where the incidence of a particular disease is high and where it's low. Such representations, however, can be misleading. Inevitably, cities would show a higher incidence than rural areas merely because the former have larger populations. Plotting per capita incidence takes care of that problem but discards information about where most of the cases occurred.

One solution is to take out variations in population density but still show how many cases occur in each region. This can be done on a distorted map in which the sizes of geographic regions appear in proportion to their populations, whether it's people or goods, or other items. Such a map is known as a cartogram.

Constructing a usable cartogram is challenging. The computer methods currently available sometimes produce maps with overlapping regions or weird distortions. In some cases, the maps are so highly skewed that they're difficult to read or interpret. Moreover, it can take hours of computer time to produce a single cartogram.

Now, two researchers have turned to the physics of diffusion to develop a new, speedy technique for generating cartograms by computer. "Our method is conceptually simple and produces useful, elegant, and easily readable maps," say Mark E.J. Newman and Michael T. Gastner of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. They describe their procedure in the May 18 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

There's an urgent need for a method that really works, says geographer Daniel Dorling of the University of Sheffield in England. The algorithm proposed by Newman and Gastner may "prove to be of huge value in cartography worldwide," he suggests.

Perfect distortion

A geographic map of the continental United States shows a patchwork of states of varying sizes and shapes. Creating a new map in which the area of each state is proportional to its population requires enlarging densely populated states and shrinking sparsely populated ones. On such a map, populous New Jersey would loom large despite its relatively small area and vast Wyoming would turn tiny.

Mathematically, it can be shown that there are infinitely many ways to perform such a transformation, even while making sure that the total area and the basic connectedness, or topology, of the map don't change. With such leeway, geographers and other researchers have proposed many different methods. Dorling himself has invented several ingenious techniques for producing cartograms, but each one has disadvantages.

The "perfect" cartogram, says Dorling, would be one that also minimizes local distortion. "If you were to look in detail at a very small area of the cartogram, it should look very similar to a normal map," he says. For example, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet at right angles on a standard map of the United States. These states should also come close to doing so on a cartogram.

Achieving such perfection would be difficult, so researchers have focused on making good-enough cartograms efficiently.

Newman and Gastner started with the observation that, on a population cartogram, the population is spread out evenly. The conversion of a geographic map into a cartogram reminded the physicists of diffusion—the process by which a gas spreads to fill available space until it has a uniform density throughout.

Applied to a map, there would be a flow from areas with high population densities to those with low densities. This flow would take any boundaries with it to create the new map.

Inspired by this analogy, Newman and Gastner turned to an equation that physicists use to describe diffusion. Starting with a mathematical description of the population density for a given map, they used a computer to solve the diffusion equation through a step-by-step process. The result: a map in which the population density is the same everywhere and that has no overlapping regions.

"The programming necessary to make this work is quite involved, so it took a while to produce the first maps," Newman says. "Once we did, however, it rapidly became clear that this was a useful tool."

It's a little surprising that no one had thought to use this approach before. "Perhaps it's reasonable to a physicist—diffusion is something physicists all study as undergraduates—but not to someone in cartography or geography, which is where most people working on this topic are coming from," Newman says.

"The method of Newman and Gastner is elegant," agrees geographer Waldo Tobler of the University of California, Santa Barbara, "but the mathematics is rather difficult."

In the late 1960s, Tobler, who was then at the University of Michigan, was the first to propose a method for the automated computer generation of cartograms. In his original scheme, the initial map is divided into small rectangular or hexagonal cells. Each cell is independently enlarged or contracted to a size proportional to its population. The resized cells are then distorted so that corners match again. The sizing process is repeated again and again until the population density in the cells evens out.

It was an important first step, but Tobler's method was quite slow and sometimes produced unfortunate distortions.

Other researchers tried to improve upon Tobler's effort. One scheme, recently developed by Dorling, also divided a map into tiny cells. With each step of the procedure, cells lying near a boundary would be reassigned as required to meet population requirements. Populous areas would grow larger at the expense of less-populated areas.

Another method permitted the borders of cells to move in response both to space requirements and to theoretical forces exerted by other cells.

Although there were improvements in performance, no method completely solved the problem.

Skewed states

Newman and Gastner have tried out their diffusion method on population data from the 2000 U.S. census. To demonstrate the technique's effectiveness and versatility, they created cartograms displaying the results of the U.S. presidential election of 2000, lung cancer rates among males in the state of New York, and the distribution of wire service news stories by state.

HEADLINE NEWS. The geographical distribution of news stories isn't uniform, Newman and Gastner show. Even allowing for population, a few cities—New York and Washington, in particular—get a surprisingly large fraction of the attention. The researchers extracted the dateline from about 72,000 wire-service news stories from 1994 to 1998 and changed a standard map (top) into a cartogram (bottom) in which the sizes of states are proportional to the frequency of their appearance in datelines.
Newman and Gastner/PNAS

In the close contest between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore, Newman and Gastner's cartogram based on population density reveals a fairly even split. In contrast, using a standard geographic map and simply coloring in each state according to which candidate had received more votes there produces a much larger area in the Republican color—even though Gore finished slightly ahead in the popular vote.

"Clearly then, a simple map is a poor visual representation of the election results, in the sense that it is hard to tell which party got more votes by looking at the map," Newman and Gastner say.

In each of their applications, the researchers had to decide what type of geographic area to choose as a basic unit. For example, in the United States, they could take the population of each state and distribute it uniformly over the state's area, or they could do it county by county or census tract by census tract.

The choice of unit used to establish the so-called population-density function affects the amount of distortion in the resulting cartogram. For example, distributing a state's population over its entire area generally produces a map with more recognizable features than does a county-by-county distribution, because cities cause substantial local distortions.

"Part of the art of making a good cartogram lies in shrewd decisions about the definition of the population-density," Newman and Gastner say in their PNAS paper. Ultimately, the choice of population-density function is up to the user of the method, who must decide what particular features are most desirable in his or her application.

The Newman-Gastner technique generates a cartogram remarkably quickly. "Maps are complicated things, and any calculation takes quite a long time," Newman says. "Our method . . . allows us to speed up the calculations a great deal and complete them in just seconds [rather than hours or days]. This makes a lot of difference to the usability of the method."

The physicists also discovered that their method generates maps that are visually pleasing and easy to read. "If you have correctness, speed, and useful, readable maps, then you have pretty much everything a cartogram needs," Newman says.

So far, Newman and Gastner have applied their technique only to standard examples. They plan to develop a software package that would permit geographers or cartographers to use the method on trickier, more interesting problems without having to write complex computer programs themselves.

Newman and Gastner are working to further increase the method's speed. They are also considering the application of their tool on a global scale.

"We haven't done anything larger than the United States, but that's not because of scaling problems," Newman says. "In fact, the U.S. maps were done on a 1,000-by-1,000 grid, so we already, in effect, had a million regions in those maps, and the calculations were still very quick."

The challenge in creating maps of large portions of the world derives from Earth's curvature. The method that Newman and Gastner used to flatten the area covered by the United States doesn't work for the whole globe.

Going to larger areas "would involve rewriting our computer codes," Newman says. Nonetheless, "in terms of running time, I see no reason why very large maps, including the entire world, should not be possible."

Although Dorling praises the work of Newman and Gastner, he sees the need for additional research on methods for generating global cartograms to get closer to the best cartogram that is theoretically possible.

"Creating [perfect] cartograms remains an algorithmic puzzle," he says. "I've been searching for 15 years to find a Ph.D. student willing to take this problem on. We now have the computational power—we lack the brains. The solution has probably already been found in another area."

"One of the repeated lessons of the field of complex systems in which I work is that there are an awful lot of good ideas out there, and many of them are well known, but few of them are well known in every field," Newman says. "So, people can make significant progress by applying an idea commonplace in one area to a field in which it has less, or no, currency."

- posted by Richard @ 7:53 PM

 

Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.

Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes
From: FactCheck.org
August 30, 2004

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.
- posted by Richard @ 3:24 PM

 
"Ex-Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell Is Charged With Fraud by U.S.
Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell was charged with fraud by the U.S. following a five-year investigation into claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts. "
- posted by Richard @ 1:12 PM

 
Scientific Integrity in Policy Making
Further investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is part of the introduction from the July 2004 update to the February 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

More than 5,000 scientists have called for an end to these practices, including 48 Nobel Laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients.

On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions."

The scientists’ statement made brief reference to specific cases that illustrate this pattern of behavior. In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released detailed documentation backing up the scientists’ charges in its report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

Since the release of the UCS report in February, the administration has continued to undermine the integrity of science in policy making seemingly unchecked. Many scientists have spoken out about their frustration with an administration that has undermined the quality of the science that informs policy making by suppressing, distorting, or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies and on scientific advisory panels. For instance, Michael Kelly, a biologist who had served at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service for nine years, recently resigned his position and issued an indictment of Bush administration practices. As Kelly wrote, "I speak for many of my fellow biologists who are embarrassed and disgusted by the agency’s apparent misuse of science."1

Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Further investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science investigates several new incidents that have surfaced since the February 2004 UCS report. These new incidents have been corroborated through in-depth interviews and internal government documents, including some documents released through the Freedom of Information Act. The cases that follow include:

egregious disregard of scientific study, across several agencies, regarding the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining;

censorship and distortion of scientific analysis, and manipulation of the scientific process, across several issues and agencies in regard to the Endangered Species Act;

distortion of scientific knowledge in decisions about emergency contraception;

new evidence about the use of political litmus tests for scientific advisory panel appointees. These new revelations put to rest any arguments offered by the administration that the cases to date have been isolated incidents involving a

few bad actors.
Concern in the scientific community has continued to grow. In the months since the original UCS report, more than 5,000 scientists have signed onto the scientists’ statement. Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences. A number of these scientists have served in multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican, underscoring the unprecedented nature of this administration’s practices and demonstrating that the issues of scientific integrity transcend partisan politics.

The United States has an impressive history of investing in and reaping the benefits of scientific research. The actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of scientists working for and advising America’s world-class governmental research institutions and agencies. Not only does the public expect and deserve government to provide it with accurate information, the government has a responsibility to ensure that policy decisions are not based on intentionally or knowingly flawed science. To do so carries serious implications for the health, safety, and environment of all Americans.

Given the lack of serious consideration and response by the administration to concerns raised by scores of prominent scientists, UCS is committed to continuing to investigate and publicize cases—corroborated by witnesses and documentation—in which politics is allowed to stifle or distort the integrity of the scientific process in governmental policy making. UCS—working with scientists across many disciplines, other organizations, and elected officials—will also seek to develop and implement solutions that will protect government scientists from retribution when they bring scientific abuse to light, provide better scientific advice to Congress, strengthen the role of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, strengthen and ensure adherence to conflict of interest guidelines for federal advisory panels, and ensure full access to government scientific analysis that has not been legitimately classified for national security reasons.

- posted by Richard @ 9:18 PM

 
US News Article | Reuters.com: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators carrying colorful banners and shouting 'no more Bush' took to the streets of New York on Sunday, the day before the Republican convention was to open, to decry the U.S.-led war in Iraq and President Bush's policies. "
- posted by Richard @ 9:08 PM

 
UK Seeks Global Support for Stem Cell Research
Sun Aug 29, 2004 07:07 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's leading scientific institution said Monday it is urging countries to back a campaign to stop a possible ban on stem cell research as part of a global treaty banning human cloning. The London-based Royal Society is stepping up its drive to push the United Nations to ban the cloning of babies, but to make no ruling on using the technology for medical research, or therapeutic cloning, at its 59th General Session in October. The 191-nation U.N. General Assembly is divided over whether to allow therapeutic cloning to continue or to adopt a broad cloning ban championed by the Bush administration and Costa Rica with strong backing from the U.S. anti-abortion movement and many predominantly Roman Catholic nations.

Last year, the assembly put treaty negotiations on hold for a year after 66 scientific academies around the world expressed support for therapeutic cloning. Cloning research relies on embryo cells, or stem cells, because they can grow into all types of cells and tissues in the body.

Supporters of a broad cloning ban argue therapeutic cloning, in which cells from human embryos are used in medical research, involves taking human lives because the embryos are eventually destroyed.

Although member nations would not be compelled to sign up to it, the Royal Society argues a treaty banning all forms of human cloning would place a major obstacle in the way of stem cell research which could provide new treatments for diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

"It is clear that if the convention bans all forms of human cloning, the UK, and other countries which currently permit carefully regulated therapeutic cloning, will not sign up to it," said Professor Richard Gardner, chairman of the Royal Society's working group on stem cell research and cloning, in a statement.

"For countries that have not yet brought in a ban, a UN convention which draws a clear distinction between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning will provide invaluable guidance in passing effective legislation."

- posted by Richard @ 9:04 PM

 
Some Republicans Who Will Not be Heard during the convention:

On The War in Iraq

by Andrew Gumbel, Independent (London) - August 18, 2002
The Bush administration's plans to go to war against Iraq are causing growing disquiet among eminent members of the President's Republican Party, including congressmen, foreign policy veterans and one close confidant of the first President Bush who was deeply involved in the war against Iraq a decade ago.

The names who have come forward this week to express scepticism or outright opposition to a military invasion could not be more high-profile: Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger, Dick Armey, and Chuck Hagel, a senator from Nebraska seen as an expert on intelligence and security.
============================================
In the War On Drugs

WASHINGTON - August 20 - Prominent Republicans are featured in a full-page ad under the headline “the Right response to the War on Drugs”. The ad will run in the New York Sun each day of the Republican National Convention, August 30th – September 2nd.

“Most Republicans simply don’t know that many of their most prominent leaders think the drug war is a disaster,” said Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “This ad seemed a good way to let them know, and to plant the seeds for a more vigorous Republican drug policy debate in years to come.”

The publishers of the New York Sun plan a special distribution to make the paper available to every RNC delegate in town as well as thousands of others attending the convention.

Statements from Milton Friedman, William Buckley Jr., Grover Norquist, Gary Johnson and George Shultz are featured in the Drug Policy Alliance ad. Text from the ad includes: "Eighty-five million Americans have experimented with illegal drugs. Since the object of criminal law is to detect and punish the wrongdoer, should we reason that 85 million of us should have spent time in jail?" - William F. Buckley Jr., Syndicated Column, 8/10/96

"...I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years or so you saw the conservative coalition come out for an end to drug prohibition." - Grover Norquist, Poz website, 6/01

"Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect, destroys our inner cities, wreaks havoc on misguided and vulnerable individuals and brings death and destruction to foreign countries?" - Milton Friedman, New York Times 1/11/98

"...We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs." - George P. Shultz, Wall Street Journal, 10/27/89

  "Take it from a businessman: The War on Drugs is just money down the drain." - Gary E. Johnson, Intervention Magazine interview, 2004
========================================
The War on Womens Right to Choose

Anyone from the Republicans For Choice PAC

========================================
The War of Apolistatic Christianity and Who Belongs

Not the Mormons

========================================
The War on Stem Cell Research

Proposition 71: The Califormia Initiative for the expansion of Stem Cell Research

========================================


- posted by Richard @ 8:57 PM