One True God

'The Message' is a movie about Muhammad, the life of the Prophet, and the message that he received from God. It's a story about the beginnings of Islam.

It moves at too slow a pace. But for anyone interested in learning a little more about Islam, its history, and its values, it's a good movie to watch. The most difficult aspect is that the director was forced by Muslim sensibilities not to portray the main character in the film.

To early Muslims, faced with the possibility that Muhammad might be worshipped after his death as a divine being in the same way that Jesus was by the Christians, chose to ban any representation of the Prophet. There is a strong sense of iconoclasm in Islam, not so much in opposition to Christianity, but in opposition to the idolatry of Arabia. The Kaaba, which was believed to have been built by Abraham, had become home to over 300 gods, which were worshipped at an annual pilgrimage that brought in lots of money to the merchants of Mecca. When Muhammad began to have revelations that there is only One God, this threatened the entire economic framework of his city at that time. He was driven out of the city, and only returned after his success at winning the hearts and minds of many Arabians in the region. At that point, Muhammad and his followers took over Mecca without bloodshed, and cleansed the Kaaba of the many gods. Muhammad declared Mecca to be a holy city, and the site of an annual pilgrimage to worship only the One True God.

Jefferson's last letter

Al Gore quotes Jefferson's last letter: "Jefferson expressed his hope that the Declaration would arouse people throughout the world 'to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form, which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God.'"

Wesley Clark

Just listened to a Charlie Rose interview with General Wesley Clark. The main thing that I got from it was his perception that the Bush administration had stood the Clinton policy on its head. Clinton wanted talk first. If that didn't work, build a coalition. If that didn't work, and only as a last resort, go it alone. Bush wanted war first, and he wanted to go it alone. Then he sought to build a coalition. Then he wanted to talk. The latter doesn't work very well. Clark said that while soldiers in the war have gained from their experience, they have also been stretched too thin, and have lost many good people... more to attrition than to casualties.

Aloneness and Love

I thought about how awkward the word 'aloneness' sounds, and considered the term 'solitude' in its place. But 'solitude' just does not convey the same thing as 'aloneness' to me. To be solitary sounds so abstract. To be alone is a profound feeling that we feel viscerally, i.e.  in the gut.

We pride ourselves for being 'individuals' in American society. And we go our own way. In this way, we find ourselves alone. Husbands and wives are alone. Parents are alone. Children are alone. Neighbors are alone. We say we want to be together. We wonder why they aren't together with us. And all the while, we emphasize difference from the other, and fly in a direction all our own that we take pride in. Then we look over our shoulders and wonder why they aren't with us. Oh, could it be that they're flying in their own directions and taking pride in their separate, isolated individuality?

Is there any way back from this aloneness?

The only way back from aloneness is love. Even if they don't want to be with us, we can still be loving. Love keeps the door open to togetherness. The alternative is to try to be okay about our aloneness, but there is no coming back from that.

There are times to be okay about our aloneness. There are times when we have to learn to be okay with our aloneness. It is only in our aloneness that we find the source of the spirit that flows through all things. There is nothing wrong, and everything that is right, about this kind of aloneness.

But the spirit that flows through all things doesn't wish us to remain alone. Spirit flows through us in our aloneness with the source so that it may rejuvenate us. Spirit lifts the individual spirit toward loving relationship with other.

Musharraf Can't Hedge His Bets Anymore

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan can't play the middle between the United States and radical fundamentalists in his country much longer.

Last week, his police attacked the Red Mosque in downtown Islamabad. The Mosque was led by a cleric named Maulana Abdul Aziz, a pro-Taliban extremist who was fomenting rebellion in Pakistan. Amongst other things, students at the mosque's school were going around town trying to enforce a strict fundamentalist Islamic code on the otherwise moderate city of Islamabad. Musharraf had to do something.

Musharraf has been afraid to face down the extremists. It may be out of his control. He may not be able to do so. The U.S. has given billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan in the last several years (according to the Congressional Research Service) in order to help us fight the Taliban and to protect his regime against Islamic extremism. There have been suspicions that Musharraf was just taking the money without making legitimate efforts to help us bring down the Taliban, including Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda elements, that slipped over the border from Afghanistan.

It seems that Musharraf won't be able to play coy much longer. His government has done just enough to attack the extremists with U.S. help that he has become the target of their wrath.

After the attack on the Red Mosque, Abdul Aziz was arrested while trying to slip out of the mosque in a burqa. (Okay, it's a lot easier, apparently, for Imams to "talk the talk" than to "walk the walk.") Abdul Aziz's brother, who tried to hold the fort, so to speak, was killed inside the mosque. Since then, Musharraf has had the mosque painted yellow, it's black banners removed, and its school buildings (heavily damaged by the intense fighting) torn down. Then the government appointed a moderate to lead Friday prayers today. But protestors wouldn't let the new Imam deliver his sermon, and demands were made for the return of Abdul Aziz. Some began to repaint the mosque in red, and to hang the black banners up again. Police moved in, and 11 people, including some of the police, were killed by a bomb.

The Washington Post reports:

--

In a speech at the mosque's main entrance, Liaqat Baloch, deputy leader of a coalition of hard-line religious parties, condemned Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a "killer" and declared there would be an Islamic revolution in Pakistan, the Associated Press reported.

"Maulana Abdul Aziz is still the prayer leader of the mosque," Baloch said, according to the wire service. "Musharraf is a killer of the constitution. He's a killer of male and female students. The entire world will see him hang."

--

The situation is obviously becoming quite serious, and I don't see how Musharraf can any longer avoid fully cooperating with the U.S. effort to bring the Taliban and Al Qaeda to justice. (That is if we can still assume the Bush administration really wants that to happen, which has also been doubtful I must admit.)

Honor Killings

The argument is being made that women are being treated fairly in the Muslim world. I wish it were so.

The practice of 'honor killings' speaks against it, however. Several days ago, three sisters were murdered, probably by their own father and brothers, for allegedly inappropriate intimate behavior with males that may not have included actual sex.

The Wikipedia says that "The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women."

---

From the National Geographic:

"'In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable,' said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

The practice, she said, 'goes across cultures and across religions.'

Complicity by other women in the family and the community strengthens the concept of women as property and the perception that violence against family members is a family and not a judicial issue.

'Females in the family—mothers, mothers-in-law, sisters, and cousins—frequently support the attacks. It's a community mentality,' said Zaynab Nawaz, a program assistant for women's human rights at Amnesty International."

---

There is a lot that is good about Islam. But condoning this kind of behavior is not. And we must be honest about that.

There's a very interesting blog called "Or Does it Explode?: Inside the Struggle for Civil Rights in the Middle East" that covers a lot of women's issues.

The Fix is In

Sports fans have had to deal with the shocking revelations that Philadelphia-born NBA referee Tim Donaghy was probably throwing games over the last several years. He had a gambling problem, and one report suggests that the mob tried to clear that with him by having him shave points in games. As a result, he allegedly made calls he shouldn't have, and in some cases, didn't make calls he should have.

The NBA does such a poor and inconsistent job of making calls anyway that it is fairly easy to have such a thing go by. How many times have you seen a player travel with no call being made? How many times have you seen a player draped all over a player going to the basket without a call being made? How many times have you seen a player barely touch another player and find yourself astonished that a call was made? Such is life in the NBA as it has been allowed to develop. And in such an environment, Donaghy was able to fix games. And this is tragic for not only the NBA, but sports in general. It will make us all suspicious when refs are doing a bad job. I know I've been suspicious about the NFL before. I hope it's not the case, but sometimes...

At any rate, it now turns out that Donaghy was involved in the 3 most controversial NBA games in recent history. Rasheed Wallace got a reputation for being one of the bad boys of the NBA, and received a 7-game suspension in the process, for confronting a referee on a loading dock outside an arena after a game. It turns out Donaghy was that referee. Remember the Pacer-Piston brawl that ended up in the stands after a fan threw ice at Ron Artest? That whole thing got started because the game was allowed to be too rough in the first place. Donaghy was part of that crew. And finally, fans were convinced that the officiating was horrible this spring when the Spurs were allowed to beat up on Steve Nash and his fellow Suns, one of the best teams in basketball. They were expected to represent the West in the NBA finals. But it didn't happen because of the officiating, plain and simple. Everyone knows that. Well, it turns out Donaghy was part of that crew, too.

Now his life is being threatened. The mob doesn't want him telling what he knows to authorities. What does he know? How many people are involved? Are there others in the NBA, or other sports, involved?

The world seems like a mess sometimes. It's human beings who make it a mess. This is a clear example of one human being having a profoundly negative impact on the world around him.

Ethics matters. Honorable behavior matters.

Social Beings

Human beings are social beings. I firmly believe that. Most of us want very much to connect with other human beings. But when we get that opportunity, we most often decide that we don't like what they said, or the way they said it, or the way they looked at me when I said that, or... whatever. We make very few real friends in our lives, despite wanting to. Why is that? What is it about us that makes us deny ourselves social bonding? We are so much alike, but we resist differences, and shy away from differences. Why? Why? It is a real puzzle to me.

I'm reviewing a book now that talks about resistances to change, and how people are most likely to change when they're confronted with people with different points of view and different ways of being. Maybe that's part of it.

But even in the same families where people "love" each other and live in very similar ways, tensions often run high between individuals in that family. Every little difference seems like a big difference. I want there to be quiet now. You want to listen to music. Now you want quiet, and now I want to hear music. Tension. People find it so very hard to get along with each other. And I really am amazed at that. I guess I shouldn't be. But I am.

Blair: Moderate Islam must Triumph

Tony Blair, for 10 years the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has now been given the task of being special envoy to the Middle East by the U.N., the European Union, Russia, and the United States. Though I have not quite understood how Blair could have backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq--unless he was misled by the Bush administration like the rest of us, I have great respect for Blair as a reasonable voice on the world stage. In an article today, he talks about a conference on Islam that he put together after leaving office. It was prompted, he said, by complaints from moderates that their voices were not being heard. Blair evidently came away from that conference believing that not only is moderate Islam a voice that must be heard; it is the force that we must rely upon to ultimately transform the Middle East, and defeat the evil forces behind terrorism. He writes:

"Defeating this evil will take many things. But one thing above all is essential. Ultimately it can only be defeated within Islam. Moderate, mainstream Islam must triumph.

One other fascinating aspect of the London conference was hearing genuine Islamic scholars speak about their religion in a way usually untold to Western audiences: how Islam was for centuries the progressive force in science and knowledge; how the Koran reveres Jesus and Mary; how the Abrahamic religions share so much common history and tradition; and how the actions of the extremists are not merely wrong, but directly contrary to the teaching of the Prophet Mohammed.

This is the authentic voice of Islam. It needs to be heard and to be listened to."

My first reaction to this is that moderate Christianity doesn't seem to be winning any battle over fundamentalist Christianity, so why should we expect moderate Islam to do any better?

One reason that I believe moderation has an uphill battle ahead in order to win is that moderates are the "odd man out." In a sense, we moderates align ourselves with science and enlightenment reasoning. But science and enlightenment principles have turned increasingly atheistic and materialist in their approach to the world. This only serves to inflame the will of fundamentalists, and to drive would-be moderates into the fundamentalist camp.

This is why I got into the work that I do. I have wanted to show that religion and science, or at least spirituality and science, can and must go together. The life of the spirit is real. There is an intelligence that guides the universe, and without faith in that intelligence, there wouldn't have been any science. But the religion that goes together with science and enlightenment principles is not the religion of fundamentalism. It is the religion of moderates.

I believe that the moderate religious voice will win in the end, but only if we can show the majority that there is a way of being both spiritually- and scientifically-oriented at the same time.

Beliefs, Worldviews, and Dogma

I spent some time today reading a very interesting series of comments about a series that the Washington Post is having in its "On Faith" section. This week, it's views from Muslim leaders around the world. The particular comment that this series began with was criticism about the series from Susan Jacoby. Every comment on there--even the angry ones--is worth reading.

Jacoby, as the Washington Post describes her is "the author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, (2004) which was named a notable nonfiction book by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, and cited as an outstanding international book by the Times Literary Supplement and the Guardian." In her comment on the series, she says that the Post doesn't include enough "secularists." The people giving the views on Islam are too fundamentally-bound for her tastes, and she thinks that the spectrum of commentators ought to include people like Salmon Rushdie. I think she makes an interesting case.

One of the more interesting things she says has to do with the status of women in the Middle East:

"As for the opinions of many of these male clerics and scholars about women, they are the equivalent of what we heard from male priests, ministers, and rabbis before the rise of the first feminist movement in the nineteenth century. 'Islam adopts the perspective of gender equality, but it does not endorse the idea of gender equivalency,' writes Dr. [Ali] Gomaa. "Islam affirms the difference between the natural dispositions and constitutions of men and women....'

And that, boys and girls, is why women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and can, in fact, be stoned to death for adultery unless some merciful male Islamic judge stays the sentence. Women keep silent in the churches and cover your heads. Women wear a veil so that men won't be tempted by you and rape you. It's all the same repressive line, but the difference is that in the West, secular law forced reactionary religious men to give women equal rights in the civic sphere--something women do not enjoy in the Islamic world today."

Notice the "boys and girls" comment. There are several places in her post where Ms. Jacoby betrays a terribly smug and condescending attitude toward her readers, including a comment about the ignorant American. But the main thing that I want to say is that it is a very nice piece written by Ms. Jacoby. One could easily come away from reading just her piece, and believing that one agrees with her. But then you read the comments that very intelligent and reasonable (for the most part) people are making about her post. One of the main criticisms is that it's wrong to expect that a forum with the aim to explain what Muslims think would be comprised of people who never did, or no longer do, believe in what Islam teaches. So, the critics say, it's perfectly okay for this series to be made up of true believers.

Then there are the many other tangential arguments that come up amongst the commentators. What an interesting classroom it all makes!

Now, what I wanted to blog about today plays off of that interesting discussion. There are a number of perfectly reasonable beliefs and worldviews expressed. There are people involved in the discussion who are perfectly happy with living in the Muslim world, and who feel they are misunderstood. There are people who are anti-religious, who cannot begin to understand how anyone could be happy in such an 'oppressive' environment. There are dogmatists from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, who clearly believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. And what strikes me is that every one of the positions is reasonable, or at least reasonable enough to be made reasonable.

So, what do we do in such a life-world as this, where any of a number of lifestyles and worldviews could be rationally defended?

It seems to be that we can either (1) adopt one of of the worldviews and defend it to the hilt like a dogmatist or true believer; (2) take a completely relativist view, and say 'to each his own'; or (3) find some kind of middle road that looks for common ground amongst the positions offered, and uses that as a basis upon which to build a world society that respects the differences of opinion that lie beyond the established common ground.

The middle way, as usual, seems best to me.

There is a lot of room for finding common ground between true-believer Christians and true-believer Muslims. The only problem is that they're the least likely amongst us to be willing to take a middle-of-the-road, building-from-common-ground type of approach. And it's far less likely to find common ground between secularists and either of these groups.

The best way forward through all of this is to promote a liberal-democratic society where secular principles guide the government, and religious disputes are left to the side as questions of personal faith. Everyone should be able to develop their own worldview, and everyone should be free to act upon that worldview to the extent that it does not harm others. That is always the tricky part of liberalism: what harms others? That is what we must debate. And we must respect a democratic process for resolving such disputes, or else we have no choice but to throw in the towel and fight for the dominance of our own preferred viewpoint. I personally believe, however, that this leads to a Hobbesian "war of all against all," where life is always "nasty, brutish, and short." The only rational alternative is a free and democratic society.

But I understand the dogmatists. They say that "We are right! We have Truth on our side! And we must fight to the death to uphold that Truth!" I understand that feeling. There's something in the human breast that wants to have such a feeling that we are in possession of the Truth. It's just that I believe that as we mature, we realize that Socrates is right: he was wise in that he knew that he did not know. And Lao Tzu was right when he said that "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." A wise human being is flexible toward, and not greedy about the truth. As the Sophists knew all too well, anything can be rationalized. Socrates, in claiming that there is a truth, emphasize that the approach to it was with great humility, a sense of humor, and open questioning!

The heart-hearted amongst us are the ones who are the most afraid. I feel for them. There is a lot to be afraid of in this world. I can only hope that with enough love and patience, we can soften their hearts so that we all can engage in an experiment of ideas and ideals that helps each of us, in our own ways, to find what is right for us. And when I say "us," I mean "us" and not just "me." Because "me" is an illusion, ultimately. I cannot die alone. I cannot live alone. I am a part of a tapestry of individuals who find their meaning in the interconnected social state that we live in. So, let's find what is right for us in as gentle, tolerant, and loving a way as we can manage.

White House Charged with Contempt of Congress

The Congress of the United States is charged with a duty to protect the people of the United States of America from injustices perpetrated by the Executive Branch of our government. This duty is sometimes called "oversight." In order for Congress to perform its duties of oversight, it needs to have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents from the Executive Branch.

Uses of executive privilege have been sparing. The current White House is fond of saying that the tradition goes back to George Washington, our first president. What they don't say is that his use of it was a procedural matter. He claimed that he did not owe papers about a treaty being negotiated with England to the House, because such matters were overseen by the Senate. He gave the papers to the Senate. (See the Wikipedia article on Executive Privilege.)

Jefferson seems to have tried to wiggle out of a political sensitive matter by not wanting to give up his letters regarding Aaron Burr when Burr was on trial for treason. But his attempt to withhold documents was shot down by Chief Justice John Marshall.

In modern times, Eisenhower used 'executive privilege' to successfully block a witch-hunt in the U.S. military by Joseph McCarthy during the last days of McCarthy's power. But that didn't set a precedent that could be successfully used by Nixon, and the court-ordered release of the White House tapes brought down his presidency.

Currently, George Bush wants to claim executive privilege to prevent Congressional oversight regarding the potentially illegal firings of U.S. Attorneys.

Former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis) objected to the contempt charges, saying "I believe this is an unnecessary provocation of a constitutional crisis. Absent showing that a crime was committed in this process, I think the White House is going to win an argument in court."

Now I'm not a constitutional expert, but the natural question to ask in such a case is... how is the Committee supposed to know if something illegal is being done if it can't get anyone to answer questions. It obviously suspects irregularities if it's asking for the testimony and documents. And constitutional experts do say that the executive privilege principle is supposed to be there to protect national interests, and not to simply hide wrong-doing by the executive.

So, I think current Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich) gets it right when he explains: "If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up . . . then we have already lost. We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other."

Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by as much as one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

The Craig of Craig's List

I would like to recommend viewing this Charlie Rose interview of Craig Newmark--founder of Craig's List. I have to admire him. He insists on maintaining down-to-earth values in his company, and he doesn't care about money. His CEO told Wall Street that they're "not interested" in maximizing profit. Is that refreshing, or what? When challenged by Charlie about whether the free classifieds are doing in newspapers, Newmark emphasized his belief that what is really doing in newspapers is their "going public." They are under pressure to continue to grow by a certain percentage, and that forces them to do whatever it takes to sell, sell, sell, at the expense of some costly and less profitable investigative news reporting. I am increasingly suspicious of "the profit motive." I doubt seriously that Muslim and fundamentalist beliefs that women showing some skin is going to bring us down. But greed will. I was delighted to hear Craig Newmark say a couple of times in this interview that it's good to be comfortable, but beyond that--who needs it? This is coming from a man whose site gets 22,000,000 hits. He could be as rich as anyone if he wanted to be. And yet he doesn't bite the apple. I'm impressed.

Restraint or Oppression: Clearly in the Eye of the Beholder in Some Cases

There's an op ed piece in the Washington Post written by Leila Aboulela, author of Minaret. She is a devout Muslima writer who is concerned that Westerners view Muslim women as oppressed. The word she prefers to use is "restraint." She writes:

"Yes, Islam restrains me, but restraint is not oppression, and boundaries can be comforting and nurturing. Freedom does not necessarily bring happiness, nor does an abundance of choices automatically mean that we will make the right one. I need guidance and wisdom; I need grace and forgiveness."

I am not certain of Ms. Aboulela's intent here. It is true that freedom, in itself, does not lead to happiness with certitude. We make choices in a free state, and things can go well or they can go poorly, depending on the choices. And I, personally, would agree that we need guidance and wisdom, grace and forgiveness. But does she mean by these words to establish a defense of ways of governing that are antagonistic to freedom? I'm afraid that this is what I have gotten from her article.

Despite Islamic law, she writes that "I am not oppressed simply because I have, thank God, been spared the causes of oppression: poverty, war, destitution, abuse, illness and ignorance."

But this is the promise of dictators everywhere: I'll keep you safe and fed--just follow me.

She admits that there are problems for women in the Muslim world: "I think it is ridiculous that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, deeply shameful that young girls are still circumcised in Sudan and criminal that women in any part of the Muslim world can be denied health care or education." But Ms. Adoulela believes that this will pass. She explains that "Change and progress, though, are happening, slowly but steadily, as Muslim societies acknowledge that their unjust traditions are rooted in a culture that can evolve, rather than in timeless religious values."

One implication, as I read it, is that if something is thought to be true, it must be timeless and religious, and something to bow down before. If it's found to be oppressive, it must not have been part of the original teaching, and therefore can be changed. This is not the way to be a reasonable human being. We don't start with the assumption that "our leader" is right, and then work at trying to fix our misconceptions of "our leader." I'll admit, however, that in a totalitarian state, it might be a good strategy to go about change this way.

I don't know what to say to someone who, from the start, implies that they want to be in chains because they don't trust themselves to find their way to a good life. And because of this, they are supportive of efforts to bring others into chains--for their own good, I suppose. Ms. Aboulela's vision of restraint blurs the line of oppression to me. What about just letting people do what they want to do until and unless they're hurting someone else? Life is an experiment. Let's let people experiment.

So, if her purpose in writing this was to help people like me to understand why women are not actually oppressed in the Muslim world, she hasn't persuaded me. If her purpose is to suggest that there are many women in the Muslim world who do not feel oppressed, I can buy that quite easily. But I would expect to hear expressions of contentment from any corner of the world. It doesn't make it right.

Fighting Illegal Immigration: A New McCarthyism or Genuine Patriotism?

Joe McCarthy thought of himself as the most patriotic of patriots, defending the U.S. from "the Red Menace," as Communists were often called in those days. I remember my father, whom I still think of as having pretty balanced views for the time, having a book of J.Edgar Hoover's on the shelf when I was growing up that was called Masters of Deceit, which was about fighting the Communists. Both McCarthy and Hoover went too far, and took advantage of the legitimate fears Americans had of the hostile intentions of the Soviet government. But they both thought of themselves as patriots, and we could legitimately ask whether they were patriots, or "bullies." That same question is raised today in the Washington Post's article about a blogger named Greg Letiecq, who is now considered one of the most successful conservative bloggers in the country. He is apparently most well-known for his attacks on illegal immigrants, and those who either defend illegal immigrants or look the other way. Letiecq has become a political force to be reckoned with in Northern Virginia.

The Post's Nick Miroff writes that "His movement has tapped into a wellspring of simmering anger over illegal immigration and a general unease about the large influx of Hispanic residents who have moved to the region in the past decade, sparking suburban clashes over such quality-of-life issues as overcrowding, language, even lawn care."

Letiecq says, "We're inspiring people. A lot of citizens felt like there was nothing they could do."

On the other hand, the group Mexicans Without Borders portrays Letiecq as a villain, saying that Letiecq, as the "leader of the racist, recalcitrant anti-immigrant group 'Help to Save Manassas,' savors the hate, satisfied at having delivered a racist law for his group." The reference is to anti-illegal immigrant legislation recently passed in Northern Virginia.

The article suggests, too, that anyone who gets in his way had better watch out. Letiecq himself says, "I don't like clean, sanitized don't-upset-anybody kinds of discussions. We shouldn't pull our punches."

But this has led to some personal attacks against local politicians who don't see eye-to-eye with him. Letiecq "outed" Democratic candidate Jeff Dion for posting on a gay website, leading to Dion's withdrawal from his campaign. Letiecq simply says, "I'm anti-sin."

But here's where it gets really interesting. He's not simply attacking illegal immigrants, and what he sees as "sinful" homosexual candidates. Letiecq has relentlessly attacked a Republican candidate for the Virginia Assembly, Faisal Gill, a former naval officer and employee of Homeland Security, for being a terrorist. It seems that Letiecq calls it how he sees it, regardless of whether he has proof. Gill was associated once with a group whose leader was convicted of having illegal ties to the Libyan government. Gill was cleared of wrong-doing by Homeland Security, but that wasn't good enough for Letiecq. And that's what raises my question about the line between patriotism and McCarthyism. (See the article for more examples of Letiecq's "shoot from the hip" style.)

Gill says that Letiecq is "like a schoolyard bully. He clearly plays to the prejudices people have."

To me, it's only natural that this is what you're going to get when the Federal Government will not enforce its own immigration policies, and does little to secure its borders. People will take matters into their own hands, and this kind of thing plays very well with the most racist and bigoted amongst us. It reminds me of old southern vigilantism, though Letiecq is admittedly just stirring the pot with his blog.

I'm convinced that the Federal Government does nothing because the powers-that-be, namely the wealthiest amongst us, want cheap labor in this country. So, on the one hand, I applaud Letiecq's efforts, because something needs to be done to rally people against Big Business's oppression of the American laborer. On the other hand, the McCarthyesque technique of smearing his political enemies with innuendo is as immoral and questionable as Big Business's desire to see the lowest possible wages worldwide.

Meantime, the Post published an editorial this morning condemning what it calls "Nativism's Toxic Cloud" in Northern Virginia. The Post questions whether anything can be done about illegal immigration. It says: "The truth is, ICE simply does not have the time, personnel or capacity to do what local politicians want: return vast numbers of illegal immigrants to their country of origin.... An educated guess is that more undocumented immigrants -- possibly a lot more -- will arrive each month than can realistically be removed." And the editorial attacks "nativism" as being the same sort of thing that Irish and Italian immigrants faced in the past.

But it's not.

The supposedly "nativist" fight is against illegal immigration, and not against immigration per se.

I have to admit, however, that this Post editorial got me to thinking. Is it true that there really is nothing we can do about illegal immigration? If that's the case, then the Germans, British, and French may not be able to do anything about it either, right? And so, I can just move over there and take advantage of what I'm seeing as a more civilized group of nations at this point... right? Well, no. They wouldn't let me stay over there. The Post says that we can't stop the "market forces" at play. But I distinctly get the impression other countries can. It depends on whether they want to or not. It's the same with universal health care. The Canadians, British, Germans, French, and others can give their citizens health care. But in the United States, a country that is currently spending billions on a futile and senseless war in the Middle East, we always hear that it's too expensive, and we can't afford it. Poppycock! We can if we want to. And our political leadership, under the influence of Big Money's dollars, doesn't want to. We have to make them want to. And the only way we can do that is to threaten to vote them out if they don't listen.

Granted, if all the candidates are bought and paid for by the Almighty Dollar, then there really is nothing we can do. But I'm not persuaded, yet, that we're powerless. We have to believe we can, and speak openly and often about our intention to vote for candidates who will protect the American worker, both with health care and with a sensible immigration policy that is enforced.

Human Rights and Habeas Corpus

Today, there is a letter to the editor of the Washington Post from Roberta Cohen, a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. I feel like the entire letter should be reprinted here:

"Attack on a Fundamental Right

Sunday, July 22, 2007

The Bush administration's denial of habeas corpus to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay does more than damage the United States' "image and moral authority abroad" ["Justice at Guantanamo," editorial, July 18]. It is a direct attack on American values and history.

In 1979, on the 300th anniversary of the Habeas Corpus Act, I introduced, as a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. General Assembly, the first resolution on the right to habeas corpus. To gain sponsors and mobilize the votes for passage, I emphasized the historic importance to America of a person's right to know why he or she is being held and to be able to challenge unlawful detention. After negotiations with the different geographic blocs, the resolution won General Assembly approval. It called on all governments to guarantee the full enjoyment of habeas corpus and pointed out that its use not only protected people against arbitrary arrest and detention but also could forestall opportunities "to engage in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

It is to be hoped that the Bush administration's unfortunate practices will be seen in time as an aberration in America's otherwise long-standing, bedrock commitment to fundamental human rights."

The Sports World Today

Ivan Carter says it all today with the final sentence of today's blog in the Washington Post, entitled, "Ref scandal will rock the NBA":

"Crooked refs. Star NFL quarterbacks torturing dogs. Steroid abusers breaking all-time baseball records.....boy it's a great time for sports huh?"

I think that must be Ivan Carter on the left, but I'm guessing.

Windows Live Writer Test

This is an experiment in using Windows Live Writer.  I'm not sure if it's something that's useful or not.  I won't know until I try it, right? 

Oh, I like this.  I was able to simply drag a picture to the Live Writer from the front page of the Washington Post, and there it was.  Cool.

Now, let me try some kind of text dragging.

"Study urges U.S. military to adopt more upbeat marketing strategy, citing failure of current "show of force" brand to win over Iraqi people."

Worked like a charm.  This is good.  So, let me tell you. Try Windows Live Writer.  I think you'll like it.

Interesting Look into the White House

Charlie Rose's week-in-review today takes time to look at the Vice President, his power, and the decline in his power in recent months. It's a fascinating thing to hear about. Tom DeFrank seems sympathetic to Cheney, and has covered him for years, but he admits that Cheney "controlled the process" that would lead Bush to think he had no alternative but to go to war.

Executive Privilege and the Need to Protect our Democracy

Professor Rozell, of George Mason University, took questions from the public this afternoon, and amongst his responses, said: "Executive privilege is not an absolute power. The courts have made it clear that when Congress or the courts demand information and the president claims executivie privilege, there has to be a balancing of the needs of the different branches. A president's claim of EP may have to yield to other needs in our system of separated powers. In the current controversy I think it is necessary that members of Congress who are seeking testimony make a strong case that they cannot properly conduct an investigation without such testimony, and therefore that their needs trump the asserted need for presidential secrecy. In our system there is a string presumption in favor of Congress's right to investigate and thus the president has to make the case that divulging information would cause some harm to the public good.

It is very important to recognize that EP exists to protect the needs of the public, not the political interests of a president and his staff."

Rozell believes that the President may want this to go to the Supreme Court so that he could claim total victory for the Executive Branch, and the expansion of presidential powers. (This sounds like a Dick Cheney power-trip to me.) And he wonders aloud what this would mean to the system of checks and balances, and to oversight, if the President were to win this battle in the stacked conservative Supreme Court. I can only hope that the justices would not vote in a partisan manner, and would be true conservatives, not wanting to change the system of checks and balances that have worked so well for more than 200 years. Can you imagine what the conservative justices would say if a Hillary Clinton were in office and tried to do whatever she wanted behind the veil of executive privilege? We have to do more than think in a partisan manner, here. It can work both ways. We need to protect our democracy.

Stretching Executive Privilege to the Breaking Point

Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein wrote in the Washington Post: "Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

Our President and Vice President are, it seems, above the law. They claim that they cannot be held in contempt of court, because they alone have the authority to decide what the Justice Department will do, and they will not have the Justice Department look into matters where they have claimed executive privilege. Wonderful. They (including the Justice Department) are suspected of having broken the law, and are issued subpoenas, and can just thumb their noses at the whole proceeding?

The article reports that Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University and an authority on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing." He explained: "That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers. What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

Rozell went on to say that this maneuver "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

And the article quotes Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) as saying that the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," while Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

This is indeed a constitutional crisis. The oversight powers of Congress are being stripped away by this Executive. The only way that I can see to overcome it is to vote these people out of office, but we have to wait more than a year to do that. Representative Waxman said that the next step would be to "disband the Justice Department," which Congress technically has the power to do. But because the Executive is the enforcement arm of our Federal Government, it couldn't be enforced. I believe the statement is rhetorical at any rate. The Justice Department is too important.

This is what happened when the Supreme Court ruled that we must honor our treaty with the Cherokee Nation, and respect their territorial rights. President Andrew Jackson, because the Executive is the enforcement arm of judicial decisions just said, in effect, 'We won't enforce it. So there! What are you going to do about it?' In fact, nothing was done. And that cleared the way for the infamous "Trail of Tears," where the Cherokee people were removed in order for Euro-American settlers to steal the Cherokee people's lands. It was behavior moved by greed, and encouraged by the Executive's attitude of being above-the-law.

Bush, in a similar way, protects his cronies and continues to have our young people dying in Iraq, due to selfish greed, and this attitude of being above-the-law. I have no doubt that they would be impeached were it not for the fact of Republican loyalty to the President, and the lack of a 2/3 majority by the Democrats.

We have lived through one of the worst administrations in American history. Thank God it will soon be over. May we all pray that we will do better next time. When voters vote, they have to want a government that cares about the people of this country, and not just about the wealthy. When voters vote, they have to want a government that cares about the traditions of our country. We cannot allow the Executive Branch of government to become dictators who are above-the-law.

What do you do?

What do you do when you suspect that the President of the United States and/or the Vice President, authorized a leak to the press of your identity as a CIA agent in Africa... knowing that such a leak could jeopardize your life and career, all in the name of striking back at your husband who had criticized the administration? First of all, you would hope that the Congress of the United States might take action. But what do you do when the Republicans can filibuster and stop impeachment hearings from taking place, despite the strong possibility of criminal conduct? Well, you might sue. And that is exactly what Valerie Plame has done. But today, the presiding judge ruled that it was outside of his jurisdiction to hear complaints against the President and Vice President regarding acts pursuant to their duties as such. Judge Bates said, nonetheless, that the allegations "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." This is something that Congress should attend to. But the President and Vice President seem to be impeachment-proof, due to the lack of a 2/3 majority by Democrats.

Taking the Presidential Eye off the Ball

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of a new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

"But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda 'has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability' by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able 'to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks,' by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

"These disclosures triggered a new round of criticism from Democrats and others who say that the administration took its eye off the ball by invading Iraq without first destroying Osama bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan."

The President and his neo-conservative policy-makers wanted to go into Iraq at the beginning of his administration. Going after al-Qaeda is a cover for that. It is a lie. And now we are paying a price. Al-Qaeda grows stronger, international opinion of the United States has plummeted, and we have stretched ourselves too thin to be able to take care of new threats.

This intelligence report was released as Democrats tried to pass a bill that would have begun drawing down the troops in Iraq. Republicans filibustered throughout the night on Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning. They thereby prevented the majority-backed legislation from coming to a vote. (47 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 4 Republicans--52 total-- voted to bring the legislation to a vote. 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster.)

Meantime, Osama bin Laden sits in Pakistan and plans, aided by the negative press we get throughout the Muslim world because of Iraq. We lost all the good will we garnered after 9/11. Lovely.

Children Needing Medical Help

Suppose you knew a child whose family didn't have--for whatever reason--did not have medical insurance. And suppose that child developed a condition that required attention that was urgent, but this child was neglected because of the lack of insurance. The condition might be life threatening, and it might not be. Wouldn't you want this child to get the attention it needs?

Most of our Congressmen believe that these children need medical care. Our President doesn't. Our President, on philosophical grounds, has said he'll veto a bipartisan bill that would properly fund the State Children Health Insurance Program. (See the Wikipedia article that explains this program.) I say it would properly fund it, but it is a compromise bill. Democrats believe that we need $50 billion over 5 years, and this compromise bill grants $35 billion. Bush will go no higher than $5 billion because he believes that it would hurt the insurance industry. (See the movie Sicko by Michael Moore, please.) Bush said, "My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."

Wouldn't it be terrible if we the people of the United States--who are the true government--helped children whose families can't afford insurance? (As if the insurance industry takes care of us anyway... but that's another point.)

The poster shown here, by the way, reflects the vision of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his progressive policies in the 1930s. What happened to our vision? What happened to our optimism? What happened to our heart? Note the motto on the poster: "The health of the child is the power of the nation."

Hummer Vandalized

This article is about a Hummer that was badly vandalized this week in Washington, D.C., apparently because some environmental activists thought that he shouldn't be driving it. One neighbor, who openly admits to not approving of the Hummer, called it a "hate crime," and thought it should be treated and punished as such. Ethically speaking, this is a case of revenge on behalf of the environment. But can we tolerate violent behavior that destroys the property of another in order to protect the environment? Shouldn't we try, however frustrating it may be at times, to work within the limits of the law to protect the environment?

Check out this interview with Cornel West, a leading African-American philosopher whom I had the pleasure to meet a couple of times when I was at Claremont. West discusses race and politics, the use of "the 'N' word," Bill Cosby, Obama, and the importance for African-American youth to develop "multilingualism," by which he means the ability to move in multiple circles of American society.

Facebook Letter

Building on this growing feeling that I have that Subud requires some changes, I have posted a letter in the Subud group section of Facebook. I reprint it here in full:

I have been in Subud for more than 25 years. I have been a helper for more than 18 years. I now live somewhat in isolation with my wife, Tara, in a low Sierra Mountain community called Paradise. I was recently the Outreach Chair for Subud U.S.A. And from this position in isolation in the mountains of California, I have had to reflect on the slow growth of Subud.

All you need to do is look at the beautiful young faces, regardless of age, on Facebook, to realize that Subud is a vibrant community. All you need to do is to go to our congresses, and to see the work that is being done in Susila Dharma, our charitable wing. It's fabulous! But in many places, we have not grown, and in many places, we are in danger of dying as an association once the elders of our association have passed away.

So, I humbly submit to you that I believe that two changes should be made in Subud in order to prevent this dying away, and I would like to encourage especially the young people of Subud to ask for this change, if you agree with me, and feel from your own guidance that it is necessary. It seems somewhat shocking for some people when you first hear it straightforwardly suggested--especially if you have been in Subud for long--but once you accept it as I have, it seems like the most natural evolution in the world.

First, I believe that the three-month applicant's period is not necessary. It creates the impression that this is a private club that someone must get through hurdles to join. While I realize that this policy can be defended through the rationalization that people need to be able to come to know that they really want to come to Subud, it can also be argued that people won't really know if they want to do the latihan with us until they've done the latihan with us. It has been said that once people are opened, they're opened, and there's no "closing them up again." But I have met many people through the years who are more "open" than many people in Subud, and it's usually the "open" ones who are drawn to Subud in the first place. There is always a danger of what we have called "crisis," but that possibility will exist whether a person joins us for latihan on the 1st day or the 90th day. It feels much more natural and unpretentious to me to be able to say to neighbors I meet, "We'd love to have you join us in the spiritual training that we're doing!" than to set up the idea that they must decide on a big commitment to something that seems insular and mysterious, and that they must trepidatiously decide to "join" before they've even experienced it.

Second, I believe that the segregation of men and women in the latihan must end. It seems to me increasingly of late, though I've accepted the practice for all these many years, that this is strictly the result of a cultural bias that we've inherited. I have no problem with people wanting to have a men's only latihan, or a women's only latihan, but I do not believe that it is attractive or natural in the type of community that I, or most of us in the West, live in. I realize again that the practice can be defended by saying that you must freely submit to the will of God, and that there should be no distractions to your latihan, and that when there are mixed sexes in latihan, there is bound to be a distraction. Especially young men and women might worry what the opposite gender might think of them rather than freely submitting the flow of the power of God that arises from within them. But the same could be said of our churches and synagogues and temples. The same has been said. But we have overcome that fear, and we continue to worship God in these other settings--men and women together. Are we really so immature that we can't worship together without becoming a mess because we're so drawn to the opposite sex? I don't think so.

There was a time--and in many places, this still occurs--when women could not wear pants to latihan. Many of us clearly recognize that this was a cultural bias. Bapak, of course, explained that women who wore pants would feel like men, and this was a bad thing. It would be better, he thought, if women wore dresses and skirts that appropriately (for his culture) covered their legs, so that they would feel, in a modest way, their femininity. I have great respect for Bapak, but I feel comfortable at this point in saying that this surely was a cultural bias. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that a woman shouldn't wear anything she's comfortable in while doing the latihan. And fortunately, or so it seems to me, many people in the West have come to feel the same way. I believe that this kind of transition is necessary with regard to applicancy and the segregation of the latihan as well.

This is what I have come to. I post it here for your consideration, and invite your feedback. I also would like to invite discussion of other possible changes that you believe should be made. Like, personally, I also am moving toward the feeling that we shouldn't have designated "helpers." Someone whose views are valued will be listened to with or without a title or status. And the segregation of groups into helpers and non-helpers does more harm than good, I believe.

your brother,
Olav

Sicko: A Very Important Film

Yesterday, Tara and I went to see the new Michael Moore film, "Sicko," with our new friend, Helena. I would say that it was an incredible film, which we all enjoyed very much, even as we were disturbed by it. We all know the health care system in the United States is a travesty. The question is what to do about it. Michael Moore paints a convincing case that the universal health care systems in Canada, Great Britain, France, and even Cuba are much better than our system. The question then becomes, "Why aren't we doing it, too?" And the answer comes in the form of a devastating attack on the way health insurance companies, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies have bought and paid for our politicians. This is the kind of movie that leads me to draw a line in the sand. After watching the personal stories of people who have suffered the injustices of the current system... injustices that would not have occurred in a country with universal health care... I have no more patience with anyone who is going to reject universal health care because of libertarian or conservative ideologies. We the people of the United States have to have solidarity with one another, and take care of one another. There is no excuse for us, as wealthy as this country is, to not take care of our sick. I, too, believe that keeping government as local as possible, is ideal. A large and powerful federal government is helpful for some things, but must be carefully guarded against. But the fact remains that it is good for some things. And one of them would be organizing universal health care. People who are sick cannot 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.' So, 'cowboy up,' and help care for your neighbors... and yourselves in the long run. Demand universal health care. And see this movie.

See Wickipedia for a detailed summary, and criticisms of the film.

Life-like Renaissance Relief

There's an article in the Post this morning about the 15th-century Florentine sculptor Desiderio da Settignano, due to a current exhibit at the National Gallery of Art. Check out the relief of Jesus and John as young boys. Wow! It suggests in this article that Desiderio was an influence on Leonardo da Vinci.

Towns in Midwest Giving Up on Bush and the War

There's an article in the Post this morning about Midwesterners changing their minds about Bush and the war in Iraq as time goes by, and they see the dead bodies of their boys coming home. That's the point, exactly. It is so easy to think "I'm a patriot!" and "Let's go kick some Arab ass!" when you don't fully appreciate the price that's being paid, and the lack of any good reason for doing so. But once boys who are close to you, however indirectly, start dying for that questionable cause, it makes you think. I was in the United States Infantry. Fortunately, it was peacetime. I was there in Germany practicing war games along the Czech border in case the Russians came across. I didn't have to think much about that. If we were attacked, and our allies, the Germans, were attacked, we'd fight to help protect them, and ultimately, us. But there were a couple of times when I was there when the tensions were high in the Middle East. First, we were there in the wake of the Marines being bombed in Beirut, Lebanon. There was always the chance that President Reagan and his administration would want to retaliate with an invasion. And then came the bombing of Libya in retaliation for the terrorist attack on Pan Am 103 that went down in Lockerbie, Scotland. It was at that time that I had my deepest concerns about being brought into a full scale war in the Middle East. The entire nebulous cause of defending Israeli interests, and the possibility of dying for them, began to bother me. It's one thing to serve your country for clear-cut interests, and another to give up your life for nebulous causes. Now that I have children who are in their teens, I feel even more strongly against questionable military actions. It's one thing to give my own life to a questionable cause. It's another to see my children's lives sacrificed for nebulous political causes.

The war in Iraq is awash in the lies of a president and an administration whose only real concerns are the protection of big business in the United States. He said that we had to attack Iraq because of their connections with Al Qaeda, and because of the development of WMD that were going to be given to terrorists. It was all lies, we now know, because even our intelligence community said this wasn't true to the president, even as he was saying it. Even now, the president wants to say we're fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. But this is clearly not true. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are dead, in jail, or holed up in Pakistan, protected by a supposed "ally" president who's collected millions of dollars from us to do nothing but protect his own regime. The resistance in Iraq is mostly homegrown, with loose connections--if any--to the organization that planned and carried out the terrorist attack on 9/11. The Sunni population that once saw their own running the country and oppressing the Kurds and Shiites, now face being on the end of oppression by the Shiite majority in Iraq. They are resisting the U.S. presence in Iraq, as are the Shiites for that matter, and they are engaged in a civil war. Would U.S. citizens resist an occupation army? You bet we would. Who can blame them? They want us out. I wouldn't want to go to Iraq and die under those circumstances. I don't want my children going to Iraq to die under those circumstances. I don't want your children going to Iraq to die under those circumstances. I don't know why we're there. I don't know why we're staying. Some would say it's because of the control of the oil fields. Some would say that it's because we want political stability in the Middle East, both to protect Israel, and to make the business climate more comfortable for international commerce. But whatever the case may be, I don't see a good reason for one more of our children dying in that far-off desert land. Bring them home! Bring them home! And enough with this lying president who hides behind executive privilege while he destroys our constitution, and breaks international law--all in the name of protecting his administration. That's the way thugs work. That's the way every totalitarian regime has worked. Bush thinks he's above the law. And we have to have an answer for that.

Conservatives and Liberals

I am probably not alone in wondering what these labels even mean anymore. What does it mean to be a conservative in an era when "conservative" president George W. Bush is radically spending us into bankruptcy and thumbing his nose at the law? What does it mean to be "conservative" in an era when "conservatives" are radically stacking the court in order to use judicial review to dictate to the country a point of view supported by fundamentalist churches? I could go on, but you get the point.

I have considered myself a liberal at times, and I have considered myself a conservative at times. I have considered myself 'middle of the road' at times. It's not because my beliefs are changing radically, but because I keep finding myself having to adjust to the political winds.

To begin with, almost all Americans are liberals, whether they hate the word or not. Liberalism is a term that is derivative from liberty, or freedom. So, freedom-loving individuals are liberals. And that is why I am steadfastly a liberal. Big time.

But because I am a freedom-loving liberal, I am a libertarian to some extent. I believe in the principle first annunciated most clearly by John Locke, and followed upon by John Stuart Mill's On Liberty: 'the principle of liberty' is that we should be free to do whatever we want (without constraint from the government) unless we are hurting someone else by our actions. I am a classical liberal in this regard, and not a true libertarian (which is rather too much like an anarchist for my tastes), because I believe the government does have a genuine role in protecting individual liberties.

But because I have this penchant for defending liberties, I find myself in league with "conservatives" quite often. Conservative? What is a conservative? In the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries, to be a liberal was to espouse the type of government that we were establishing in the United States of America. To be a conservative was to defend the monarchy against its loss of power. There are few such "conservatives" left in America. With regard to foreign policy, Edmund Burke established a conservative tradition that suggests that we should be cautious about imposing our view of the world on other cultures, because tradition is important. To Burke, the classical liberal tradition had been grown carefully within English and American tradition over a long period of time, and only that careful growth could sustain democratic institutions. George W. Bush would do well to read a little Burke, because he is most definitely not a conservative in that tradition. He is, rather, a radical imperialist, who seems bent on imposing American will upon the world by force, and on accumulating executive power against the traditional methods of checks and balances that has kept this country healthy and great for more than 200 years.

During the late 19th-century, and early 20th-century, one could argue that American conservativism was reactionary in the sense of wanting to not see progress for women, or laborers, or people of non-Caucasian ethnicity. It defended the existing hierarchies against all comers. Today's "conservatism" does have quite a lot in common with this conservatism, and I want nothing to do with it. It is indefensible to favor existing hierarchies "just because" it's the way things have been. Anyone who seeks justice should seek justice for all people, and that is a liberal and not a conservative principle, traditionally-speaking.

But there's another strand of "conservativism" that sprung up in the United States in the 20th-century. And that brand of "conservativism" has liberal roots. It came to be known as "conservative" because it defended the American tradition against sweeping economic changes that they believed would destroy the greatness of America. Its message was largely economic, and was formed in the face of communist and socialist challenges, many of whose policies were enacted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration in response to the Great Depression. It is that brand of increasingly government-controlled economics that came to be identified more and more as "Liberal," and it has become a position that is increasingly difficult to defend. I am not a liberal in that sense, and have much in common with "conservative" thought... to the extent that it is freedom-loving, and defends individual liberties... and thus, is classically liberal.

Confused? I hope not.

Have the terms just been switched? Are conservatives the true liberals?

In some cases, people who call themselves "conservative" today are indeed the defenders of liberalism. And this misled me for a time in my life to think of myself as "conservative." But the issue is a lot more complex than we'd usually like to think. The labels are so misleading.

I have friends who consider themselves "conservatives," who otherwise : ) are good people. Why do they consider themselves "conservative"? Well, first of all, because it's the label that most people who think like they do have embraced. It has become short-hand for a number of policies that are mostly culturally-conservative. They believe in the America of "mom and apple pie." There is a great tradition of church-going, God-fearing, freedom-loving America that is willing to defend its right-to-be with a strong military when necessary. These folks believe in hard work, and resent it when they are asked to pay tax dollars to support a system that builds up what they see as "needless bureaucracies," and to give hand-outs to those they see as people who are unwilling to work. And they've seen too many examples of people taking advantage of a large bureaucratic welfare state to see it as capable of distinguishing the truly needy amongst us. I'm sure that was the appeal of Bush's call to a "compassionate conservativism," and "faith-based initiatives." It sounds good to those of us who distrust large bureaucracies.

Morally, these conservatives cannot stomach abortion-on-demand. The religious conservative is very conservative sexually, believe that sex is ideally for marriage alone, and therefore have no patience with seeing abortion as a remedy to what they see as sexual misconduct.

Again, cultural conservativism reacts against gay rights, which religious conservatives also believe is a result of sexual misconduct.

Being religiously and sexually liberal, I am out of step with this aspect of cultural conservatism, but I understand it.

The religious conservative is, at bottom, much more interested in having a 'theocracy' than a 'liberal democratic republic', though even many of them don't realize this, yet. The issue here is actually fundamentalism.

A typical liberal reaction to the current debate about the role of religion in politics is to say that religion has no place in politics. But that is ridiculous. Neither the establishment clause nor the exercise clause of the 1st Amendment say that one should leave one's religion out of voting decisions. One must use one's moral considerations as a basis for public policy. And if one's religious views inform one's moral considerations, then one can hardly leave their religion behind. But what is the nature of one's religion? If you're a Christian fundamentalist, then much, but not all, of your ethics is decided by the Bible. The only problem there is when there are conflicts in scripture or conflicts in the interpretation of scripture. But much of it is pretty straight forward about ethics.

Now if you're a fundamentalist on these matters, you want the Government to be in line with the Bible, which you see as the Word of God. That pretty much ends a lot of debate. Because if you have the infallible Word of God in front of you, then you want your country run by God, and not some mortal human. So, in other words, you want a theocracy, and not a liberal democratic republic. Because our country was formed partly on the believe that we require reasoned debate and compromise on these issues, and that there is no privileged point of view from which to make political decisions. So, if you're a liberal Christian, like I am, who believes much more in the Spirit of the law than the Letter of it, then you can easily be both a Christian and a supporter of the liberal, democratic republic that the 'founders' established. Because liberal Christians, like myself, believe that we have to think for ourselves. We believe that the Bible was written by men like us, and that we humans are fallible. We believe that we have to interpret what we read. And we believe that our interpretations must be guided by the Spirit of love and compassion, and not intolerant claims to "know" the truth. ("Pastor John said that you shouldn't wear make-up, because that's what God says, and so it's the Truth!") I personally suspect that God's a little more flexible than many religious conservatives think.

Toward the end of the 20th-century, the neo-conservative movement was born. The neo-cons are a different breed, and much of what we are shocked by in the Bush Administration comes from an alliance of the neo-cons and the religious conservatives. The neo-conservative movement was born on the backs of the conservative economic agenda that I have already talked about. But what sets the neo-conservative agenda apart is that it is largely based around an aggressive foreign policy that sees Israel as the center of the storm. Israel must be defended at all costs, and anything the United States can do to defend Israel, including adventurism in the Middle East. That is what we are seeing now. We are seeing people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld leading us into a disastrous foreign policy that is imperialist and adventurist, and ultimately at an economic cost that is anything but "conservative." The alliance with religious conservatives is formed in part because the neo-cons are taking advantage of the fact that Biblically-minded people are eager to defend Israel. Because Israel is, in the Bible, God's "chosen people," the fundamentalist Christian identifies with Israel, and wants to see Israel be victorious against its enemies. The neo-cons couldn't really care less about issues like gay marriage and the abolition of abortion, but they use them to advantage in order to come to positions of power in Washington, D.C. And the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, was all the neo-cons needed to seal the deal. I don't know if it was planned by them, or allowed to happen by them, or if it was as much a shock as it was to the rest of us, but the fact is that it was extremely convenient for the neo-conservative agenda to build upon... to the disgust of many of us.

It's enough to make anyone's head spin trying to keep up with all of this, I know.

To personalize this in conclusion, I, like some of my friends, believe in that world of "mom and apple pie," and I'm ready "to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I'm concerned about some of the changes that I've seen in this country, and want to preserve some of the older values that we've cherished. I believe in change coming slowly, and being cautious about rapid change. I believe that there can be such a thing as too-much-government, and that the government is the most likely tyrant of all. I don't believe the government should try to control the economy. All of this puts me in league with many conservatives.

And like many conservatives, I'm very concerned about the lack of an enforced immigration law in this country. But I believe that we don't have one because our political system is driven by the money of big business interests. And that's one of the biggest things that sets me against the current conservative movement. It's a complex issue, but conservatives are willing to allow labor to stand unprotected against the vast power of big business. It allows big business to be treated as a person with the protections that liberalism entitles a person to. And in so doing, the middle class is currently being eradicated from the American political scene. And I see nothing "conservative" about that.

Big business wants massive immigration in order to lower the cost of labor in the United States. And I believe that mainstream conservatives, while bothered by this, don't fully understand what is happening, and support Republicans anyway. Or, on balance, as long as cheap goods can be bought from Walmart, and Republicans are the party against abortion-on-demand, there is, on balance, not an overwhelming concern about the issue of cheap labor in America.

Big business wants a war in Iraq, because it requires cheap energy to keep its engines turning. It benefits from a well-ordered capitalist Middle East. And it also benefits from the thriving war industry. So, big business gets its war. And thrown horrible lies by the Bush administration about how going into Iraq is about a "war on terrorism," otherwise good, conservative, hard-working, and moral Americans are willing to spend their blood and treasure to kill a lot of innocent people and expand the American Empire.

Liberalism is about freedom. Sometimes that requires that we tolerate behavior that we wouldn't personally condone. We allow rappers, for instance, to use filthy language in public media to express themselves about horrible deeds that they either have, or want to, perpetrate against other human beings. We allow horribly misleading advertising on television and on radio, and depend on the good judgment of Americans to counter its harmful effects. I am willing to accept the tolerance that liberalism entails. Because, not to do so, would be to set some fallible being in a position of a judging what can and cannot be said, and in the long run, our society thrives because of the free expression of the thoughts of our fellow citizens.

Good government is hard to come by. And the government that governs least is often the best government. The nature of the beast is such that it accumulates autocratic power that, in the end, fails to distinguish the little nuances of the daily lives of its citizens. The bigger it is, the more it is often out of touch with the true needs of its people. So, we must guard against government. But that doesn't mean that government is entirely bad. Government is a necessary... I don't want to say evil... it is a necessary corrective in human society. Human beings require systems to organize themselves in, and--like it or not--that involves compromise with other human beings in our communities. We are not, in the end, solitary individuals or islands unto ourselves. We are important in ourselves, but we find our importance in communal interaction with other human beings. And this interaction needs to be coordinated to some degree.

That's why I'm a big fan of E.F. Schumacher's principle of economies of scale. There are some things that big government can do well. But they are few in number. Middle-sized governments are necessary for some purposes. But the most important government is local, which is where the rubber meets the road. It is a matter of vision. For most tasks, it is local officers who can see what is going on in their communities. But for other matters, state officials can see the bigger picture best. For other matters, national officials can see and coordinate what is best for the whole.

We need the government to perform certain functions. Even Milton Friedman acknowledged that. And I would often agree with critics who believe that certain government entities ought to be abolished due to inefficiency. But wholesale privatization is not the answer either. Because big business is another threat to civil liberties. True individuals, or persons, can't compete with that artifice of law, the persons of big business. People need protection from being dominated, and having their lives ruined by, the mechanisms of the market. The key is to use government to prevent the accumulation of power in too few hands, including any agency of government. One of the government's primary roles is to protect civil liberties from encroachment by business. And the roles of the legislative, judiciary, and executive is to protect us from abuse by its sister branches of government.

I am a classical liberal who believes in freedom, and who believes in limited government by the people and for the people. I am a classical liberal who believes in tolerance of what we do not understand or appreciate, so long as people are not hurting other people in the process.

But that's the rub: when is one individual hurting another? That should be the chief matter of public debate. It is not always easy to discern. But in some cases, it is, and that is where we must begin.

So, in conclusion, I am a liberal supporter of the protection of individual human rights, and of the strident, progressive use of government power to create an equitable playing field in an otherwise free market. And I am a conservative defender of any attempt to alter this fundamentally free system of government that the founders established. Is there any wonder, then, that these labels create confusion?

an unusual gunman

In this morning's Washington Post, there was an article about an unusual gunman that, if it were fiction, no one would believe. Check it out. The consensus seems to be that something miraculous happened. What makes someone turn to violence? Can we reach the human being inside the animal that is perpetrating a violent crime? At what point is the mode of violence so out-of-control within a person that they can't be reached anymore? This article raises some interesting questions. What happened? Could it just be "love"?

latihan kejiwaan

There is a history of reluctance to write much about our experiences of the latihan kejiwaan (or spiritual training). Part of that is because our teacher, Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwijojo, told us to avoid what he called "propaganda," because people hear so much anymore, they don't know what to believe. But it is also so very difficult to articulate in the first place.

This morning, I was in the shower, and at a certain point, found myself in a state of consciousness where I could feel a chant arising spontaneously from the depths of my being. I started singing "ana manaya say a o o, ana manaya say a o o," over and over again. Some of it was with the same melody of middle CCCCCCBbCD, but sometimes I felt to sing it with variations such as CCCCCEDCBb. It was very light and uplifting. I have absolutely no idea what it means, and while I am slightly curious, it mostly doesn't matter to me. My understanding of the way this spiritual training works is that we receive the gift that we need in the moment. It requires sincerity. It requires patience. It requires letting go, and letting life be--and I mean this in a deeper sense than the colloquial understanding of the expression 'let it be'.

I am going to try to be attentive to my spiritual training, and talk about it when and as I can.

This chant that I received is for me at that moment. I wouldn't forcefully and intentionally repeat it at a later time. If it would be right for me to chant this, and I believe I have before, it will come to me again. For God, or the Spirit of the Universe, is great, and knows what we need when we need it. This spiritual training is but the result of surrendering to that Spirit, and allowing it to guide us.

These are only so many words. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao." It's the experience that is real. The rest is a process of communicating in abstractions.

The Middle Way: Sarkozy v Bush

This morning, E.J. Dionne (of the Brookings Institute) published a column in the Washington Post suggesting that George Bush could learn a thing or two from the new conservative French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, about a politics that unites rather than divides. George Bush said that he would bring a bi-partisan approach to Washington, but the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld leadership in the administration clearly took him away from that approach early on. Sarkozy is taking a major step toward bringing different factions in France into unity by recommending the appointment of French Socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn for selection as head of the International Monetary Fund. It may be suggested that this is a political maneuver on the part of Sarkozy. Dionne says, yes, of course it is. But this politically-motivated gesture of Sarkozy's is "inspirational" Dionne writes.

Bush said, while running for President in 1999: "I've learned you cannot lead by dividing people. This country is hungry for a new style of campaign. Positive. Hopeful. Inclusive. A campaign that attracts new faces and new voices. A campaign that unites all Americans toward a better tomorrow." This was the type of rhetoric that made me cautiously optimistic that he might be the type of candidate that I was looking for at the time. I, long ago, admitted that I was terribly wrong about Bush. As Dionne puts it, "Forget impeachment. Given how Bush has governed for most of his presidency, can one of those trial lawyers he loathes sue him for product misrepresentation?"

Sarkozy, on the other hand, asks, "Should I deprive France of his candidacy because he is a Socialist? How could I be the president of all the French if I reasoned like that?"

Indeed. How could any leader be the president of all of any people if they govern in a divisive manner after an election? The answer is that they cannot. One of the requisites of good government is to be a uniter of a people, and not a divider.

As a philosopher, I have found that Aristotle, Confucius, and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) were all right in emphasizing philosophies of the Middle Way. The injudicious mind wavers off to an imbalance of left or right, while the judicious mind recognizes the fundamental principle of the universe represented by the symbol of the taijitu (yin and yang). The truth of the unity of Being is that there is no ultimate division that can be described on the metaphor of black and white.

There is a middle path in America that people naturally gravitate to over time. American politicians are ignoring the middle, and appealing to radical bases. Any politics of the extreme will feel horrible and full of conflict over the long run. I, for one, long for a politics of the middle again.