Aurora

Learning from the Evolution of Fish

2010-07-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

This story is interesting in and of itself. It talks about how humans come from fish, and that by studying fish, geneticists hope to have breakthroughs in understanding human evolution and development.

Science and religion seem to be at odds with one another for those who take their religious texts literally, and are taught that in order to be a good "Christian," or good "Muslim," or good "Jew," you have to take the text at face-value and not look for the deeper meanings involved.

Science and religion do not have to be at odds with one another, however. Mythology (as the study of myth) has a lot to teach us about how to reconcile the two. In the Greek stories (myths) about the divine (coming from the work 'div', to shine), we are told by Hesiod of life coming from the sea. Perhaps partly a nod to this tradition, or influenced by it, the father of Greek philosophy, Thales, said that everything is ultimately made of water. The biological sciences, since Darwin, have continued to impress upon us this ancient connection to the water.

But the ancient Babylonians worshiped a God of the deep waters of the earth, and the God of the salt seas, and talked of their union to form life on earth. It seems that the intuitions of the ancients resulted in stories that, while they can't be taken literally in a scientific sense, were often deeply insightful about the nature of reality. Much of the Bible needs to be read that way: as insightful intuitions revealed through stories.

What is the source of this insight? What is the source of intuition? Given that we can know so little (some would say nothing) about the world on the basis of sense impressions alone, how is it that we come to have knowledge about the world around us in the first place? Through what insight do gain any hint at the inner workings of nature?

Looking at this story through that lens may give new meaning to the meaning behind the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG THROUGH PURCHASES OF YOUR BOOKS, CD'S, AND DVD'S AT AURORA BOOKS, AN AFFILIATE OF AMAZON.COM. (CLICK ON THE WORD 'AURORA' IN THIS PARAGRAPH, OR CLICK ON THE BOOK COVERS ABOVE).

Not How Capitalism is Supposed to Work

2010-06-30T19:10:00.000-07:00

Article: Matt Miller - We must ratchet back bankers' pay

Congress is debating how to fix the financial system. They are doing so while, indirectly, getting paid large sums of money and being threatened by the very people they would be regulating. In the meantime, millions are without jobs, and the financial system is wrecked.

Matt Miller, author of The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, explains the situation quite well in an article today entitled "We must ratchet back bankers' pay." Some conservatives on the right end of the spectrum who do not understand economics very well will say that this is "communism," or some such nonsense. Miller understands that the way things are going now cannot possibly work. He writes: "The way pay is rigged at publicly owned Wall Street firms creates incentives for casino-style gambling, because bankers reap all the upside and stick shareholders or taxpayers with the losses. When their big bets go bad, in other words, top bankers walk away rich anyway. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work."

This is an important point. It is "not how capitalism is supposed to work." Capitalism works when people win through hard work and good ideas being put into practice, and when people lose through laziness and bad ideas. Gambling away other people's money and getting rewarded for it wasn't part of the picture Adam Smith had in mind.

We should consider the fact that "It wasn't always like this." Miller goes on to explain: "There was a time when CEOs and boards of directors operated with at least some understanding of proportion and restraint. In the book I cite George Romney (father of Mitt) as perhaps the most interesting example of this lost species. Romney voluntarily turned down $268,000 over five years, about 20 percent of his earnings, when he was CEO of American Motors. 'In 1960, for example' the New York Times noted, 'he refused a $100,000 bonus. Mr. Romney had previously told the company's board that no executive needed to make more than $225,000 (about $1.4 million in today's dollars), a spokesman for American Motors explained at the time, and the bonus would have put him above that threshold.'"

It is obvious that while George Romney was a good capitalist, he was also a man who espoused religious and/or moral values that urged him to look beyond financial reward in life.

I have long had an interest in the Japanese Samurai tradition. When I look at their sense of honor, I find myself comparing it to the lost sense of honor in our own tradition. Recently, I read that a congressman from Louisiana, Rep. Cao, a Vietnamese-American, told a BP executive that if he'd been a Japanese Samurai, they'd have handed him a knife to commit harikiri due to the shame that he had brought upon himself. It sounds ridiculous, in one sense. But it speaks to a sense of honor, and a sense of justice, that our leaders in society seem to have lost. When religions encourage making money at any cost, and forget to remind us that money is not everything, then people who don't know any better begin to think that they can be comfortable Christians while being directed primarily by greed and behaving without concern for justice, fairness, or the welfare of other people. All of the major religions teach that while money has its place, it must not be our guide in life.

When Jesus tells the rich man that in order to reach the Kingdom of Heaven he has to give away what he owns and follow him, I suspect that he did not mean for everyone to do something that drastic. It might have been spot on for that one man in that case. But I do believe that Jesus would have pointed to George Romney's decision to recognize the need to limit one's greed and to focus on justice in society, as a step on the path to the Kingdom of Heaven.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG BY PURCHASING YOUR BOOKS, CD'S, AND DVD'S AT AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE LINKS ABOVE, OR ON THE COVERS TO PURCHASE THE ITEMS SHOWN.

BBC News - UK health system is top on 'efficiency', says report

2010-06-22T23:38:00.000-07:00

Article: BBC News - UK health system is top on 'efficiency', says report

"The US came last in the overall rankings, which also included data from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand."

This is what those of us who support real health reform see. We have the power to create the kind of America we want to live in. Scare tactics are used to distort what is possible. The myth about the inefficiency of socialized medicine is exposed in this report, amongst others. It says "The UK has relatively short waiting times for basic medical care and non-emergency access to services after hours, but has longer waiting times for specialist care and elective, non-emergency surgery." And that's the way it should be. Their focus is on care that is needed, and care this is elective can wait.

There is a moral issue at stake when we debate whether health care's costs and provision should be driven by free market economics. Should private companies be allowed to drive up prices to improve their profits? Should they be able to decide who gets health care and who doesn't? Should they be able to decide that someone cannot get health care because they have a preexisting condition? The decision to have a for-profit health care system is a decision to help a few people make vast sums of money at the expense of the sick.

Recommended books:The Healing of America, Sick, Landmark, Critical Condition, About Canada: Health Care

Recommended video: Sicko

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THIS BLOG WITH YOUR BOOK, CD, AND DVD PURCHASES FROM AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE IMAGES OR LINKS ABOVE TO PURCHASE THE RECOMMENDED ITEMS OR GO TO AURORA BOOKS AND SEARCH FOR THE BOOK, CD, OR DVD OF YOUR CHOICE.

Charlie Rose - Tony Blair, Former British Prime Minister

2010-06-22T15:11:00.000-07:00

Video: Charlie Rose - Tony Blair, Former British Prime Minister

If you're interested in what is happening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then this is something you should see.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the central problems on planet Earth. We will never know if there would have been terrorist issues for other reasons if there had been no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we do know that the one we have now is directly related to it.

There are some people in this world who are hell-bent for war and conflict, and are just looking for reasons to use an excuse for it. That appears to be as true of the United States as it is for Israel, Hamas, Iran, or Palestine. There is probably no country on the face of our planet who doesn't have some faction that would rather be in war than out of it.

That being said, the former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to genuinely believe that the possibility of genuine peace between Israel and the Arab world is real. And that is something we should all--unless we're arms dealers--hope for.

There is never peace in parts of the world where there is a struggle to sustain oneself. The Palestinians have to have hope that they can make a living side by side with the Israelis. Mr. Blair says that they are real close to an agreement for the Israelis to loosen the blockade that now exists in Gaza. But for a permanent solution to occur, the Israelis have to have hope that the Palestinians can govern themselves like a responsible neighbor who can restrain its militant factions. To be able to do that, the Palestinians have to be able to trust that the Israelis will restrain their militant elements as well. When asked about the U.S. role, Mr. Blair very nicely explained that the U.S. can't just put out a plan and say "Here it is. Follow it whether you like it our not." The diplomacy of the situation requires putting forth a vision, offering hope, and helping the sides to take little steps toward realizing that vision and hope.

Recommended Books:

1. By Tony Blair

2. On Israel and the Israeli-Arab Conflict

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THIS BLOG WITH YOUR BOOK, CD, AND DVD PURCHASES FROM AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE IMAGES OR LINKS ABOVE TO PURCHASE THE RECOMMENDED ITEMS OR GO TO AURORA BOOKS AND SEARCH FOR THE BOOK, CD, OR DVD OF YOUR CHOICE.

Calls to Revolution and to Peace

2010-06-18T15:26:00.000-07:00

Article: Nev. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle talks of armed revolt | ScrippsNews

It is becoming popular among Tea Party candidates to foment revolution. As indicated in this article, Senator Reid's opponent in Nevada, Sharron Angle, says that she hopes she wins at the ballot box, because if she doesn't, people might use their Second Amendment rights to take up arms against the government.

In a relatively short period of time (that happens to coincide the rise in prominence of conservative talk radio), we have gone from a few extreme militants like Timothy McVeigh who perpetrated the worst act of domestic violence before 9/11 when he blew up the federal center in Oklahoma, to having candidates for public office rallying their supporters to consider armed insurrection if they can't muster the votes to win an election.

I read recently that many Democratic lawmakers will not hold summer town meetings because they fear for their safety after last summer's Tea Party attacks.

Surely Christians and other spiritually minded people in this country do not support these notions, right? When Jesus was alive, there were many like Barrabas who fomented revolution against an unelected Roman government. Angry with the Roman occupation, Barrabas was apparently part of an armed uprising. These people expected the coming of a Messiah who would lead their armed rebellion to establish a new kingdom on earth. Jesus was a disappointment to such people. He said that their weapon should be love. Jesus taught that it was the peacemakers who are blessed. He said you should love your enemies, and implied that we should not take immediate offense when it seems someone is doing something wrong against us, but to "turn the other cheek." (There's an excellent scene in Franco Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth film that portrays a discussion between Barabbas and Jesus on this difference between their views.) And that was in the context of an unelected occupation force. So, hopefully, it is not Christians who support this talk of revolution against a democratically elected government just because they are in the minority and can't persuade a majority of their views.

In the 1960's, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam felt the same kind of frustration with the peaceful protests of Martin Luther King, Jr. They wanted action and they wanted it now. They wanted it by force. They wanted blood to be shed for the pain they felt. Malcolm X experienced a spiritual conversion before his death as he realized that Islam was meant to be a way of peace and should not be a vehicle for violence and hatred. King is today honored because of the Christian path he blazed (following his understanding of Jesus, Tolstoy, and Gandhi) toward peaceful resolution of injustice. Like Jesus, both Malcolm X and Dr. King were murdered by men whose hearts were filled with anger and hatred that distorted their sense of justice.

We need to consider what it means to have a good and clean heart as a human being. Is the heart of the spiritual warrior one that is filled with love and hopes for peace like Jesus and Dr. King? Or is it the heart of those who lead angry mobs toward violence?

Recommended books: The Terrorist Next Door by Daniel Levitas; Toxic Talk by Bill Press; Jesus by Deepak Chopra; A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa; Malcolm X: The Last Speeches

Recommended movies: Jesus of Nazareth; Gandhi

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THIS BLOG WITH YOUR BOOK, CD, AND DVD PURCHASES FROM AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE IMAGES OR LINKS ABOVE TO PURCHASE THE RECOMMENDED ITEMS OR GO TO AURORA BOOKS AND SEARCH FOR THE BOOK, CD, OR DVD OF YOUR CHOICE.

Missed Opportunity

2010-06-17T17:28:00.000-07:00

Article: Robert Reich (Obama's Address to the Nation: A Missed Opportunity to Tell It Like It Is)

The disappointment with President Barack Obama is growing daily, and his last speech did nothing to allay our concerns. In this article, Robert Reich says:

Whether it’s Wall Street or health insurers or oil companies, we are approaching a turning point as a nation. The top executives of powerful corporations are pursuing profits in ways that menace the nation. We have not seen the likes since the late nineteenth century when the “robber barons” of finance, oil, railroads and steel ran roughshod over America. Now, as then, they are using their wealth and influence to buy off legislators and intimidate the regions that depend on them for jobs. Now, as then, they are threatening the safety and security of our people.

During the "robber baron" period, the wealthy controlled the politics of this country, and politicians dared not step out of line with what they wanted. They were foiled only when Theodore Roosevelt, who was given the most insignificant job in the country (in their opinion)--Vice President--to keep him out of the way, when he ascended to the presidency upon McKinley's assassination. That was the beginning of the Progressive Movement in America, putting the Sherman Antitrust Act into real action. The Progressive Movement was based upon the premise that the federal government had a significant role in making sure that the scales of power, between the wealthy and the masses, and between industrial leaders and labor, was balanced. Democracy cannot function if the scales are tipped in favor of the most wealthy amongst us. Democracy then descends into oligarchy.

Obama is a brilliant man. His talents were on full display during the campaign. He now looks like he is working with his hands tied... very much like the presidents of the robber baron period.

Suggested books: The Promise by Jonathan Alter; Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future by Robert Reich; Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG BY PURCHASING YOUR BOOKS, CD'S, AND DVD'S AT AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE LINKS ABOVE, OR ON THE COVERS TO PURCHASE THE ITEMS SHOWN.

"Death is a dialogue between the spirit and the dust."

2010-06-17T10:57:00.000-07:00

Article: If You Live Green, Why Not Die Green? : Discovery News

If you're like me, you occasionally wonder about where you're going after death. In my case, the open question that I ponder is more about where the body is going than the spirit. There is something magnificent about the Hindu tradition of the funeral pyre. When I watched the film "First Knight," where Sean Connery plays King Arthur, I remember seeing him float away, and having flaming arrows ignite the little raft he was on. As it bursts into flame, I can't help but think "Now that's the way to go!" Especially when I consider the racket that cemeteries have become, and population explosion, and the pressures for land space that entails, I wonder about alternative methods. It turns out that cremation has its drawbacks, too. This article points to some alternatives that are coming into play for consideration.

I especially liked the reference to Emily Dickinson's poem:

Death is a Dialogue between The Spirit and the Dust.

"Dissolve" says Death -- 
The Spirit "Sir I have another Trust" --  
Death doubts it -- 
Argues from the Ground -- 
The Spirit turns away 
Just laying off for evidence 
An Overcoat of Clay.

Recommended books: The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson; The Life of Emily Dickinson by Richard B. Sewall; Grave Expectations by Sue Bailey and Carmen Flowers

Recommended film: First Knight

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG BY PURCHASING YOUR BOOKS, CD'S, AND DVD'S AT AURORA BOOKS. CLICK ON THE LINKS ABOVE, OR ON THE COVERS TO PURCHASE THE ITEMS SHOWN.

The Radical Right and the Conservative Soul

2010-06-17T00:52:00.000-07:00

Articles: Trying To Understand The Tea Party I - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan; http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/understanding-the-tea-party-ii.html; http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/trying-to-understand-the-tea-party-ctd.html

One of Andrew Sullivan's recent threads in The Daily Dish is an attempt to figure out the Tea Party phenomenon. He begins with a New York Times article by philosopher J.M. Bernstein of the New School for Social Research in New York City. Bernstein has argued that Tea Partiers realize deep down that they are dependent on big government, but feel that it has let them down. Recent events have shattered the mutually shared illusion of independence. Their radical reaction to this letdown is compared to a love gone bad. Like a rejected lover, the Tea Partiers are out to prove that they can live without the one upon whom they have become so dependent. It makes a virtue out of what they take to be a broken marriage.

While Bernstein's theory has some appeal for Sullivan, he has found an old essay by Richard Hofstadter to be even more helpful. For Sullivan, and for me as well, the Hofstadter piece (which relies heavily on a book by Theodore Adorno entitled The Authoritarian Personality) is mind-boggling in its parallel to today's situation. The essay is found in a book called The Radical Right, which was originally published in 1955, but was re-released with a new introduction by Daniel Bell in 2002. Adorno's study reflected on the radical right of the early McCarthy years. It is paranoid, gullible, inconsistent, and ready to take radical steps to assuage its perpetual fears.

Sullivan reflects on how the Tea Partiers act as if the original Tea Party, and the founders in general, were against all taxation. The truth of the matter is that they were fighting against taxation without representation, but that fact is usually ignored by their propaganda.

Bernstein's main point is based on an appeal to Hegel. The section on Hegel in Bernstein's article, is well worth reading in its entirety. Hegel, he says, used love as an example of how human beings are granted freedom, and independence, out of an original context of intersubjective (and presumably interdependent) relations. Bernstein says that Hegel taught in The Philosophy of Right that we only become free and independent beings through harmonious love or friendship with others. The freedom is granted due to the value one recognizes and acknowledges in the other. The political right's hostility, says Bernstein, is a result of the sense that this harmonious social accord has been broken.

The Tea Party is also an enigma for me in many ways. Is it possible to be against taxes and for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Few Tea Partiers will openly acknowledge being against these things. Are they libertarians who denounce all government intervention, even when it comes to the building and maintenance of roads, and the maintenance of an education system? Are they for a powerful military, but against the means of creating one? Are they for the common people, but in fact acting as the main defense of the rich? Are the middle class and poor really helped by a weakened government that may be its only recourse against corporate power and the power of the fabulously rich? So many questions arise with this movement. It often appears that these things have not been thought through well. Sullivan's articles are a good start toward trying to understand the movement.

I'm all for a limited government that runs efficiently. Administrations tend to be self-serving, and grow bloated. But the evidence available to us does not seem to suggest that a completely free market, free from any regulation by a government elected by the people without undue influence by the wealthy corporations it is charged with regulating, will result in a society that is good for anyone but the corporations with the most power. The big banks did not take it upon themselves to limit risk so that we would not be hurt by their gambling. BP did not place limits upon itself to prevent the catastrophe in the Gulf, and it used undue influence in government to get around regulations that were in place.

From a spiritual point of view, the power of love is indeed central to understanding our relationships in a positive and harmonious manner. It is central to understanding our freedoms and responsibilities. Confucius was amongst those who taught of the importance of spiritual maturity--learning to grow beyond the narrowly focused ego in order to identify and harmonize with family, community, nation, and world. Sometimes our political language becomes imbalanced, overemphasizing either freedom or responsibilities. Spiritual teachers have usually tried to create a balance in most aspects of our lives, and that includes a balance of harmony and freedom. Confucius taught that the core virtue of a good society is Ren, an ability to live harmoniously and respectfully with others.

Recommended books: The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel; The Authoritarian Personality by Theodore Adorno; The Conservative Soul by Andrew Sullivan; The Radical Right, ed. Daniel Bell; The New American Tea Party by John M. O'Hara; The Boston Tea Party by Benjamin Woods Labaree; Analects of Confucius

To purchase any of these titles, click on the links above. And please support this blog by making your book, cd, and dvd purchases through Aurora Books (an affiliate of Amazon Books).

BBC News - US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'

2010-06-15T19:58:00.000-07:00

Article: BBC News - US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'

It's always exciting to read things like this, even if we know the media is playing up the 'God particles' name to grab our attention. Ok, it worked. Steven Hawking once said that if he could find the fundamental formula that explains the big bang, it would be called 'God'. The experiments that they're talking about here don't go back quite that far, but it is about the question of why things have mass.

The book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (click on cover to purchase) begins with speculation about the problems encountered in September 2008 at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. It's the world's largest particle accelerator at 17 miles in circumference, more than 500 feet beneath the Franco-Swiss border. A hadron is a particle composed of quarks, and this accelerator was built to allow us to see what is happening at the very smallest levels of material reality.

It's not known for sure if the Higgs Boson exists. The article refers to the Standard Model, and the Standard Model requires this Higgs Boson to be there. If it exists, it is the reason for the types of energy we experience as having mass.

It got its nickname from Leon Lederman's book The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? (click on cover to purchase)

Descartes, in the seventeenth-century, speculated that there are substances with extension that differ fundamentally from the substances that we call mind. These contemporary experiments and theories are an attempt to explain why Descartes' extended things are extended, rather than simply being a form of unextended energy. When I read of such things, I always wonder if it might be that mind is energy of a different type? Is there something to idealist theories that matter is a construction of some type by this mind-energy? If science was successful in identifying the Higgs boson, would that mean we've confirmed materialism, or have we simply taken another step into a kind of idealism? Is it all an accident or is there an intelligence that guides even these most basic operations?

Recommended Books: The God Particle by Leon Lederman; The DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, and The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown (click on titles to purchase)

Eliot Spitzer on the Lost Spirit of Shared Sacrifice

2010-06-04T16:09:00.000-07:00

Recommended:Read the Gettysburg Address by Eliot Spitzer

The former Governor of New York suggests that Lincoln wanted us to carry on the legacy of the brave soldiers who died at Gettysburg by forging a better nation in their name. He is concerned about our lack of a spirit of "sharing," however. His examples of "sharing" are directly tied to the wealthiest amongst us, and the greed they exhibit. A slightly higher tax rate and smaller bonuses for the wealthiest amongst us would not hurt them, and could save our nation from economic ruin. My concern is that they are going to have to feel that their own financial fortunes are at stake before they will be concerned about improving the lot of ordinary Americans.

Related books: SPOILING FOR A FIGHT--THE RISE OF ELIOT SPITZER
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS ILLUSTRATED
ABRAHAM LINCOLN

George Will: Putting Reason Ahead of Partisanship

2008-06-17T21:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder what got into my head when I was a very young man and came under the influence of the pen of George F. Will. And then there are days like today when I read his column, and know exactly why I came under his influence. Today's column is entitled "Contempt of Courts," and Will demonstrates yet again why he is such an important political writer. He is a rare breed of conservative today: he actually puts reasoning ahead of partisanship.

John McCain has called the decision by the Supreme Court to prevent the executive branch of our government from unilaterally holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without so much as filing charges against them (let alone making the case) "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Will lists a whole series of cases, including the Dred Scott decision that supported slavery and took away all rights from African Americans, and wonders if McCain really things it is in the same league with those. He suggests that McCain's comments were not so much about the case as they were a political tactic bent on making the Supreme Court balance an issue in the campaign. Will writes:

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Will is far more gracious to the far right's response to this decision than I would be. He says that it is something reasonable people can disagree about. He admits that there is merit to Chief Justice Roberts' concerns that the decision creates more ambiguity than clarity. For example, does this decision mean that while the Bush Administration can't run concentration camps at Guantanamo, it can run secret prisons around the world in areas completely outside of U.S. jurisdiction? Does this decision mean that other Constitutional rights also apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo?

I wish that I believed that these clever arguments were the main reasons Roberts disagreed with the decision. I wish I did not believe that he is another vicious right winger whose main concern in life is for security, survival, and victory rather than for justice. But I admire Will's attempt to show the virtues of the right wing Justices' reasoning. I admire more his ability to get to the heart of the matter when he writes:

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims? As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

If only Marshall were back at the head of the Supreme Court, I might have more confidence that justice will prevail in our country.

Doing What is Right on Guantanamo

2008-06-13T06:26:00.000-07:00

The United States of America lived up to its promise as a nation that promotes human rights and justice under democratic rule yesterday.

The Supreme Court got it right when they ruled that foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have a right to something at least resembling habeas corpus. The White House under George Bush has repeatedly thumbed its nose at any semblance of justice as it follows its own brand of Machiavellian principles. While it has allowed a military tribunal to oversee the system, Justice Anthony Kennedy (above), writing the majority opinion, said that the military's "review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus." Justice Kennedy writes.

Many of the critics to the ruling will argue that alien "enemies" do not have any Constitutional protection. This ruling disagrees. But it does so while stating explicitly that it is concerned with the just treatment of prisoners, and not with a strict application of U.S. citizens' rights toward foreign prisoners. "We do not hold that an adequate substitute must duplicate [the federal habeas law] in all respects." Kennedy admits in his response to the dissenting opinion, that there is no precedent for their application of constitutional principles to foreign detainees, but denies that this is a "barrier" to the decision.

That there is something more to this ruling than what is at stake in this one case shines through in the most popular quote from Kennedy's written opinion: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Importantly, Kennedy writes that "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

The impact of those two statements in combination reach far beyond the Guantanamo case alone. The Court is saying what many of us have believed for years--that the Bush Administration cannot dismiss the rule of law under the pretense of the very real dangers presented by terrorism. That would, presumably, apply to curtailment of the civil liberties of U.S. citizens as well.

Many of our fellow Americans will resent and ridicule this decision as a liberal abuse of the Court's powers. In fact, Justice Scalia and his fellow dissenters lead the way in this interpretation of the decision, which only narrowly passed at 5-4. We live in a very divided country. The conservative amongst us seem to want to put 'survival' at the top of their list of values. From the survivalist perspective, they justify actions that are not fitting for a democratic nation that supports basic human rights. But hasn't this always been the case in the long history of human affairs? The question in ethics is often about doing what is right and just as opposed to what is merely expedient. I am personally ashamed of my fellow countrymen whose consciences are not awake enough to remind them of this point. Nearly every atrocity perpetrated by dictators around the world has been done under the name of this expediency. It is against this arbitrariness that the rule of democratic rule has risen, and we must not forget that.

The United States should be a beacon of hope for the world. It should not be feared as an enemy of the rule of law.

Good articles: Congress's Guantanamo Burden
by Benjamin Wittes, and A Victory for the Rule of Law by Eugene Robinson. I think Newsweek gets it right with their title, Overplaying its Hand, by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Honesty and the Political Process

2008-05-11T08:58:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Carter wrote about the need for presidents to be honest this morning.

There were quite a few people who wrote in and said awful things about him in response. The venom of Republicans against this man is incredible. They can't stand that he actually lives his Christian values, it seems. He tries to be a peacemaker, and that means meeting with those who live in ways that you don't agree with.

That said, the following was the comment I sent in:

This discussion reminds me of Gandhi, and his philosophy of Satyagraha.

People take Carter to be naive, if not foolish, for saying things like this. But that's because most people have their lives wrapped in tangles of little lies, and it's generally believed that this is the way you 'get by' in life. The world is a mess, largely as a result of this. We can't trust our politicians or the political process. We can't trust the media. We can't trust businessmen, or those who represent them. We can't trust people who say they're in need at social services offices. Webs of lies are all around us, and cynicism grows with each passing year.

Gandhi believed in the power of truth. He believed that one must find the truth and live it. And he showed that it works.

"Be the change you want to see in the world," he said. We can't wait for Presidents to tell the truth. We can't wait for the oil industry to tell the truth. It starts with us. Each individual and each community must strive to live the truth, and then it will become far less tolerable to accept these untruths from political and business leaders.

Driving a Donkey to Drink

2008-05-08T23:06:00.000-07:00

Ann Telnaes has a wonderful cartoon in the Post. Check this out:

Obama is Taking the High Road

2008-05-07T08:05:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has won the primary in North Carolina by a considerable margin. Hillary Clinton held on to win a very close one in Indiana. Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, pointed out that this narrow margin of victory for Clinton can be credited to Rush Limbaugh's get-out-the-vote for-Hillary campaign. 10% of the voters in the Democratic primary in Indiana were Republican, and a sizable number of them supported Hillary. I don't know for certain how many Republicans came to the polls for Hillary at Limbaugh's behest, but I do know that the Clinton's victory came by such a small margin that if even 10% of the Republicans voting for Hillary did so in order to mess up Obama and the Democratic Party, it worked.

Through all the Clinton mud-slinging, Obama has chosen to take the high road. He keeps to an optimistic message. He believes that real change is possible in Washington that will help average Americans. And I am pleased that Obama is able to present the face of a better future for our country.

Now it's on to West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky. Puerto Rico will come after that. Clinton had to loan her own campaign more than $6 million dollars this month, because she can't get enough money in from supporters. I'm not sure that's the way campaigns out to be supported in America. One of the problems of this country is that it's run by the wealthy. And having candidates who can throw that kind of money at a campaign that isn't supported by the people is just a symptom of this same disease that continues to weaken the ideals and the promise of our country. But it's legal--for now. We should all be aware of what's going on, however, and ask ourselves if we want to nominate a candidate whose campaign can only continue because she is obstinate and filthy rich.

Clinton is determined to have this nomination decided at the convention by the super delegates. My concern is that, by leaving the nomination to be decided there, the news that Obama is our nominee will provoke a strong negative reaction in the Clinton camp that won't have time to heal before November. The Convention is in August. The election is in November. Having a huge uproar of internal hostility at the Convention could easily spill over with such venom into the fall that the Democrats may not have time to recover and take on the real challenge--keeping the Republicans from retaking the White House.

"The Thrill of Victory"

2008-05-01T17:12:00.000-07:00

As a native Washingtonian, I was thrilled to see the parts of the Wizards-Cavs game that I did get to see yesterday. It was Game 5 of the best of 7 series. The Wizards were down 3 games to 1. It looked like Lebron James--I refuse to use his moniker "The King" as he's most definitely not my king--was going to wrap things up in Cleveland. Then we found out before the game that Gilbert Arenas, the face of the Wizards' franchise for the last several years and an athlete with enormous talents, is finished for the season. He tried to make a comeback from knee injuries twice this year. He played the first eight games of the season, and then bits and pieces of the last few games of the season. He could never make it back. The issue was compounded when he suffered a bone bruise on his surgically repaired knee early in the series against Cleveland. But Washington learned how to win without Arenas this year. That's why they were the fifth seed in the playoffs. Caron "Tough Juice" Butler knew he had to step up and deliver and ('lo and behold') he did! Butler scored 32 points on 11 of 22 shooting from the field. And the Wizards won 88-87.
I watched the first quarter of the game at "The Grad" in Chico. They have good food and a whole slew of t.v.'s, big and small. One of the Grad employees was watching from the next table over, and told me his family knows Arenas and he's a big fan of his. (It's nicer when you're not alone watching these events.) The Wizards had a steady lead through the first quarter. Then I had to go to give a test to my Logic class. So, off I ran. I was able to monitor the game through ESPN's "gamecast," which lets you know the score and who did what. Washington still led at the half. When I finished helping students after the test, I looked and saw that Lebron James had just made a slam dunk to put the Cavs up by 1 in the 4th quarter, with less that 8 minutes left, and I thought 'Uh, oh! Here it goes." I raced back to the Grad in time to see the last 4 minutes of the game. With less than 2 minutes left, the Cavs were up by 5 points. The Wizards' center, Brendon Haywood, fouled out. I figured they were finished. But the Wizards weren't finished. James missed a 3-pointer, and the Wizards got the rebound (which was not a sure thing in this series by any stretch of the imagination). The ball was put in Caron Butler's hands. He drove down the right side of the lane with Lebron James guarding him. Everyone agrees he was fouled at least twice, but no call was made and he made the tough shot that put the Wizards up by 1 with 3 seconds left. Again, everyone knew that James would get the ball for the final shot. James tried the very same move up the right side of the lane on his side of the court. Without a doubt, James was also touched on his way in, but again no foul was called and, unlike Butler's shot, James's shot rimmed out. Game over. Lest anyone feel sorry for James, I read one account that assures us that the "foul" that wasn't called was a result of James's teammate, 7 foot 3 inch Ilgouskas, pushing Wizard center Darius Songailla from behind into James. Songailla tried to avoid James. The refs just made it a no-call. James missed the shot. The game goes back to Washington for Game 6. So, the Wizards have made it a series now.

ASOKA: A Very Impressive Indian Film

2008-05-01T13:26:00.001-07:00

Every semester in my Eastern Religions class, I speak briefly about King Ashoka in India. He won a series of wars and become the Mauryan Emperor. Afterwards, he converted to Buddhism.

I just watched a beautiful Indian movie about his life called ASOKA. (There's an accent on the S that makes it an 'sh' sound). It takes a little getting used to seeing the Indian musical productions inserted here and there, but they are lovely, too. But the story is remarkable. Ashoka garners our sympathy in the beginning. He's a terrific warrior-athlete who is also very handsome and charming. But his character grows darker and darker as time goes on. We are drawn into his dark quest as a kind of Clint Eastwood revenge cycle. He has been done wrong, and we appreciate his right to fight back. But with success, he goes over the top. There's no end to his thirst for revenge, and by the end, the whole world is his enemy. He tells us that he doesn't care if he destroys everything. There's a beautiful love story in the midst of this that is, at first, the tragic cause of his undoing, and then, later, is the cure that brings him back to his senses. We don't get to see the results of his conversion. I wish that we could have. Buddhism was established in India by his conversion in the 3rd-century BC. I would love to have seen how that developed. But this movie helps us understand why the powerful emperor might have grown tired of war, and how he might have come to see the folly of his ways. Personally, I was very moved by the tragic dimension of this story.

Another 4 Years of a Bush-league Presidency?

2008-04-29T18:41:00.000-07:00

I was giving McCain too much credit. He is a Republican conservative ideologue after all.

Michael D. Shear reports in the Washington Post:

McCain dismissed his Democratic rivals' proposals for universal health care as riddled with "inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs." He said the 47 million uninsured Americans will only get covered when they are freed from the shackles of the current, employer-dominated medical insurance system.

Do I understand this correctly, McCain? You're going to do what? You're going to free us from "the shackles" of employers providing insurance for their employees? Oh, yes, that will fix everything.

"Captains Courageous"

2008-04-20T15:38:00.000-07:00

Tara, the kids, and I watched the 1937 film "Captains Courageous" last night. It's a Rudyard Kipling tale, based on his 1897 novel. It's the story of Harvey, who is a spoiled rich kid who has no mother and feels neglected by a father who is too busy to spend time with him. Finally, his father is persuaded to take him on his business travels, but Harvey falls overboard. He is rescued by a Portuguese fisherman named Manuel, played by Spencer Tracy, and the rest is about Harvey learning how to be a decent human being while learning to work with the crew of Captain Disko's boat. It's a very good cast. Freddie Bartholomew plays Harvey. Lionel Barrymore is terrific as the captain. John Carradine (David's father) is excellent as crewman "Long Jack." Micky Rooney plays the captain's son, Dan, in a small yet effective role. But the central character is the PoManuel, played by Spencer Tracy in one of his first major roles. Tracy won an Oscar for Best Actor for the performance. I will never forget Manuel's songs, his playing of a Herty Gerty, his tales of a heavenly fisherman's paradise where he hopes to join his father someday, or his calling the boy (with a heavy accent) "Little Fish." This is a very good film, directed by the excellent Victor Fleming.

"The Men"

2008-04-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

Tara and I watched "The Men," this week, which was Marlon Brando's first major film. It was made in 1950. In it, he plays a soldier named Ken Wilcheck, who was shot in the back during WWII. This occurs in the opening scene of the film. Then, we follow him to a Veteran's hospital, where we learn that he is with others like himself who are paraplegics. The result is an impressive film with a number of characters that we get emotionally invested in. Jack Webb, who later played Joe Friday in 'Dragnet' is very good as Captain Norm Butler. And Arthur Jurado plays the memorable character Angel Lopez. With the exception of Angel, these men struggle with the meaning of their lives now that they've lost the use of their lower bodies. The biggest problem is whether and how they can relate to women. Teresa Wright plays Ellen, a classic 1950s "stand by your man" kind of woman, who enters into the struggle of her life in dealing with the tortured feelings of Ken (played by Brando). It's a good film.

Washington Mutual

2008-04-08T16:27:00.000-07:00

Washington Mutual (like many lenders) was poorly managed, and suffered huge setbacks. Do they end up in the street like many of the people they lent money to? No, of course not. They received what's being called a "cash infusion" of $7 billion to help them overcome their losses. Was the CEO, Kerry Killinger fired? Did he suffer a setback like the one the company suffered? Did he have to worry about ending up on the street? Of course not. He's a deserving capitalist... well, I'll refrain from adding to that. He was "compensated" with $14.4 million. Al Capone, wherever he is, wishes he got into this racket. It is technically legal in our system... for some reason. See this story in the Washington Post for details.

On McCain

2008-04-06T10:27:00.000-07:00

I haven't been blogging recently, but this came to me from MoveOn.org, and I thought it was something I really should share. I had no idea that McCain supported Bush's veto of the ban on waterboarding. My opinion of McCain was obviously misguided before.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.¹

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."²

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.³

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."⁴

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.⁵

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.⁶

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."⁷

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.⁸

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."⁹

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.¹⁰

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-8394043-0wOjWs&t=232

Thank you for all you do.

–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, April 5th, 2008

Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council^® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Politics and Division

2008-03-23T12:52:00.000-07:00

Politics sure divide people in a hurry. Read Zachary Goldfarb's column along with the comments that follow it. It's incredible to me how people with such similar views on the direction this country should take have come to a place of being at each other's throats. Emotionally, I find it hard to take, also. When I hear James Carville saying that Governor Richardson is like Judas for his 'betrayal' of the Clintons, it makes me so angry and disgusted that my gut reaction is to say I'd not vote for the Clintons if they were the only ones running. But in the end, we have to remember that what is best for the nation is for a Democrat to get elected this time around. If we take the comments in this article earnestly, you'd have to conclude that the hopes of the Democrats are dead, and that we might as well get used to saying "President McCain."

Tibet

2008-03-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

The decision to hold the Olympics in China was a decision to give China a chance. It was an expression of good faith with the expectation that China would become a member of good standing in the civilized world. Their crackdown in Tibet proves that they are not such a member. The threat of a boycott of the Olympics must begin to ring. We cannot sit by and allow Tibet to be crushed by the Chinese government. Its occupation of Tibet is illegal, and must not stand. Its destruction of Tibetan culture is immoral and must be resisted.

Avaaz has a petition ("End the Violence") against the Chinese oppression here.

Five Years of War

2008-03-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

Our president (cringe), George W. Bush, has said that we are making real progress in Iraq and that the 5-year war must go on even longer so as not to risk losing the gains we've made.

When this war started, we were supposedly there to find and destroy the 'weapons of mass destruction' that Saddam Hussein might give to Al Qaeda. We were told that he had connections with Al Qaeda. Both of these remarks were not only wrong. They were lies that went against the administration's own intelligence estimates.

The administration tried to tell us that the war would cost $50-60 billion dollars in total. When their own economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay dared to tell us that the true cost would be between $100 billion and $200 billion, he was fired. The cost of the war is now up to over $500 billion dollars, and counting. Watch the money tick off above in the left-hand column. It's horrible.

Dan Froomkin has an article entitled "Bush's Triumphalist Amnesia" that is right on point regarding the president and his speech. Bush can say that the situation has improved in Iraq since a year ago when the surge began. What he isn't telling us is that he's paying people like the Shiite leader Al-Sadr off, and he's arming the Sunni side (Saddam's side) of the conflict in Iraq. Sadr doesn't like us, and he's just waiting for us to go in order to do things his way. Bush also spent more than $4,000 on every Iraqi in 2007 alone, which (given cost of living differences) is the equivalent to giving over $121,000 to every American. Bush acts as if we've struck a blow against Bin Laden, but he doesn't mention that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went into Iraq. He doesn't mention that our own intelligence services say that the war has made Al Qaeda stronger.
Froomkin points out that the one place where 'the surge' has helped is in buying Bush time. He has gone from a full rebellion (including Congressional Republicans) a year ago, to passing the buck onto the next administration.

Important Obama Speech

2008-03-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama has given the needed speech on race relations and the incendiary remarks of his pastor.

See his website for the video and the written text of the speech.

Many are acclaiming this speech as the most important speeches in America on race since Martin Luther King, Jr. Chris Matthews of Hardball says it's the best speech on race in America ever.

McCain Denounces Torture

2008-03-08T22:01:00.000-08:00

Thankfully, Senator McCain put out a statement today that clearly states he is against the waterboarding that George Bush supports. I just wonder--if George Bush supports torture, and John McCain says that it is clearly illegal, then what does that make George Bush? After all, he is the Commander-in-Chief who is giving his administration the green light on this torture. McCain said:

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law - that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Bush the Torturer

2008-03-08T09:20:00.001-08:00

George W. Bush has vetoed legislation that explicitly makes water-boarding illegal. It's already illegal, of course, but Congress was trying to make sure that George Bush and his criminal administration knew that it was. I am ashamed of him as the supposed "leader" of this country. I am ashamed of all the Republicans who support him. They're not part of the America that I was raised to believe in. At least the next president will reverse this immoral behavior. Even Senator McCain, Republican that he is, is against torture. Besides being inhumane, torture has been proven to be ineffective in intelligence gathering. An excerpt from the Washington Post follows:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, suggested that those who support harsh methods simply lack experience and do not know what they are talking about. "If they think these methods work, they're woefully misinformed," Soyster said at a news briefing called in anticipation of the veto. "Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world."

Journalists in Iraq

2008-03-06T11:35:00.000-08:00

There's an excellent story running on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. Neal Conan (whose photo is to the right) is interviewing four journalists who have been covering Iraq since the beginning of this war: Anne Garrels, Ted Koppel, John Burns, and Hoda Abdel-Hamid. You really get a sense that they know what it's like there from the inside. Anne Garrels impressed me by saying that while the surge has worked, it hasn't improved things much for foreigners. She still operates by a 10-minute rule: she can't be on Iraqi streets in any one place for more than 10 minutes. If she were to stay longer, there's a good chance she'd be attacked or kidnapped. As I'm typing, Hoda Abdel-Hamid is saying it's actually the same situation for any journalist. One caller brought up the important point that while the surge may have been necessary, what has worked more is paying off insurgents like Al-Sadr. Ted Koppel talked about the discouragement setting in amongst troops right from the beginning of the war. The Army was expecting to be greeted, quite literally, by a band and people with flowers. Instead, they were met with RPGs. John Burns talks about how Iraq is such a secret society, partly thanks to Saddam Hussein, that even Iraqis see it as a "land of shadows." Americans, he says, have suffered from a lack of knowledge about Iraq, and in part this is caused by the secrecy that Iraqis had to maintain under Saddam. Hoda Abdel-Hamid talked about how Arabs have seen an entirely different war than Americans have. The American networks sanitize and glamorize the whole war. Ted Koppel agreed, and said he argued that the war ought to be covered more graphically. ABC wouldn't do it. With the elections, now, they say that the war is not going away, but it's taking a back seat in American newspapers and on television.

Clinton Drags the Party Down

2008-03-04T22:19:00.000-08:00

Clinton's victories in Ohio and Texas makes a mess of things. There's no way she can win, but she plugs on with a negative campaign that is trying to tear Obama down. I'm disgusted with her. I would find it very hard to vote for her.

She can smile all she wants. The nastiness oozes out way too often.

The Republicans might win again. She's going to drag the Democratic Party down with her.

Ahmadinejad in Iraq (revised)

2008-03-03T22:42:00.000-08:00

I was going to write about the incredible contrast between the Bush visit to Iraq and Ahmadinejad's.

But I just discovered Andrew Sullivan saying the more or less the same thing I wanted to say in his Daily Dish: "One telling reflection of the Bush administration's handling of the region: the Islamo-fascist was able to announce his visit well in advance; the American president had to go in strict secrecy. There you have a small insight into the immense damage to American power that this administration has inflicted. And who really won the war against Saddam."

We are in Iraq, according the Bush myth, to defeat the terrorism that threatens both us and the poor Iraqis. You would think that his actions would make him a hero to the Iraqis. In the meantime, however, when Bush visited, he had to sneak into the country and sneak out. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader and therefore practically the devil himself (again according to the Bush myth), entered Iraq with great fanfare. He apparently wasn't worried about getting assassinated. A good question for the naive to ask is "How could this be? Why isn't our president the one who is greeted as a hero?"

I am no fan of Ahmadinejad's. He is a simple man who rose to power because of a simplistic view of the world that matches that of other fundamentalists in Iran. But we have to face the fact that the majority of Iraqis are quite happy with Ahmadinejad and his worldview. They share the same view of fundamental Islam: namely, the Shiite version articulated by the Ayatollahs. And by remaining in Iraq, we are unwittingly helping to impose the Shiite will on the minority Sunnis who were ruling under Saddam. The terrorists known as "Al Qaeda-in-Iraq" wouldn't have existed without our intervention, and without our assistance in imposing the Shiite will on the Sunnis. We may say that we want everyone to get along in Iraq. But it hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

I understand the sentiment that it's a horrible shame if our young men died there in vain. People get incredibly angry if you suggest that's the case. But sometimes that's the reality. Bad presidents make bad decisions and a lot of people die for those mistakes who shouldn't have had to die. We now have a very bad president who makes very bad decisions.

South American Crisis

2008-03-02T20:59:00.000-08:00

The Colombian Army has recently started going into Equadorean territory to pursue rebels who have been attacking them. They now say that they have attained information that links the rebel fighters to Equadorean President Rafael Correa. Equador and the Hugo Chavez's Venezuela have responded by sending troops to Colombia's borders. Chavez has warned that any similar movements into Venezuela would result in war.

Chavez is known to have a cozy relationship with the drug dealing rebels in Colombia. He recently helped negotiate the release of some of their prisoners through this relationship in an effort to gain favorable press.

This is a significant crisis not only for Colombia but for the U.S. as well. Colombia is pursuing these rebels with U.S. support, and with U.S. encouragement. Venezuela's leadership is virulently anti-U.S. If war were to emerge between Colombia and its neighbors, the U.S. could not sit idly by. We have little or no national interests in Iraq. But we have significant national interests in South America, especially given the drug trade and our current relationship with a growing number of anti-U.S. governments. We could ill afford the fall of Colombia into the wrong hands. Our activities in Iraq are at least legally questionable. What would happen if we are so stretched by our Middle East involvement that we can't react to real issues of national security in our own back yard?

The Bush administration has weakened our country in so many ways. This is just one more.

Freedom of the Press or a Criminal Act?

2008-03-02T20:30:00.000-08:00

The question has come up as to whether Matt Drudge's release of the information that Prince Harry was in combat in Afghanistan is protected freedom of speech, or whether it constitutes an act of treason. The argument for the latter goes that Prince Harry is a leader of one of our allies. He was fighting as much for the protection of the United States as he was for the protection of the United Kingdom. All the major networks apparently had this information, but didn't report it because they were asked not to. Even CNN and Fox News had this information and didn't report it. But the Drudge report, whether to get attention or for some ulterior motive, didn't hesitate to report it. Once the news was online, Al Qaeda started spreading the word, and the U.S. and Great Britain had to risk lives to get Prince Harry out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I am not a lawyer. I don't know if this was a criminal act. But I am firmly convinced that it is highly immoral, and I believe that it should be illegal. Drudge knowingly endangered Prince Harry, those he served with, and those who had to get him out of the country. Anytime anyone knowingly endangers someone else who is acting legally, there should be some recourse to charges of criminal negligence at the very least. Shouldn't they? Morally, the question is easier to answer. I can't imagine any morally sensitive person being able to live with themselves if they did something like this.

Gladiator

2008-03-02T19:41:00.000-08:00

Lexi and I ended up watching "Gladiator" (2000) after everyone else was asleep last night. She'd never seen it. At first, she asked about it thinking it would be a good one to fall asleep by. When I heard she'd not seen it, I thought I'd watch it again with her. She didn't go to sleep. She said it was too interesting. "Gladiator," of course, is an outstanding motion picture, and it was rewarded with five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I particularly like the fact that the philosopher-king (Caesar) Marcus Aurelius is portrayed by Richard Harris at the beginning of the film as a setup. It may be the only time a major philosopher has played any role in any action film. Russell Crowe is, of course, brilliant as the Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius. The writer plays a little fast and loose with history, as is often the case in Hollywood, but it's an interesting play on the known history. It's interesting seeing Joaquin Phoenix again in the role of Commodus Caesar after now having enjoyed his performance as Johnny Cash. He's every bit as detestable as Commodus, but I can appreciate his range as an actor better now. Perhaps my favorite line in the film is when Marcus Aurelius is made to say, "There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile."

Never mind that it's unlikely that Marcus wanted to return power to the Senate and restore the Roman Republic. A case can be made for it, I suppose. And like with most myths, the way it's told tells more about us than about the events the myth is about. It's good that this film plays out the way we would like to remember the history.

Prison Talk

2008-03-01T16:24:00.000-08:00

Ramesh Ponnuru stimulated discussion this morning by suggesting that it's a good thing we have more people in prison than any other country. I don't care much for his way of viewing things, but I like some of the thoughtful comments he received.

The Radical Center

2008-02-29T23:27:00.000-08:00

Through the wrestling that I have been doing on this blog (and outside it) with the liberal versus conservative debate, I have said that I have always found myself as a "middle-of-the-road" voter, and that I increasingly find Aristotle's Golden Mean to be valuable. This internal debate has led me to a discovery of work being done in 'the radical center'. It is sometimes called 'the third way'. In scholarship, one of the leading thinkers of the third way is sociologist Anthony Giddens (pictured here). I am going to pursue this line of thought in the months to come. I am very intrigued by it. The main point is that there are good ideas on the left and the right, but what is best for our society at any given time is probably to be found somewhere in the middle. The word "radical," represents rootedness. Being radically in the center is to be rooted in the center.

Wizards Win in Chicago

2008-02-29T22:51:00.000-08:00

I was able to catch the second half of my hometown Wizards' game against the Chicago Bulls tonight, thanks to NBA League Pass. This was after playing five games myself at the gym. Great workout. I'm exhausted. As I tuned in, we were informed that the Wizards were 20 points down at the half. I guess they were just waiting for me. They went on a 22-1 tear in the third quarter, and ended up winning this game 96-91. It was a courageous win. I like this team a lot. They have three of their projected starters for this year out. Etan Thomas was informed he had a problem with his heart valve when training camp opened. He had to have heart surgery, and hasn't been able to play a game this year. The jury's out as to whether he'll ever play again, though he's practicing with the team now in non-contact drills. Gilbert Arenas, their superstar, hasn't played since their eighth game this season due to a second knee surgery. The first was during the off-season, but didn't get the job done. And their second star, two time All-Star Caron Butler, has now been out about 10 games with a torn muscle in his hip. He won't be back for at least another couple of weeks. Due to all of this misfortune, the Wizards have fallen to below .500. But they soldier on, and this win was pretty remarkable. Their defense was outstanding. Their rebounding was excellent. And they moved the ball well. They're a fun team to watch. (The photograph is of point guard Antonio Daniels driving on Kurt Heinrich).

The Scarlet Letter

2008-02-29T21:40:00.000-08:00

Tara and I watched Roland Joffe's version of "The Scarlet Letter" this week. It was made in 1995. Demi Moore is always a pleasure to watch on the screen, but I didn't have high expectations for the movie or her acting. The result was actually better than I thought it would be. Joffe takes some liberties with the novel, but I have to say that I was pleased with the revisions. Native Americans play a significant role in the film, and when it begins, I assumed there was some influence from "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992). The filmwork is beautiful. The love scenes are hot. There is a scene where the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is preaching a sermon that uses language from the period about "the City on a Hill" that is moving. Gary Oldman plays the part of Dimmesdale in a sensitive and enticing way. I was unaware of him as an actor before, but I'll look for him now. (It turns out that he's played in a number of movies I've seen, but they were supporting roles.) Moore, playing Hester Prynne, gives a decent performance. What I especially liked about it was that she was convincing as a strong-willed woman who saw the evil that Puritanism had fallen into and she was rebelling against it. Robert Duvall gives an excellent performance (as always) playing the role of Roger Prynne/Chillingworth. He is superb as the sadistic and bitter doctor bent on revenge. Joan Plowright gives a memorable supporting performance as Harriet Hibbens, who likes to live naturally, rebels against Puritanism, and is accused of being a witch. The Native Americans are sympathetically treated. George Aguilar gives a strong supporting performance as the quiet leader of the "praying Indians" who have converted to Christianity under the minister of the kind-hearted Dimmesdale. When I taught American philosophy, one of the things that we went over were these two aspects of Puritanism: the idealism versus the reality of harsh judgmentalism that it degraded into. I don't normally mention these strong supporting roles, but they really grabbed me in this film. The film is far from perfect. But the rising crescendo of passion, the psychological struggle of Prynne and Dimmesdale, the frightening manipulation of Duvall's doctor, and the lush cinematography with warm lighting that reminds me of Zeffirelli (and yes, "The Last of the Mohicans,") swept me away and I enjoyed it a lot. And there's an altered ending to the story that I found more satisfying than Hawthorne's. Hawthorne was a genius and thank God for his work. (Coincidentally, I have cousins who are descended from Hawthorne, so I've always looked on his work with curiosity followed by great admiration.) But I very much approved of the changes Joffe made.

Obama Answers McCain

2008-02-29T15:03:00.000-08:00

Let John McCain continue to patronize Barack Obama. He'll find out like Hillary has that Obama has some answers.

Bush and McCain See No End In Iraq

2008-02-28T16:23:00.000-08:00

It seems clear that George Bush and John McCain do not see any end to our involvement in Iraq.

Bush has now said that

"It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents of the war have one answer: retreat. When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge, and turned the situation around. . . . In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could say that when it comes to pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq."

Everyone will acknowledge that the surge has been effective. If we put enough troops on the ground in Iraq, of course we can suppress the violence for a time. The real question is what our long-term strategy should be. Should we stay in Iraq forever because there will always be a threat that anti-American forces will grow there if we leave? Or should we begin a measured withdrawal so that Iraq can handle its own problems, and we're not continually fomenting anti-American sentiment around the world? We can't afford to stay there forever. Nor should we.

Jail Time

2008-02-28T16:14:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has more people in jail than any other country in the world. Doesn't that indicate that something is wrong with the system?

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison, an all-time high that is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year, in addition to more than $5 billion spent by the federal government, according to a report released today.

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars at the start of 2008, the United States leads the world in both the number and the percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving even far more populous China a distant second, noted the report by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

It is shocking that China, which is condemned regularly for human rights abuses, has far fewer people in jail than we do. China has a quarter of the world's population, and still does not have as many people in jail as we do.

One problem pointed to in the article is that this is draining state budgets, limiting the funding they can provide for education. Spending less on education and more on incarceration can only lead to a downward spiral over time.

The Fact Checker and NAFTA

2008-02-26T20:04:00.000-08:00

Michael Dobbs' The Fact Checker is a very interesting read. He has covered tonight's debate. It is clear enough that both Obama and Clinton want fair free trade. NAFTA would be all right, they argue, if we enforced its provisions properly. What this means to me is that NAFTA and other 'free trade' pacts require an administration that will actively protect the American worker. I'm not at all sure this will work. The fact is that other countries only have competitive leverage because their employees don't make much money, and the regulations over industry are practically non-existent. The principle they're aiming for is reasonable: negotiate trade pacts that are mutually beneficial. We should continue to encourage free trade while encouraging reform in the countries that we're trading with. Obama and Clinton are both intending to do essentially the same thing on this, it seems to me.

Aurora

2008-02-25T21:56:00.001-08:00

Aurora is a vision of thousands of streams of light spreading through an otherwise dark night sky.

The grace of God is present in the world. It has been recognized in so many forms throughout so many cultures in the world. It is not new. It is as old as time itself. It need not be conceptualized as a personal being called 'God'. It is the life force. It is the vital energy of the universe. It is the source of all being. This power is beyond any representative abstraction.

It is the indescribable Tao of Laozi.
It is the inspiration of the Buddhadharma.
It is, more accurately, the Buddhidharma, for everyone has the Buddha nature within.
It is the content of true Islam.
It is the content of true Christianity.
Is the content of true Judaism.
It is the vision of Ueshiba who proclaimed Aikido to be "the art of peace."
It is ubiquitous. Yet so very underutilized and unrealized in the personal lives of most people.

It is the hope of being truly human.

Aurora is an open invitation to receive this gift, offered by those who have experienced it to those who have experienced it only slightly or who are not aware of having experienced it. The vital and guiding energy that is experienced as the Buddhidharma is available to all who seek it. The time is now.

Clinton's Inconsistency

2008-02-25T20:26:00.000-08:00

Time and time again, I wonder who Hillary Clinton really is. Is she the nasty candidate who viciously cuts into her opponents? Or is she the nice woman who runs attack-campaigns on bad advice, and occasionally 'drops her guard' and lets her truer, warmer colors come through? I'd like to think the latter, except that just when I think it's authentic I hear that her dropping of the guard involved an almost verbatim quote of John Edwards' closing remarks mixed with an almost verbatim quote of a successful Bill Clinton closing remark. And this from someone who wasted her (and our) time accusing Obama of plagiarism.

Now she is giving me more pause for reflection on this matter. In Ohio, which she desperately needs to win and where a disproportionate number of workers have lost jobs to 'free trade', Hillary is taking up the John Edwards mantle and is proclaiming that NAFTA and other free trade agreements have hurt America. She is trying to paint Obama as the mainstream candidate Ohio doesn't need, while saying that she alone is for eliminating the tide of lost jobs to Asia and Central America.

I'd love to believe that Hillary means it. I'd love to believe that she has had a sudden conversion. As late as 2004, she was fully supportive of her husband's NAFTA agreement, and
said it was good for America. I'll bet she isn't campaigning against NAFTA in Texas where she's trying to hang on to the Mexican-American vote. She hasn't made it a campaign issue before now. Is it possible that Hillary, who has lost 10 states in a row to Obama, is trying on the fully progressive role as a last ditch, desperation move? The problem with that is that I don't know what she really thinks. I don't trust her canned 'emotional' releases. And I don't trust her waffling on issues such as these. I distinctly get the impression that she'll say whatever she needs to in order to get elected.

And an inconsistency such as that is very different than a consistent pragmatic strategy that is designed to unite disparate factions on a progressive course. I think Obama has done the latter. We need to elect Obama.

Nader and Voting "On Principles"

2008-02-25T19:38:00.000-08:00

Susan Jacoby has promoted a discussion of the Nader candidacy through a short post this morning entitled "Ralph Nader: Enter the Spoiler Redux." Her article begins with the sentence, "Here he goes again. Ralph Nader, the egomaniac (as distinct from Ralph Nader, the distinguished consumer advocate) announced Sunday that he will run as an independent candidate for the presidency in 2008." She later writes: "I don’t know whether Nader is just a self-centered fanatic or whether he really believes that there is no difference at all between the Democratic and Republican parties." While it is rare for me to agree with Susan Jacoby, I couldn't agree with her more on this particular issue.

An American friend who lives in France commented on my Nader post by saying: "I really hate to go against the grain here, but...I...well, voted for Nader during the election when people told me that I was taking votes from Gore. But, I felt that I ought not "play the game" of strategic voting, but vote for the right person: a person who would implement universal health care, call a spade a spade, and not worry about tired communist slander (for example). Now the dems have a real candidate in Obama (he is not a savior, but much better than I could ever imagine in the current climate). All in all, I want to think that Nader and his supporters are thinking nothing other than what an essential candidate he is for the country. Democracy has some crazy, but passionate, fringes...thank God!!"

I am reading a "voting on principles" argument here. There are many people who believe that every American ought to vote for the person who represents their views whether they have a chance to win or not. I could not disagree more.

In the Democratic primaries, Dennis Kucinich best represented the views of many progressives. I'll grant that. But were his true, personal views much different than Obama's or Hillary Clinton's? I doubt it. To take one issue as an example, Kucinich knew he didn't have a chance to win. He could say anything he wanted without a concern in the world for the general election. He could say he was for full, free universal health care. Obama and Clinton (especially Clinton after what she went through in the 90's, know that they cannot possibly get enough support for free universal health care with about 50% of the population being center-right, fully right-wing, or extremely right-wing. So, they make the pragmatic decision to try to move the government in a progressive direction. They can't get the whole deal done in one go, so they are pragmatic enough to try to get what they can get.

Kucinich, as well as Nader, could say that on principle he must run against Obama or Clinton because they've sold out on the ideal. Then we'd have not only Nader but Kucinich as well draining off votes from Obama and Clinton. Why not throw John Edwards in here, too? He stood more firmly for the American worker than either Obama or Clinton, and he legitimately had a chance to win. He could say that Obama and Clinton have not done enough for the American worker, and so, on principle, throw his hat into the ring as an independent candidate, too. Then we'd have Nader, Kucinich, and Edwards draining votes from the eventual Democratic candidate. But Kucinich and Edwards are pragmatic enough not to do that. Thank God, indeed! Edwards and Kucinich must realize that Clinton and Obama represent the best chance we have to move the country in the progressive direction they'd like to see achieved eventually. They must know that they lost at least in part because the country is not fully ready for the ideals they presented during the primaries, so the country would be even less ready for them in a general election.

A little pragmatism is called for on the part of Nader supporters for the same reasons.

I'm all for high ideals and principles, but there are limits to Kantianism. According to Kant, on principle, we should never lie. But the obvious critique of his ethics was the example of the mad man with a knife. If a mad man with a knife is after a loved one, should you honestly tell him where the loved one is hiding? If one's moral principles suggest that one should not lie, then (on Kant's theory) you should tell the truth no matter the consequences. But most of us would say that's nuts! To me, it's the same here. The Nader supporter seems to be saying, "I don't care if my vote helps to elect someone who is diametrically opposed to everything I believe in, and will set causes I support back for another 4-8 years. I refuse to vote for someone who (largely out of pragmatism) won't say they support fully implementing my ideals tomorrow."

For that reason, I not only think the argument is a weak one. I think it's morally unconscionable to act upon.

Univeral Health Care: Clinton and Obama

2008-02-25T10:45:00.000-08:00

A comment on one of my previous posts deserved a new post, I thought. So here it goes.

Both Clinton and Obama want universal health care. As Obama said, the difference is in the path they're proposing.

Clinton's plan does NOT get us to free universal health care. It gets us, supposedly, to MANDATED universal health care. And there's a big difference. I'm lucky to have insurance through my employer (California State University). If my only employer was the community college, I couldn't afford health insurance.

Neither Clinton nor Obama believe they can pass free universal health care in our backwards political environment where they'd be labeled "communists" if they pushed it. So, Clinton wants to mandate our participation in health insurance. She'd make me buy insurance whether I can afford it or not. Thanks a lot! And if I couldn't possibly afford it, she'd fine me for not getting it. I'd be even worse off.

Obama is at least kind enough to say that if I can't afford the health insurance, he isn't going to make me buy it.

Both Clinton and Obama are planning to subsidize the purchase of insurance for the poorest of us. The question is what to do about those who make too much to be subsidized, but who are not well enough off to then afford health insurance. Clinton says she'll make them buy it anyway. Obama gives them a break while trying to move the country toward more universal health care.

I prefer Obama's plan. I don't need Hillary using the power of the government to make me pay for insurance I can't afford.

Ralph Nader

2008-02-24T21:42:00.000-08:00

What can Ralph Nader possibly hope to get out of running for President again? If I were an investigative reporter, I'd "follow the money!" There's absolutely no chance he'll win. And he must know that. So what's in it for him? It has to be they money. I'm not going to say the Republicans are behind this. But if they aren't, it sure would be the best chance they have to beat Obama or Hillary. Every vote for Nader will be a vote for McCain in the last analysis... unless the vote is coming from someone who wouldn't have voted otherwise. Suppose Nader cuts into the Democratic vote by 5%. After the last election, does anyone doubt that this is a dream come true for the Republicans? Now we need a right-wing extremist to run as a 4th party candidate to do some equal damage to the Republican vote. Someone tell Howard Dean to get busy funding such a campaign. (I looked for a photo of Nader and ran across this political cartoon by Gary Markstein. It's the same thing as 4 years ago. Does anyone wish Nader hadn't run 4 years ago? I know I sure do. Talk about a spoiler.)

Oliver!

2008-02-24T21:29:00.000-08:00

We watched “Oliver!” this weekend, and it’s the one I think everyone should take the time to see. It’s a musical based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. I remember when this came out when I was a boy. Mark Lester (Oliver) and Jack Wild (The Artful Dodger) were huge sensations. Their photos were in all the magazines. For some reason, I never got to see it. Better late than never! This film is fabulous. In the workhouse, where the film starts, we see the words “God is love” written in large letters on the wall, but it’s clear that the house is filled with anything but love. The boys march down the dungeon-like stairs carrying bowls and approaching their ‘gruel’ singing “Food, glorious food,” and dreaming of eating like their caretakers. Oliver asks for more, and gets dismissed from the workhouse while his keeper sings “Boy for sale.” Oliver gets put to work for, and abused by, an undertaker’s family until he’s thrown into and locked up in a cellar. He looks out the window and sings “Where is love?” This is all great stuff.

He escapes and heads to London, where he meets The Artful Dodger. Through him, Oliver is introduced to Fagin (played Ron Moody), one of the most memorable villains you will ever see anywhere. Oliver thinks he's finally found a soft spot to land as they sing "Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself... part of the family." I didn't know that's where that song had come from. Fagin introduces Oliver to his new line of work with “You’ve got to pick a pocket or two.” You’re hoping that Oliver won’t get caught up into it, but as you see the huge contrast between the rich and the poor, you understand it as well.

The entire film is outstanding, but it’s Fagin who stands out as the unforgettable highlight. Forever ingrained in my feelings are his expressions, his dancing, and his theme song (sung twice), “Reviewing the Situation.” This song is so hilariously funny. I laughed and laughed and laughed. He wants to get out of his villainous ways, but in the end sings “I think I’d better think it out again.”

Oliver Reed (whom I remember most from “The Three Musketeers) was excellent as the lost soul Bill Sykes.

If you haven’t seen this, you’ve got to see it.

Giant

2008-02-24T20:56:00.000-08:00

Tara and I are avid movie fans, and see as many as we have time for. I've decided it's time to start blogging about the ones we see. I've only mentioned a couple along the way so far.
This week, we watched the very long, very much too long “Giant,” which runs nearly three hours long. “Giant” is famous as the last film made by James Dean before he died. The film actually stars Rock Hudson as Bick Benedict, a Texas rancher who inherited his family's 500,000 acre cattle ranch called Reata. Elizabeth Taylor costars as Leslie, a young woman from Maryland (even though Edna Ferber’s novel has her in Virginia) whom Bick meets and marries on a trip to buy a prize stallion. It also costars James Dean as Jett Rink, who works on the Benedict ranch.

I actually expected a better film than this turned out to be. I remember having read at least part of the book as a teenager, and knew this to be a classic in many people’s estimation. In the end, Tara and I were both disappointed with many aspects of the film. My own view is that the film was directed poorly… especially in terms of the editing. The first half of the film drags on and on with character development that could have been abbreviated. Then we’re suddenly thrust forward in time at least fifteen years. Not only are we left wondering what happened in the meantime, but the make-up job on Hudson and Taylor that is supposed to make us think they’ve aged is not very convincing. They did a better job on James Dean, who was the youngest of the three of them. Tara and I were very surprised and not real happy with the way the film ends either. I expected more… and less (in terms of film time)… than what we got.

There are some outstanding aspects of this film, however. It was very easy for me to get caught up in the dynamic of the Maryland girl marrying the Texan and having to adjust to life there. After all, I’m from Maryland, and Tara’s from Texas. I saw the film through Leslie’s (Elizabeth Taylor’s) eyes. I couldn’t identify with Bick (Rock Hudson), who was supposed to be a typical, arrogant, big, macho Texan. He was prejudiced and bigoted and misogynistic. Jett (James Dean) was no better. He was a Bick-wannabe. He resented the wealth of the Benedict family, and told Leslie that their family was no better than his. The only difference was that they were “foxy” enough (as he put it) to take advantage of the Mexicans in a way that his family hadn’t been. The battle between Bick and Jett was representative of the battle of between poor whites and landed aristocracy in Texas at the time. This was a very interesting aspect of the film. I only wish it was developed better. Another undercurrent was the ethnic battle between the poor working Mexicans and the whites (both rich and poor). Leslie is chastised for treating the Mexican servants like human beings. Bick’s son ends up marrying a Mexican woman, and this puts the family in some uncomfortable situations. What I think I liked best about the film was that Leslie was quietly working on Bick through the whole film, and by the end, he’s willing to accept his children for who they really are, and because his grandson is half-Mexican, he finally can see the world through Mexicans’ eyes, and defends their equality.

All of this makes it somewhat thought-provoking. I just wish it had been done better.

The African-American Vote

2008-02-23T08:40:00.000-08:00

Colbert King (pictured below left receiving a Pulitzer Prize) has a nice column this morning that the front page of the online edition of Washington Post labeled "The Truth Hurts," though the article itself is entitled, "A Truth the Clintons Can't Handle." He said that the typical white politician's approach to the black voter is condescending. And he believes
it is typified by the Clinton's words and actions in their race against Obama. Polling among African Americans, just a few months ago, indicated that Hillary Clinton had a substantial lead over Obama. As King puts it, Obama was as black then as he is now. The surge has come because voters have gotten to know Obama, and they like what he has to say. African Americans aren't voting for Obama because of race. And he is succeeding in this election across demographic lines.

Obama Wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii

2008-02-19T19:49:00.000-08:00

Obama has won in Wisconsin, and in Hawaii where he spent part of his youth. It was reported today that some polls had him with only a 1 point lead over Clinton in Wisconsin, and that was part of why she turned up the negative campaigning. She thought she had a chance. But as it turns out, Obama won handily with 58% of the vote there, compared to 41% for Clinton. Obama won 76% of the vote in Hawaii, compared to 24% for Hillary Clinton.

With those kinds of margins shaping up for Obama, it's hard to see how the super-delegates could turn this election in favor of Clinton. It would be a subversion of democracy if they did.

But Clinton has to see Texas and Ohio as her last chances. Obama has now won 10 states in a row. Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio in order to help her super-delegates feel that they can vote for her. If Obama were to take either Texas or Ohio, it's hard to see how Clinton can even stay in the race. And it's my understanding that Obama has a real good chance in Texas, despite Clinton's support among Hispanic voters. Obama polls very strongly in the parts of the state that have the most delegates--Houston, Dallas, and Austin.

Clinton Gets Nasty... Again

2008-02-19T10:17:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton is doing the only thing she can to stop Barack Obama: she is attacking in the nasty way that she does best. She is now accusing Obama of plagiarism, as if there's a politician alive who doesn't make plentiful use of language they approve of from a variety of sources, and she is saying that Obama's campaign is all about rhetoric without substance. She says that it's "just words." If she succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, I'd have a hard time supporting her for the presidency.

Obama has defended himself against her viciousness by asking if phrases like "I have a dream..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" are "just words."

It's not like Obama is unintelligent, and can only make speeches. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is brilliant. People relate to his speeches because they do not come across as mere speeches lacking substance. People see Obama as someone who has the optimism and vision to carry out the essence of his fine words.

I don't see that in Hillary Clinton. She so readily falls into this vile scratching at her opponents, and the dirty attacks that the Clintons have become notorious for. One could argue that it's effective. I'd rather not have another Cheney or Rove running the country; whichever way their political inclinations may tilt.

McCain has Flip-Flopped on Taxes

2008-02-17T23:46:00.001-08:00

Just read an interesting article in the New Republic's "The Plank" that is related to my last blog post, below. They say that McCain is a very recent convert to supply-side economics. He was quoted in South Carolina as saying that "Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues." That's because that's the mantra that conservatives want to believe.

But the New Republic calls him on this and points out the lie. They show how tax revenues fell after Bush's 2001 tax cuts, and when revenues have grown with tax increases. It's very interesting to see, because the numbers don't lie. And we need this kind of raw data in the face of the conservative believers who accept the supply-side myth on faith.

There are times when supply-side works. No doubt about that. But this religious conviction that we have to always cut taxes, even in the face of the need for more spending, is absurd.

Taxes

2008-02-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

The fact is that our government has a deficit. There are many things we need our government to do, and all of it costs money. To say we're going to do these things and then underfund them is negligent. That strategy has long been part of the conservative attempt to derail the federal government.

I admired McCain for standing up to Bush about cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans when we can't afford that. I admired McCain for refusing to make the tax cuts permanent. I admired McCain for leaving open the door to raising taxes when it's needed. But McCain is going further and further right in his run for the presidency. Today, he has taken the "no new taxes" pledge that is the conservative mantra.

Obama apparently saw it the same I did. In response to this news, Obama said, "I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war. But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for those same tax cuts."
We have to elect Obama, and we have to stop stupidly saying we want government services without paying for them. That doesn't mean we should give the government a blank check. They have to be watched, because Lord knows they'll find ways to waste money. But to insist on spending money while insisting on not raising money is the road to ruin.

McCain-Feingold

2008-02-15T08:35:00.000-08:00

One complaint about McCain on the right is his co-sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold Act that limited spending by big money on campaigns. A prominent rallying cry against the act is the claim that it is unconstitutional because it restricts freedom of speech.

The courts have given us, and have upheld the notion that campaign financing is an act of Freedom of Speech, protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. But where do we draw a line between "buying an election" and "free speech"? McCain-Feingold answers the call of the people to stop the practice of big business and big money buying elections. This is clearly, on the face of it, a good thing to do. Does it really make sense, in the face of this, to label the practice of spending large amounts of money on campaigns a matter of "free speech"? It doesn't to me.

It is also said that this act was passed into law in an effort to protect incumbents. That makes little sense to me either. True, there is the threat of the self-financing candidate, and McCain-Feingold does a lot to limit the self-financing candidate. But that's a good thing to me, because I don't want to see millionaires buying their way into office anymore than I want them buying someone else into office. For the most part, however, it's the challenger who is helped by this act. It's a lot easier for someone in office to be selected as the beneficiary of corporate influence than it is for an unknown to be.

Corporations should no right to free speech protection anyway. They should not be considered "persons," even though a corrupt Congress established them as such through the 14th Amendment in 1868. Seeing this coming, Abraham Lincoln said:

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Today, the top 20% of wealthiest Americans own over 80% of the nation's wealth. Persons need protection from corporations, and corporations do not deserve protections from persons. There is a balance to be found, of course, in considering the people who are share-holders in, and people who work for corporations. But corporations should not be able to, amongst other things, use the shelter of "free speech" to buy elections and votes.

As for the individually wealthy, most of whom have benefited from corporate welfare, protection, and vote-buying, they do have a right to "free speech." They can say anything they want. They can argue anything they want. They can influence us through the use of reason. They can even influence us through their advertising schemes and rhetoric. But the buying of elections and votes should never have been protected as "free speech."

The protection of the buying of elections and votes under the guise of "free speech" is a transparent attempt to maintain a culture of corruption in our political system.

(You can enlarge the bar graph by clicking on it, or checking out its website of origin.)

Potomac Sweep

2008-02-13T10:28:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm happy to say that my home region voted for the best two candidates in the Potomac primaries (which covered Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Barack Obama won on the Democratic side and John McCain won on the Republican side. Senator Obama has gained momentum since the Super Tuesday tie. Actually Obama won more states on Super Tuesday, but it he had only the slightest lead in terms of delegates won. The next big event is the contest for Ohio and Texas. Supposedly, Senator Clinton has an advantage in Texas due to the Hispanic vote. Were it not for the Hispanic vote, Obama would be putting this election away at this point. Based on anecdotal evidence, I can only surmise that most Hispanics remember things going better for them under Bill Clinton, and they're just not as familiar with Barack Obama. Tensions between Hispanics and African-Americans around the country can't help, but it's difficult to say how big of a role that's playing. Obama has done well everywhere voters have had a chance to get to know him. I am hopeful that things will continue to go well for him. But I do fear that the Democratic Party might pull this away from him at the convention. There's little likelihood that this will be settled before then.

Conservative and Liberal Straw Men

2008-02-11T09:00:00.001-08:00

I keep harping on this theme: what does it mean to be conservative? What does it mean to be liberal? The terms are like caricatures most of the time. In logic and critical thinking, I like to talk about how people from both parties like to commit the Straw Man fallacy by exaggerating their opponent's stances. There are many times when the candidates aren't really very different from one another in what they'd actually do, but they like to make their opponent seem either radically right or radically left by painting them as too "Liberal" or too "Conservative."

Part of my point on this matter is that it's not good to be "too" anything.

I get that to Sean Hannity, for instance, to be conservative is to worship Ronald Reagan. I get that to be conservative, for them, to be against big government, tax increases of any kind, activist courts, and abortion. I get that it's to be on the side of religion against absolute secularism. I get that it's to be strong on defense.

The fact is that they think that Democrats are too "liberal" because they are thought to be the opposite of these. "Liberals," to their minds, want to increase the role of Big Government (read Federal Government), increase taxation, interpret the Constitution in an activist (non-strictly constructionist) manner, and they support a woman's right to choose. "Liberals," they believe, favor a secular trajectory for our nation over against religion, and are weak on defense.

I believed all of this from the time that Ronald Reagan ran for president to the time that George W. Bush too the Republican Party to the Dark Side. I supported Clinton enthusiastically in the meantime because he was middle-of-the-road in his policy-making, was extremely intelligent and articulate, and he appealed to us "Reagan Democrats."

But I've had to rethink all of that over time.

The real point is to have the "right" size government, and not to be ideologically for or against everything the Federal Government does. That's a point I learned a long time ago from E.F. Schumacher. I just never learned to put it into this context until now. The point, again, is to have the "right" amount of taxation and neither to be ideologically for or against taxation of any sort.

I do favor an interpretation of the Constitution that honors the intent of the law. I don't think the Court has a Constitutional right to make up stuff as they go, in effect becoming legislators. But the fact is that you can't get away from "interpretation," and sometimes Republicans sound like they think you can. The "strict constructionists" are often so ideological about this that they are blind to the fact that they can't eliminate interpretation from judicial judgments. We call these "interpretations" because that's exactly what they are. We should interpret wisely and in the spirit of law.

I am against second and third term abortions. I agree with Republicans that abortion got way out of control in our country. But I believe it's very difficult, if not impossible, to say when a "human" life begins. If we mean by "human" that human DNA constitute a person, then, life begins at conception, and all abortion should be banned. If we mean by "human" that a person isn't really there until some development of the embryo occurs, then it's difficult to say exactly where the magic moment of "becoming human" or "becoming a person" really occurs. I think that's there's enough doubt about it that people ought to have the right to choose during the first trimester. So, I'm neither with the ideologues on the right or left who say that abortion should always be prohibited or that it should always be allowed. The real point is to find a middle way that deals with the ambiguities and difficulties while respecting the rights of both mother and child.

I am against the secularist oppression of religious practice that would occur without resistance from those who practice religions. But I am also against the conservative religious-right's movement to conflate fundamentalist Christianity and American governance. We were never intended to have a theocracy. We have a secular government informed by Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman principles. We have a secular government that was intended to respect the right to practice religion without favoring one over the other. That does not mean that the founders intended to practice governance with no regard for religion, or to legislate religion out of the public sphere. The real point is to have a religiously, spiritually informed body of legislators who do not favor their own religions over others.

Finally, the real point is to have the right amount of "Defense." If the Republicans keep up their current crusade, they might as well change the name of "Defense Department" back to its original, "War Department." We changed the name to emphasize our "defensive" posture as opposed to an aggressive one. So, I say let's act like we mean that. I'm all for a strong defense. I'm against being overly aggressive in making war with the rest of the world. It's bad for them. And it's bad for us.

The labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" are used in ways that aren't especially helpful to most of our debates. If every Democrat is to be labeled as a caricature-Liberal, then individual Democrats aren't given fair analysis. If every Republican is to be labeled as a caricature- Conservative, then individual Republicans aren't given fair analysis. The question should always be who we think will bring us the right amount of good governance with regard to all of these issues, regardless of party. Let's not sweep that debate aside with the all-too-easy labels of caricature-Liberal and caricature-Republican.

I am classically liberal in that I believe in freedom from authoritarian rule. I am liberal in the modern sense in believing there are some things that the Federal Government can do well. I am also liberal in the modern sense in believing that government has a responsibility to regulate the free market to the extent that justice requires it. But I have my conservative aspects, too. I think that the Federal Government can get too big. I believe it has interfered too much with the free market at times. I believe that it's possible to overly tax people. I think we should always strive to attain a just level of taxation, and that it should not be increased above that. I think that the courts have become overly activist at times, and that we should strive to find justices who are not driven to activism or callous to the needs of people who seek protection under the law. I defend the right of the religious to practice their religion, even in public forums. And I believe we must maintain a strong defense. Let's just make sure that we're truly keeping it defensive.

It's too easy and it's ultimately inaccurate to label oneself as liberal or conservative in an absolute manner. The real point is be more or less liberal or conservative when and where it's called for.

It is wise to find the middle way, being more liberal when and where one believes the government has become too constrained, and more conservative when and where one believes that the government has exceeded a just restraint. It's not easy to find the right way. It's much easier to embrace black-and-white ideologies. It's just not right.

Redskins Hire Jim Zorn as Head Coach

2008-02-11T08:52:00.000-08:00

I made a couple of posts on Jason La Canfora's Redskin Insider blog today regarding, first, the hire of Jim Zorn as the new head coach, and second, the administrative structure of Redskin football operations.

Regarding the process of hiring Jim Zorn and the result:

(1) I was out of patience with the process. But I love the way it turned out. And I believe Snyder's story. It helps that Gibbs verifies that story, and surely you don't believe Gibbs would lie about it... whatever you think about Snyder. Cerrato really liked Zorn, from the combine on.

And Zorn was recommended by both Fassel and Williams. They thought they had found their offensive coordinator and not the head coach, because Zorn has only been a quarterbacks' coach before. Snyder said he would go through the process of interviewing all of the potential candidates thoroughly, and that took them beyond the Super Bowl to accomplish. I really think they were trying to find someone with some of Gibbs' better characteristics. It is said that after every interview, Cerrato said 'Zorn'. Snyder told Gibbs that Zorn would make a great head coach. If they were really taken with him, one could easily see why they'd go through the whole interview process weighing him against everyone else on their list. They had to do that, because he is inexperienced. I'm ultimately pleased with what they've done, and I, like they, hope it turns out well. As Zorn said, it's up to him now to earn our respect. But like many fans, I'm behind him and want him to do well.

(2) And in reaction to one fan's complaint that there seemed to be a contradiction in saying that Cerrato was in charge of football operations, but then saying at the press conference for Zorn that the head coach has final say over the roster:

Why the demand for an absolute hierarchy? If you don't trust Cerrato absolutely, you should be happy. This was the structure that Gibbs put in place: people actually working together. Cerrato supervises the personnel department and makes recommendations, but doesn't cram them down the coaches' throats. Why should Blache have a player on defense that he doesn't think would fit? Why should Zorn have anyone on the team that he doesn't think would fit. Shouldn't they have veto power, and the power to make recommendations as well? Shouldn't a grown group of men be able to go into a meeting and come to a consensus? Why is this so hard to accept?

Conservativism and Liberalism

2008-02-08T22:58:00.000-08:00

What is conservativism? What is liberalism? Most people, seeing that I support Obama, and seeing the other things that I write in my blog, would naturally think I'm very liberal. But what does that mean?

I voted for George Bush in 2000 because I believed what he was saying, and Al Gore seemed too unstable a personality for the job... at the time. What was Bush saying? He was going to restore dignity to the White House. By that, he meant that Clinton, through his personal actions, had brought shame on the Presidency and the White House. As much as I liked Clinton's policies, and his ability to deal with problems, his personal problems with chasing women were, in fact, pretty embarrassing. Bush also said that Clinton had been too adventurous, sending troops into Bosnia and Mogadishu. I wasn't highly critical of Clinton for those moves. I was generally supportive. But I believed Bush when he said that America shouldn't be in the business of "nation-building." I agreed with Patrick Buchanan when he said that America shouldn't be in the business of empire building. Isn't it a conservative sentiment to be strong on defense, but to reserve that strength for defending the homeland rather than being adventurous and aggressive overseas? Bush also represented, in 2000, a Christianity that sought to defend itself against an onslaught of secularism that seemed bent on denying our right to express our faith in this country. I agreed with that. Bush also said that he stood for a "compassionate conservativism" that helps people rather than alienating them. I was all for that. Finally, Bush was for modernizing the education system so that "no child would be left behind." Very inspiring words.

But now I despise Bush. Why? Because he lied to us. And he hasn't fulfilled any of this promise.

I was a middle of the road voter who swung Bush's way rather than Gore's NOT because I was a fanatic right-wing nut, but because of the above points. But soon after the election, it became clear that the administration, and the party, was not in the hands of George Bush. It was in the hands of people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. It was in the hands of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. The decent Republicans like Colin Powell were soon marginalized. And I began to realize that George Bush was either an idiot that was being used (which might be true) or he was a lying S.O.B. who was in cahoots with the above mentioned Gang of Four.

To truly modernize the education system so that no child would be left behind, we would have needed to fund the programs. But the right-wing ideologues wouldn't dream of funding a government program properly. In fact, everything they did pointed to a strategy bent on destroying the federal government by underfunding everything. Except the war machine, of course. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was also doomed to failure, because it, too, was underfunded. People began leaving the program about as soon as it was established, because they realized that it was an empty promise. Rather than defending Christianity's position in this country, Bush further marginalized it by bringing to the fore its worst features. Eight years later, I believe Christianity is in a far worse position in this country than it has ever been before. I'm almost ashamed to associate myself with Christianity. Who with a conscience would want to associate with Christianity if its use of power includes lying about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, launching a preemptive war against a country that was little or no threat to our national security, doing everything possible to enrich the rich and dispossess the middle class and poor, underfunding programs to help the poor and elderly, breaking the Constitution out of fear by authorizing illegal wiretaps, ignoring the principle of habeas corpus, doing everything in its power to break the principle of checks and balances, and even hiding and then defending the use of torture? This is the United States of America? It's the not the U.S. that I was raised to believe in. Something went terribly wrong, and unfortunately the Christian right, which is the loudest segment of Christianity in this country, has defended this treason and treachery to the hilt. Bush was against nation-building, but his entire administration turned into one of not only nation-building, but empire-building. And far from restoring dignity to the White House, he has single-handedly made the presidency ridiculous. At least Clinton could think and talk. At least Clinton was an impressive figure on the world stage. World leaders liked Clinton. They admired him. (If only he could have realized that for as long as he was in office, he needed to behave with some sexual restraint, his presidency would have been highly respected.) But Bush? He's horrible. He doesn't seem very bright. He can't think on his feet, certainly. He can't give a speech. He has alienated most of our allies throughout the world. He has lied to us and to the world. And he has been continually deceptive about what he is doing. It's so bad that he has even established a precedent for Putin ("I have looked into his eyes") to thumb his nose at democracy while saying, essentially, 'if you can do it, I can do it, too'.

Am I a horrible "liberal" for wanting education to be funded and for us to have a decent health care system? Margaret Thatcher wanted those things for her country, so give me a break! Am I a horrible "liberal" for not wanting my country to torture people? For not wanting the system to be set up in a way that disproportionately favors the rich and dispossess the middle class and the poor? For not wanting to launch unnecessary preemptive wars? For not wanting to build empires? For not wanting our kids to be killed in the process thereof? Bush has killed more of our people through his policies than the terrorists ever dreamed of killing. I am a progressive conservative in the classical liberal tradition that supports freedom. I think that's what Obama is, too. I used to think McCain was, too, but his rhetoric is either just pandering to the right (in which case it's a lie), or he's a selfish right-winger who will bring shame to America and Christianity as well... following in Bush's footsteps.

Another Cheney?

2008-02-08T22:53:00.000-08:00

The Republicans started making noises about a settlement with McCain by getting a "true conservative" in as Vice President. That scares the heck out of me. I am afraid that what they mean is that they want a Vice President like Cheney who will run things their way under the nose of the President. At least McCain won't countenance torture. And I don't think McCain would lie to us. I believe he's a man of integrity, even if I don't think he's right about keeping troops in the Middle East.

Darrell Green and Art Monk

2008-02-02T14:23:00.001-08:00

Darrell Green and Art Monk were elected to the Hall of Fame today. Monk had not made it for the first several years that he was eligible, and this stirred quite a bit of controversy. Green made it in his first year of eligibility.
Monk was the most important piece of Joe Gibbs' Super Bowl teams, even if John Riggins was more important in the early years of the run. Monk ended up playing on 4 Super Bowl teams for the Redskins. He was the all-time leading receiver in the NFL when he retired with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns. So, it would seem that his election to the Hall of Fame would have been automatic. But two things seemed to hold Monk back. One, he was a quiet and humble man rather than being brash and egotistical like Michael Irwin. This led to him not getting as much media attention while he was playing. Second, he wasn't particularly known as a deep threat. He was a possession receiver who made catches when it counted and kept the chains moving. Gibbs has always pointed out that he was an exceptional blocker who helped out with the running game as well.
Darrell Green will be remembered as the fastest man in football while he played. He was one of the game's best cornerbacks. He finished his career with 54 career interceptions. He also returned punts. Green's durability and longevity amazed all observers of the NFL. He played his entire 20-year career with the Washington Redskins, and played on three Super Bowl teams.

Wilbon

2008-02-01T16:42:00.000-08:00

I have been hit with high blood pressure over the last couple of weeks, and it's going to result in some big changes for me, mostly dietary... for now. But I am lucky... so far. The worst part of it is the concern that this can lead to stroke, kidney failure, heart disease, etc. But at least I didn't have a heart attack. Now, I read in the Washington Post that the nationally acclaimed sports writer and co-star of PTI (Pardon the Interruption), Michael Wilbon, had a heart attack while out in Arizona covering the Super Bowl. He is 49. I'll be 49 next month. I definitely can relate to that. He has written a column about the ordeal and the responses he has gotten from sports figures around the country. Puts things in perspective for me. It also makes me realize how close to the brink I walk. I'm taking it very seriously.
Michael Wilbon is a fine writer, a good thinker, and a significant voice for African Americans in the sports world. I admire his accomplishments and wish him a fast and full recovery.

Aurora

2008-01-30T08:45:00.000-08:00

I just discovered that someone had linked to my Aurora article.

So, I thought I'd say a few words about that. The spiritual practice of the latihan kejiwaan that is offered in Subud is a gift beyond price or description for humanity. That it goes unnoticed and unwanted by most people could be the fault of those of us in Subud who have failed to express this gift properly in our own lives. It could be the fault of the structure of Subud as it was given to us by the founder of Subud. Or it could be that the great life force is just meant to be experienced in many different ways.

My idea of Aurora addresses the second point, offering a slightly different structure than would be acceptable in Subud at this time. But the fact may be that the manifestation of the great life force through a vehicle like the latihan may just not be for everyone. It may be for the few.

(The lovely illustration comes from Harmony Acupuncture.)

Vinny Cerrato: Man in Charge

2008-01-29T15:26:00.000-08:00

There's a good discussion of the situation with the Washington Redskins in Jason La Canfora's blog today. He clarifies for his readers, many of whom didn't seem to get this point before (complaining as they have that the Redskins haven't hired a GM to run the show), that when Vinny Cerrato was made the Executive Vice President/Football Operations, he was made the equivalent of a GM, but with a fancier title. La Canfora gives us an NFL executive's inside account of how other teams are viewing the situation. Said the unnamed exec,

Vinny's running it, Vinny is the GM. This is the first time you can really put everything on Vinny, beginning right now. And his first act as chief of operations is to find a new coach and he's hired coordinators first and basically has his staff in place already. That's a completely outside-the-box way of doing business, and we'll find out of it was right or wrong.

It's evident to every football man in the National Football League that the Vinny Cerrato era has begun. Whether it works or not - and a lot of people are wondering if it can work - right now you can honestly say he's in charge. In the past he's always been under the radar, and he could blame Dan or blame a coach, but he can no longer do that. It's his team now.

Not only does La Canfora make this point, but he does a great job of telling us what that means in some detail. Vinny Cerrato's background in San Francisco means that he comes from the Bill Walsh tree of West Coast football. And already, we're seeing that develop on this team with the hiring of offensive coordinator Jim Zorn. Now Zorn's own approach comes from the Mike Holmgren branch of the West Coast offense, but it's the same idea, generally.

There are some real concerns that Jason Campbell won't be able to make the transition to the West Coast offense well. But there were real concerns that he wouldn't be able to make it anyway. The jury's still out. He has a chance.

La Canfora also let us know that the word is that Gregg Williams, former Defensive Coordinator and once the leading candidate to succeed Joe Gibbs as Head Coach, wanted to keep Al Saunders as the Offensive Coach partly to give Jason Campbell some continuity with the program, and that he wanted Saunders to curtail part of his 700 page playbook.

Now my take on that is that if Joe Gibbs, in conversation with Daniel Snyder, has supported the idea of Vinny Cerrato being the man-in-charge, then it makes sense that Cerrato would have wanted to take this team in a new direction offensively, and that may be the most solid reason we'll ever discover for why Gregg Williams did not get the job. (On the other hand, if they wanted Williams, it's hard to see why they couldn't have said--Look, we want you, but if you get the job, we're going to make some changes on offense. Then again, maybe they did say this, and maybe Williams was against it. Who knows?)

I hope that this will put to rest the clamor for a GM to be in charge of the Washington Redskins. But it won't. Vinny Cerrato probably deserves a chance to build this team. But everyone sees him as a 'yes-man' to Snyder, and they think (whether rightly or wrongly) that Snyder gets way too involved in the football decisions. Maybe they're right. But I continue to see Snyder as mainly an excited fan with the big money who likes to be close to the action. I think that Gibbs had almost total control the last four years, and now the reigns have been passed to Cerrato.

Obama's SC Victory Speech

2008-01-27T14:45:00.000-08:00

This is why I still care about American politics.

Senator Kennedy is Joining Carolyn

2008-01-27T12:46:00.000-08:00

Here's a NY Times article talking about Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.

The major victory in South Carolina seems to have been what a number of people were waiting for. How can Hillary trumpet her "experience" factor when experienced Senators like Kennedy believe that Obama is experienced enough?

Obama Gets Caroline Kennedy Endorsement

2008-01-26T23:08:00.000-08:00

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, has written an op ed in the New York Times endorsing Barack Obama.

Obama Wins South Carolina

2008-01-26T18:33:00.000-08:00

It looks like there's some justice in the world after all.

South Carolina Democratic Primary
Candidate	Votes	%
Barack Obama	287,464	55
Hillary Clinton	138,110	27
John Edwards	92,256	18
Other	2,389	0
Key: Winner Precincts: 98% \| Updated: 9:28 PM ET \| Source: AP

Redskins: Moving Forward? I Hope

2008-01-26T17:11:00.000-08:00

I had hoped that Redskins owner Daniel Snyder would opt for continuity with Gregg Williams as the new Head Coach. But that's not going to happen, and I can only hope that he knows what he's doing. It seems that most people are convinced he doesn't.

I'm not going to hang on to the past, though. I'll roll with the punches and see what happens.

What we know at this point is that Jim Zorn (above left), formerly of the Seattle Seahawks, is the new Offensive Coordinator, and Greg Blache (above right) is the new Defensive Coordinator. At least Blache represents continuity. He was our defensive line coach. It is also being reported that Kirk Olivadotti (right), the linebackers coach, has been resigned. Both Blache and Olivadotti are well-liked by the players. It is also being reported that there is an effort to keep most of the other coaches. That would include Joe Bugel on the Offensive Line, I presume. So, there is still a chance for continuity. It does make you wonder how someone new is going to come into a situation where all the other coaches have been picked for him already.

Achmed the Dead Terrorist

2008-01-26T10:01:00.000-08:00

Have you seen the ventriloquist Jeff Dunham doing the skit "Achmed the Dead Terrorist"? There's something about being able to laugh at the whole problem that's so healing.

Laughter is nature's best medicine.

Barack Obama's Top 10 on Letterman

2008-01-26T09:55:00.000-08:00

Have you all seen Barack Obama delivering the Top 10 countdown on Letterman?

Good for him!

Alienation and Bill Clinton

2008-01-25T22:32:00.000-08:00

I have been very troubled this past week about Bill Clinton's new role in the presidential campaign. At least I'm seeing that I'm not alone. There have been a number of articles about this, and the Clintons are apparently realizing that they are alienating a large number of Democrats. One thread, the dominant thread I'm afraid, has been to point out how Clinton has alienated black voters. But it's not just black voters. It's Barack Obama supporters in general, and that includes me.

An interesting twist on this story appears in today's op ed from E.J. Dionne. One of the things Clinton has attacked Obama for is Obama's remarks that Reagan has had a long-lasting impact on American politics, and that the Republicans of that era were the party of new ideas. It's true enough to begin with. But more than that, Dionne writes:

It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.

Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure," but the signal had been sent: Clinton was willing to move beyond "the brain-dead politics in both parties," as he so often put it.

His apostasy was widely noticed. The Memphis Commercial Appeal praised Clinton a few days later for daring to "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan." Clinton's "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia . . .," the paper wrote, "is one reason he's a candidate to watch."

Dionne goes on to note that the great thing about Bill Clinton was his willingness to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans and to embrace innovative thinking. And he notes the irony that Barack Obama is following Clinton's example with his middle-of-the-road approach.

The worst thing about all this is what both Clintons are doing to their own legacy as pioneers of an approach that rejected, as Bill Clinton said in a 1991 speech, "the stale orthodoxies of left and right." The great asset shared by the Clintons is their willingness to bring fresh thinking to old problems.

All I can say is that as much as I've supported Bill Clinton in the past, this approach of his playing the role of a vice-presidential-like 'attack dog' for his wife Hillary has completely rubbed me the wrong way. Obama is right that they are running a dirty-tricks campaign. And if they keep it up, I and many others will be so alienated that we'll actually do the unthinkable and consider the Republican candidates if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

Jim Zorn

2008-01-25T22:30:00.001-08:00

Today, as part of this Redskin melodrama, they hired Jim Zorn to be the new Offensive Coordinator. The hate-Snyder crowd scowls that Snyder has done something horrible in hiring the Offensive Coordinator before hiring the Head Coach. But what they're not getting is that both of the leading candidates for the job, Fassel and Williams, both had Zorn high on their lists, and will be happy with the Zorn hiring. As for Zorn, I'm actually very pleased by the hiring. The Redskins have struggled on offense for years. And they have lost to the Seahawks in the playoffs in two of the last three years. Zorn was the quarterbacks coach for the Seahawks, and is credited not only for the development of Hasselbeck as a quarterback, but also for coming up with key strategies that have helped the Seahawks exploit weaknesses in opposing defenses. Zorn will bring a west coast offense along with a mixture of other styles to Washington, according to Clare Farnsworth of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Farnsworth points out that Zorn has played and coached under a number of styles. He was the Seahawks quarterback himself, and coached for the Detroit Lions, as well as several college teams including Boise State and Utah State. Farnsworth has heard Seattle Head Coach Mike Holmgren praise Zorn for his imaginative approach to the game.

Joe Gibbs

2008-01-25T22:21:00.000-08:00

I didn't know it, but Joe Gibbs has a website where he gives a weekly update on his life. I was glad to be able to hear where he was at in things at this point. The hostile mania in Washington over the coaching search has been growing to hysteria in recent days. It was good to hear that he says that he is continuing to advise Dan Snyder on the search for a coach. The Redskins fans are going nuts in Washington because they believe that Dan Snyder is blowing apart the team. The Washington Post reporters are fanning the flames. Jason La Canafora is the worst. He despises Snyder. No wonder Snyder cut the Post out. Anyway, every rumor is reported with as negative a twist as it can be reported in. And the fans are rebelling with rage over the Snyder approach to the team. Most fans wanted continuity with the Gibbs regime by an immediate hiring of Gregg Williams. I basically agree. I don't want Snyder to hire Jim Fassel. But as long as Gibbs has a hand in it, I think it will go all right. I guess that Snyder is going to wait to interview Steve Spagnuolo. If he wants to take a look at Spagnuolo, I can wait. It's fine. I don't think Spagnuolo would be a bad choice. But most of us Skins fans want to see continuity, and I don't see how we're going to have that without Gregg Williams.

Howard's End

2008-01-21T07:51:00.000-08:00

Tara and I watched "Howard's End" last night. Howard's End was a novel by E.M. Forster, the British novelist. Forster is famous for writing about the division of classes in Edwardian England. He was a member of the Bloomsbury Club, which evolved out of "the Cambridge Apostles" society. Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, and Henry Sidgwick were amongst the philosophers in the Apostles society. John Maynard Keynes was in both the Apostles and the Bloomsbury Club.

Howard's End is the story of two sisters, Margaret (Emma Thompson) and Helen (Helena Bonham Carter), who are part of the intellectual middle class and who meet in groups like Bloomsbury for discussion and edification. They both find themselves associated, on the one end of the spectrum, with the newly wealthy Wilcox family, and on the other end, with the Basts, who are struggling to stay alive. The question is how to stir Henry Wilcox (Anthony Hopkins) out of his selfish egocentrism, and to remind him of his social duties, and how to help the Basts weather the changing times. Sounds a lot like what we're living through.

Henry Wilcox epitomizes the wealthy businessman who lives out the Gospel of Wealth, and who has no conscience when it comes to the poor. When confronted with the Basts' plight, Wilcox warns against sympathizing with the poor, and says: "The poor are the poor, and one's sorry for them - but there it is."

The thing that I like about this film, aside from terrific performances all the way around and beautiful footage of old English homes, is that the women are intelligent characters. Watching them in action reminds me how, to this day, we see far too little of this. Margaret and Helen are heroines for a new age who become forces for good without completely rejecting their tradition. They drag the tradition along into the new world and a new consciousness of it.

The novel concludes with these lines:

Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer.

The two sisters represent, to me, the integration of prose and passion, and their entire effort is to bring this union into society.

The Bible and Politics

2008-01-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

One of the scarier moments of this election cycle was when Joseph Dearing from Dallas, Texas held up his Bible and taunted the candidates with his question: "I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"

The way he glared into the camera, he looked like a dangerous person ready to do damage to anyone who didn't answer his question with a straight-forward fundamentalist "Yes." I cringed when I saw him forming his question and thrusting the Bible into the camera's lens. He didn't get a straight-forward yes from anyone. It turns out he's a Ron Paul supporter, and he was disappointed that Paul didn't get to answer the question. Dearing says that Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas is a "typical liberal pastor." That's because Huckabee pointed out that some of the language of the Bible is metaphorical, and that we don't know if the world was created in 6 literal days or not. Is that liberal? God help us all.

Wizards

2008-01-15T10:26:00.000-08:00

I have to take at least a moment today to celebrate the Wizards' back-to-back victories over the Celtics. They finished last night on a 25-6 run to complete a come-from-behind victory at 88-83 in Boston. This comes on the heels of an 85-78 victory on Saturday night in Washington. The fact is, the Celtics couldn't stop Caron Butler (above and right) when it counted. He scored 21 to lead the Wizards' scorers. He and Jamison are now the NBA's leading scoring duo.

When I turned the game on last night, the Wizards were down in the fourth, and then the Celtics completed a 16-4 run that left me thinking the Wizards were done for. Tommy Heinsohn was gloating about how great the Celtics were, and not a good word for the Wizards at all. Even when Haywood blocked Tony Allen's shot off the court, Heinsohn was still all about how great Tony Allen is. The Celtics are great this year. But I got so sick of hearing Heinsohn's one-sided commentary that I turned down the volume, and watched in silence as the Wizards mounted a terrific comeback. They went on that 25-6 run over the last 6:24 of the game, and only knew they'd won when Deshawn Stevenson put them up by 4 with a free-throw at .5 seconds left.

I can't say enough about what a joy it has been to watch this team this year. They lost their starting center, Etan Thomas (below), to heart-surgery before the season began. (And by the way, doctors have just cleared Etan to practice with the team! Good for him! Yay! I was afraid he'd never play again. They gave him a new aorta valve. Oh, the miracles of modern medicine.) And then they lost Gilbert Arenas early on for at least 3 months. And yet, without Arenas, they're still only a game and a half back from the division leader after starting 0-5. Their record without Arenas this year is 17-11.

Note the low scores in the Boston games. Boston has been winning more with their defense this year than with their offense. Washington, long the epitome of a porous NBA defense, has matched Boston's intensity of defense. And they're playing team basketball. What a novel concept! They pass the ball around and look for open shots. Eddie Jordan (left ) has done a great job with this team.

McCain

2008-01-15T08:33:00.000-08:00

For the last week, we've heard that McCain, following his victory in New Hampshire, has gained front-runner status. I'm not convinced that New Hampshire might end up being the only win he gets, but we'll see how it goes today and through the next month. I'm writing about him today because I read an article in the Washington Post, interestingly titled "President Non Grata," that I thought was interesting and significant. 42% of the people who voted for McCain in New Hampshire said they are against the war in Iraq, versus 22% who voted for Romney being against the war in Iraq. What's strange about that is that McCain has been one of staunchest supporters of Bush's policy in Iraq. I can understand that Republicans who are against this war, and who didn't abandon the party, may feel they have no alternative. Romney's policy-stances are a continuation of the status quo in most regards. McCain is seen as a bit of a maverick. But he's also the one who said that he can see American troops in Iraq for the next 100 years, 1000 years, or even million years. No doubt McCain is making the point that Americans need to stay as long as it takes to do the job. But give me a break.

McCain had some appeal to me when he was standing up to Bush. He has lost all appeal to me with this empire-espousing foolish bravado.

2008-01-12T00:39:00.000-08:00

Tonight, I went out to King's Tavern. The band was pretty darn good. Amy the bartender told me that it was called Crossroads. Anyway, I met the drummer during one of their breaks. He's a very good drummer, and looks very interesting with his caucasion Rastafarian-hippy kind of look. I had noted that he had a Ron Paul sticker on his drum. And when I told him that I teach philosophy, I started to hear all about a movie called "America: From Freedom to Facism." He was happy to know that I knew that the income tax and the IRS are unconstitutional, and he went on to tell me some of what he'd picked up from his research, including this movie.

Of course, he and I are coming at things from very different angles. He's an independent musician, and I work for the State of California as a university professor. I'm in favor of raising taxes so that we can pay for education. He, on the other hand, wants the government out of the income-tax-collection business, because he sees them as corrupt and using our money for so much evil in the world. I can't disagree with him about the misuse and the evil. So, where does that leave us? I went through a period when I was younger when I was very much under the persuasion of the libertarians. I was a big fan of Karl Hess, former speech-writer for Barry Goldwater, who wrote the line "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no extreme." I still agree with that to a large extent. Liberty is one of the greatest goods that we enjoy, and is one of the only things in this world that might be world fighting and dying for. Well, anyway, according to Hess, when Goldwater lost the election, the Johnson administration got the IRS after Hess as part of a political retaliation. I don't know if that's true, or not. But the interesting thing is that Hess sent the IRS the Declaration of Independence, and he started working on a barter system, welding in exchange for goods and services. He also went on to start a community in Washington, D.C. based on the barter system. He wrote a book about that called Community Technology. It's all fascinating stuff. Hess had people in D.C. growing crops on the rooftops and starting fish farms in the basement. His goal was to make an independent, self-sufficient libertarian community. I was fascinated with all of that. Anyway, read his book Dear America sometime if you're interested in Hess.

For my part, I decided that libertarianism was too extreme for me. I thought that government had a significant role to play in the world. I began to believe, as I still do, that we need a middle-of-the-road system that aims for an ideal where government is limited, yet does what we need it to do. I opted for the middle way of not too much, and not to little. But that's the trick, isn't it? Deciding where to draw that line! I was persuaded by George Will, Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp that government had gotten too big and too intrusive, and that it needed to be reigned in. It needed to be more efficient, and I still believe that. I read Jude Wanninski's The Way the World Works, and was swept up in the Reagan revolution of limiting government. I accepted what I still believe: that taxation can become such a burden that it needs sometimes to be scaled back so that we can stimulate more production. But as I argued in an earlier post, there is an optimal level of taxation. Society also needs some things that government does best, including stimulating the economy through some government spending. It's the balance that we must aim for.

To me, the Reagan Revolution went too far. Ronald Reagan had been a Democrat in his early life. He was a depression-era kid who saw the good that F.D.R. did. As far as I know, he didn't reject the New Deal. He just didn't want government to get too big. People like Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, were ideologues who seem to see government as bad, pure and simple, and wanted to go to the other extreme. I voted for Bill Clinton twice because he represented the balance to me. He wanted an efficient government that was neither trying to do too much, nor trying to do too little. The DNC was about taking a centrist approach. It was not a "liberal" branch of the Democratic Party, if you define "liberal" as negatively as "tax and spend." Well, everyone in government taxes and spends. Yes, even you Republicans. The question is always how much to tax and spend, and what the government should spend on. The problem for me is that it's not a question of either just spending more, or on cutting the programs. It's wise management of the government, and it's nearly impossible. We have so much to learn. On that last thought, I recommend Schumacher's Small is Beautiful, which argues for economies of scale. There are many things that the Federal Government tries to deal with that would be better handled at the state or local levels.

Anyway, meeting "Super Dave" was a kick, and very stimulating to me.

Ok, Here it Comes

2008-01-11T12:10:00.000-08:00

The Pentagon is now saying that they're not sure if the Iranians were the ones who were threatening them over the radio. In fact, they're not sure who was being threatened over the radio, or who was making the call. It was the coincidence of the radio threats and the activity of the patrol boats that escalated this whole matter. Analysts have now said that the accent on the recording doesn't sound like that of an Iranian.

Notice, though, how quickly the President and others jumped on this, and exploited this, to build a case for action against Iran. It's difficult to believe what he says anymore.

The Country that Cried Wolf?

2008-01-10T15:16:00.000-08:00

The U.S. says that they were threatened and harassed by some Iranian patrol boats. Iran says that the U.S. is exaggerating the story, and in fact making up the part about threats. I would have assumed, in the past, that our great and good government would not lie about such things. But we've heard too many lies to just assume that it's the Iranians and not our own government this time. Didn't they ever read or hear about the boy who cried wolf?

Iran has now released a video of their guys out at sea asking the US ships for their name and position. The battleships' response was that they were in international waters. Now, obviously, Iran could be showing a film from a different day. Maybe they're not the same patrol boats. But thanks to the behavior of our current president, I don't know who to believe at this point.

Better Late than Never?

2008-01-10T14:50:00.001-08:00

George Bush has finally decided to act on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Talk about too little too late! It's as if he finally realized, "Hey, my takeover of Iraq isn't going so well. The Middle East is a mess. And they don't seem to like us too much over there. I wonder why? Maybe it would help if we did something with the Palestinian issue." Well, it's better late than never, I guess.

True Courage

2008-01-10T13:39:00.000-08:00

George Skelton has an interesting op-ed in the LA Times today, in which he says that Governor Schwarzenegger had to be shaken to his fiscal senses by Republican State Senator Tom McClintock. McClintock pointed out that state spending and budget deficits are growing at a faster rate under Schwartzenegger than in former Governor Davis's term. He writes that the governor, hearing that pleas that he was going to have to get the $14.5 billion deficit in order, responded "That is bad news that people don't want to hear. People want to hear only good news. I don't want to hear pessimism. I'm an optimist." But since that conversation, obviously Governor Schwarzenegger has decided to take a turn to the right. He had been trying to please everybody, and I guess he's decided that he can't do it. So, we got a demand from the governor for draconian budget cuts, across the board. A law that requires a certain level of increased spending each year in education is to be suspended under his plan. Health care for the poor is going to be cut. School lunch programs are going to be hit. This hurts the governor. I don't think he wants people to get hurt. I don't think he wants me to lose my job, as will probably happen. But he ultimately believes in what George Bush the elder once called 'voodoo economics': that by taxing less, we'll ultimately all be better off. It's the "trickle-down" supply-side theory. And so that's where he'll take his stand, I guess.

The Laffer Curve is ultimately correct, but simplistic. It says that if you tax people too much, less tax money actually flows into the state coffers because people stop producing as much. There comes a point when you have to cut back on taxation. True enough. But I have to believe that Jude Wanninski would argue that you can't just keep cutting taxes either. There comes another point when you've cut too much, and the tax revenues start falling again. I mean, it's obvious really. It shouldn't have to be said. The curve hits a crest and then falls again. But it does have a crest. You have to find the optimal level of taxation. And it seems to me we're not there right now.

It seems to me that enough is enough. If the governor truly had courage, he'd step
up to the plate and say that there are some programs that we must fund properly in order to improve the health of the state. And to do that, we can't keep cutting taxes. In fact, we face a crisis that demands that we raise revenues. We need to keep the State of California prosperous, and the way to do that is to spend just enough. Not too much. Not too little. That's what takes real courage.

Time to Rethink the War on Drugs?

2008-01-09T14:37:00.000-08:00

Governor Schwarzenegger gave an alarming speech yesterday, suggesting again that California is in dire straights economically. He now recommends that we have a constitutional amendment saying that we should have automatic cuts when the State goes in the red, and that we should have automatic savings when we have prosperous years so that we can save for a 'rainy day'.

Sounds okay on the surface, but the only reason we need to do that is if we can't raise revenues (taxes). And some of us would argue that we have to get over the mindless mantra that all taxes are bad taxes. We have to pay for State services. We can't simply go decade after decade cutting our real spending on education, for example. I read an article in the LA Times that said we need to reconsider the Property Tax restrictions put in place by Prop 13. Warren Buffet apparently recommended that the governor do this, but it amounts to political suicide to even consider it. Everyone wants something for nothing.

This brings me to the tangential point that a friend and colleague told me last year that we could save lots of money in the state by relaxing our drug laws. As someone who has never, at any point, been into drugs, I didn't take this too seriously at first. But over time, his point has made more and more sense to me. According to the statistics that I've read, California has a prison population of more than 172,000. It costs Californians $8 billion per year. Non-violent drug offenders constitute nearly 21% of that prison population. If that is true, approximately $2 billion per year could be saved if we did not imprison people for drug use. That's not to mention the money that would be saved by not having to prosecute all these cases in the first place.

And it doesn't necessarily follow that eliminating prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses leads to complete legalization of drugs either. Drinking alcohol is legal, but public drunkenness and driving while drunk is not. Similarly, drug use can be regulated through fines and by putting people in jail just long enough for their high to wear off if they've endangered others. Can you imagine what our prison budget would look like if we imprisoned all the heavy drinkers in the state?

PEDS (Performance Enhancing Drugs)

2008-01-09T10:40:00.001-08:00

On NPR this morning, sports commentator Frank Deford said that it was difficult to believe pitcher Roger Clemens' protests that he did not use steroids. For my own part, I also find it difficult to believe that his trainer would lie, as Clemens has suggested, because he was under threat from Feds that he might go to jail. The fact is that he was being threated with jail IF he lied, and to lie about someone the trainer looked up to so much in the face of that makes no sense at all. Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds went from being good, maybe even great, players in their 20s and 30s, to being extraordinary players as they approached 40. How did they do this when everyone else who had ever played experienced a downward slide to their career at that age? How did they get to be bigger, stronger, and faster than they'd ever been at a time when other people's bodies are begin to slip? When we hear that Clemens' trainer, under pressure, admitted to giving Clemens steroids, it fits what we saw too well to not be believed. It helps to explain the unexplainable. The tape Clemens illegally recorded--isn't it still illegal to record phone conversations without telling someone you're doing it?--doesn't prove anything. I heard a man who was still 'worshipping' Clemens seeking forgiveness and asking Clemens to speak with his ailing son. I feel sorry for the trainer to have been captured in such a pathetic position, but that's another point.

What I really wanted to write about here, however, is based on a theme that Deford brought up. He argued that while people look down more on actions like shaving points for gamblers, the fact is that all cheating in sports, whether the goal is to win or lose, is 'fixing' the games. It's just as bad, he said, to cheat to win as it is to cheat to lose. And you know, that's what people really believe, too. Clemens is angry because he has become a pariah. He has gone from hero to goat. What got my attention in this commentary is how much of a pariah people like Clemens and Bonds become once people know they've cheated with steroids. The message that goes out to young people now has to be this: if you cheat, far from being acknowledged as 'great', you could very well spend the rest of your life in disgrace.

(Cartoon by John Pritchett)

Joe Gibbs Resigns

2008-01-08T11:34:00.000-08:00

I was born and raised in Washington, D.C., and have continued following the Redskins since my childhood.

The Redskins have announced that Joe Gibbs is resigning today, both as President and Head Coach of the Washington Redskins. Some have expressed great surprise. I cannot say that I am surprised. The fact is that he is 67 years old. He puts in 14-18 hour days during the football season. He has a wife who would like to see him not die from the stress of coaching. He has a grandson with leukemia. He experienced one of his star players murdered this year. He does not need the money. When you add to that the fact that this was a chance to go out on top, the stars were aligned for this second retirement after 15 years as head coach of the Washington Redskins. There are few observers of the NFL who would deny that holding this team together after the murder of Sean Taylor, and helping them to rally to win the last four games of the season and reach the playoffs, is one of the great coaching achievements and stories of NFL history. People watched and they thought, "Joe Gibbs must still be a great coach." Under the circumstances, I just can't see what he would have to gain in coming back for another try.

On the team end of things, the Redskins are a good team that often required some heavy lifting in the motivation department. Gibbs provided that. But even when motivated, this Redskins team is not good enough to consistently beat the better teams in the league. They had trouble staying on the same field with the Patriots earlier this season. The fact is that while this team is good, it is not good enough. If the Redskins are to continue growing, there will have to be some more painful moves that disrupt 'the family' that Gibbs has built. Some players will be cut, and some others will be brought in. There are some major improvements that are needed if the Redskins are to become a power in the NFL once more.

That said, the Redskins are considerably improved from the state that Gibbs found them in. To me, Gibbs has done what he came to Washington to do: he righted the ship. It's an impressive team. It's a team that is no longer taken lightly. It's a team that has pride. It's a team that has cohesion. It's a family. Gibbs built that family and recreated an ethos that the players believe in. At 67, Gibbs can leave knowing that he has restored dignity to the Washington Redskins franchise. As a fan, I'm very grateful for that.

Winning is fabulous, but contrary to what another former Redskins coach, Vince Lombardi, once taught, it's not everything. There is much to be said for simple dignity. There is much to be said for playing, or living for that matter, with honor. And that, to me, is Gibbs's legacy in Washington.

"Fixing" the World

2007-12-28T10:01:00.001-08:00

Most of our politicians, in the wake of the Bhutto assassination, feel the need to strut their stuff as tough-minded, aggressive foreign policy activists. We need to "fix" the problems in Pakistan before they become worse. I have my doubts about this approach. It's true that we can use financial leverage in order to try to encourage democracy. But can we really "fix" Pakistan? And why stop there? Can we "fix" Burma, Afghanistan, Tibet, Iran, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine, too? And all at the same time? Is it our business to "fix" anyone's country even if we could? Again, I have my doubts. I can't help believe that Jesus' saying about taking the log out of one's own eye before taking the splinter out of someone else's applies here. Usually, the answers lie within. And they lie in transforming oneself. We lead by example in this world. America has lost its moral standing in the world. Many people see us as little better than other bullying, abusive oligarchies around the world. And I can't blame them at this point. We have high ideals, but we're not currently living up to them. Let's be careful about spreading ourselves too thin "fixing" the world while we have troubles enough for the day right here at home.

Martyr for Democracy in Pakistan

2007-12-27T22:55:00.001-08:00

Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan and current candidate for President of that country, was assassinated today. General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in the military coup of 1999, was warned by many to take steps to provide better security for her. Senator Joseph Biden, for instance, says he has insisted upon it. Musharraf chose not to protect his likely successor. I wonder why. Whether Musharraf was directly behind the assassination or not, he, at the very least, turned a blind eye to efforts to assassinate her. Perhaps Islamic militants did his dirty work for him. He wouldn't have had to have ordered the murder. All he had to do was refuse to let her protect herself, and the deed was as good as done. Bhutto had offered to pay for the extra security precautions herself. But Musharraf said no, even when Biden requested it on her behalf. So, where has George Bush been in all of this? He's buddies with Musharraf, while Musharraf does nothing to find Osama Bin Laden. Just like he's buddies with Vladimir Putin, whose opponents mysteriously get killed, while Putin turns Russia's history back toward dictatorship. We're fighting a war that is supposed to spread democracy through the world, we're told. Democracy took a hit today. Freedom took a hit. Moderation took a hit. What will George Bush do? Whose side is he on? Let's watch and see.

Post Presidential Survey

2007-12-26T14:19:00.001-08:00

The Washington Post has an interesting survey in their online edition today. You anonymously choose between either the Republican or Democratic candidates on 25 separate issues. Actually, the Democrats mostly agree on all of the issues, so we're only choosing between different wording in most cases. The wording can give you an idea of how seriously the candidate takes the particular issue, however. I was surprised to find that I had chosen Edwards and Clinton in a tie. Obama, whose personality and vision wins me over, was next to last based on the wording of his answers. Curious. Edwards was my number one choice if you consider what I thought were the major issues. Clinton caught up to him on my score sheet due to some issues that aren't as important to me. Edwards has been impressing me more and more, I have to admit. Anyway, it's also interesting to note that Clinton is leading in this survey at this point. That's not based on name-recognition. It's based on answers to issues. So, my hat's off to her on that! I will be less skeptical if she wins than I otherwise would have been.

Religious Bullies?

2007-12-01T11:02:00.001-08:00

This morning, Susan Jacoby, spokesperson for a secularist view on religion in the Washington Post, wrote an article that the Post entitled Religious Bullies in '08. Her perspective is that it is ironic that Religious Republicans are vying with one another to see who can be meanest toward immigrants in this country. She says that Jesus taught that we should give food and shelter to the poor, but the term 'sanctuary city' has become a dirty-word to the so-called Christians running for office.

The vast majority of comments that follow her column support her. I think that's probably because people of a like-mind are the only ones reading it. But this article has given me pause for thought.

I have been wondering why Democratic candidates support amnesty for illegal immigrants. On the face of it, that makes no sense to me. But I guess it's the view that we should be compassionate to those who are suffering.

To this point in my life, I cannot support that position, however. If that's the way we feel about it, then we should change our immigration laws, and invite the poor from all over the world to come here. But until we take that position, which is unlikely to ever happen, we have laws on the book that need to be honored and enforced. It is my belief that the ones who benefit the most from illegal immigration are the wealthy amongst us, or more to the point, the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. To support illegal immigrants is to support big business, and it is to oppose the American worker. I am on the side of the true American worker, whatever their nation of origin.

I don't wish people from other countries harm. I don't oppose legal immigration. I don't like policies that help businesses to drive down the wages of Americans. I don't like policies that take away the jobs of Americans. We should support our families first, and our fellow-citizens second. If there is money left over, we can donate to causes that help the poor in other countries. We should not support policies that take away wages and jobs from our fellow-citizens.

Cosmological Argument

2007-11-13T22:00:00.001-08:00

I have just read the most powerful defense of the cosmological arguments that I've ever read in John E. Smith's Experience and God. Parts of this book are simply amazing!

The crux of Smith's argument is that if you want an ultimately intelligible worldview, with ultimate explanations, you must allow that (1) the contingent world doesn't contain within itself the ground of its own being, and (2) it requires for this ground a necessary being outside itself.

Smith fully admits that if you don't believe you need a principle of sufficient reason or principle of intelligibility, i.e., if you can do without ultimate explanations, then you need not be persuaded by the force of the cosmological argument.

There is a God. The failure to see this is due to having a clouded mind.

I don't think anyone finds God, or however you might conceive the ultimate divinity of the world, through reason alone. But God touches every life, whether recognized or not. If we seek God, we find God both in our experience and in the use of reason. Having had the experience of God, it makes supreme sense to look for ultimate explanations in the world. And once you allow that there are, or should be, ultimate explanations, there is no denying God.

I am very impressed with John Smith's work. He emphasizes that we begin in a world of tradition and experience. He believes in the power and the necessity of revelation. Given these, however, we seek the intelligibility of our experience. And we find it in a combination of arguments for the existence of God. I think he has it just right.

(In the history of Philosophy, the cosmological argument has been forcefully argued for by, among others, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, and Leibniz.)

The Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner

2007-11-12T16:01:00.001-08:00

I just watched the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner, and came away believing that we are pretty well represented, and that whoever wins the nomination would be a decent president.

Positives and negatives as I observed them at this presentation alone:

John Edwards: (Pros) cares about the common man; stands up against big money players (Cons) looks worn down by this campaign; comes across like the polished attorney he is (December 28: I have to say that Edwards is a much more favorable candidate to me now.)

Bill Richardson: (Pros) passionate critic of illegal practices of the Bush Administration; experienced in diplomatic solutions to international problems; (Cons) appearance and presentation skills less than desired; looks hardened, unfriendly

Chris Dodd: (Pros) experienced legislator acting on behalf of the underprivileged; ability to build consensus in legislature (Cons) appearance and presentation skills less than desired; looks hardened, unfriendly

Joe Biden: (Pros) very presidential looking; very experienced on foreign policy; very intelligent; great speaker; ability to build consensus in legislature (Cons) a little too cocky; patronizing, even when he's trying not to be

Hillary Clinton: (Pros) better presentation than I expected; experienced on domestic policy; ready to take on the Republicans; cares about minority rights; cares about suffering Americans; will work for better health care; (Cons) too willing to make political compromises; presentation is sometimes harsh and shrill

Barack Obama: (Pros) gives us hope for a better tomorrow;very presidential looking; very intelligent; outstanding speaker; genuinely cares about average people; working against politics as usual; against Iraq War from beginning; wants to bring troops home quickly; wants to build consensus with Republicans; working against divisive politics; will work for better health care; will work for interests of workers (Cons) inexperienced on national and international scene

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the mistress of ceremonies for the event. I don't remember her using the words "the next President of the United States of America" except with Obama at the end. I could be wrong. Struck me as an odd sort of endorsement, though if it was, I was welcome it.

Obama strikes me as the man of the hour. He's right for so many reasons. Beyond the list I've made here, it simply fits that he represents a new America that isn't simply 'lily white'. Nonetheless, I am more comfortable with Clinton than I was before. And Biden continues to impress me. Edwards seems like a good man who isn't right for this job. Richardson and Dodd are good public servants whom I can't envision as the type of charismatic leader I'd want.

Senator Clinton is the frontrunner at this point. She's very capable. She's a fighter. As a fighter, she's a bit abrasive. If that's what America wants, I can live with it. If she is what America wants, I can live with it.

Obama will suffer from prejudice. I suspect that he is already suffering from this in the polls. A man at a bus stop recently told me he suspected Obama isn't very bright. Unfortunately many voters aren't very bright. I informed this man that Obama had been President of the Harvard Law Review, and was a Law Professor at the University of Chicago. You don't get to be President of the Harvard Law Review without being one of the brightest minds in our country. But because his skin is black, this prejudice will be hard to overcome. It is a shame. But it is real.

Does Our Vote Count?

2007-11-12T14:19:00.001-08:00

I went to lunch with a friend and colleague this week. We discussed, amongst other things, his belief that our vote, in America, is meaningless. His view may best be summed up, I think, as the view that 1 vote, given the number of total ballots cast, will not change an election whether you cast it or not.

That's true, of course, except in an extraordinary election that is either tied or won by just 1 vote. In fact, it's a truism if considered only from this angle. But that's not what a vote is. And it's not what an election is. An election is an expression of the will of the people.

I didn't realize how much of a Kantian I was until I heard my friend argue this case. (Kant argued that one should always act as if by your act you were establishing a general rule of behavior.) But isn't it true that the surest way of ensuring that there will be no democracy in this country is to act as if our votes didn't count, and refrain from voting? I believe that elections have swung in one direction or another by citizens deciding that their vote doesn't count, and staying home from the polls.

We have a duty, as Kant would say, to do what ought to be done, regardless of the circumstances. And what ought to be done is to express your choice on election day, even if you believe, due to the media and polling, that your candidate is going to lose. And you should vote with confidence and celebration if you believe your candidate is going to win. People staying home, in large numbers, can swing the vote one way or another. We as a people elect candidates. We as individuals do not. But we as individuals must encourage our neighbors by example to vote so that we end up with leaders that truly express the will of the people.

The civil rights movement has included the demand that people of all races and of both genders be allowed to vote. If our votes are meaningless, then this aspect of the civil rights movement was meaningless. Tell that to anyone who was ever truly disenfranchised.

That said, whenever two sincere people disagree on anything, there is a truth to be found in both viewpoints. So, what is my friend really getting at? I think it's this: He himself feels that his vote does not count, because his views are out of step with the mainstream. In such a case, I have to admit that one could easily feel that one has a choice between the lesser of two evils, rather than being able to truly express one's will with a vote.

Even so, the choice between the lesser of two evils is precisely our choice when it comes to compromise. And democracies are driven by compromise. To participate in a democratic republic is to help sway the compromise in one direction or another. Sometimes you have to help move people in the direction of your views step-by-step. We all have a role to play in the vote.

Our President, the Torturer?

2007-11-03T22:17:00.001-07:00

I haven't had time to post much lately, but when I read that our President is definitely a torturer, I have to take note.

Dan Froomkin wrote in his column today:

"President Bush yesterday asserted that he would never nominate anyone for attorney general who would be willing to state that waterboarding is torture -- so, if the Senate doesn't approve Michael Mukasey, "that would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war."

If you read on, you see that the President, a man of faith--but what faith I have no idea anymore--is definitely...there's no speculating about this anymore...comfortable with waterboarding. Donna Leinwand, of USA TODAY, wrote of the small press conference the President gave: "He criticized Democrats for making Mukasey's confirmation contingent on his declaring illegal 'waterboarding,' a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning. Interrogation methods used by the CIA 'are safe, they are lawful, and they are necessary,' Bush said."

Froomkin's reaction: "There is, of course, no attorney general right now because Bush's last choice spectacularly self-destructed. And many members of Bush's own party are quite comfortable stating that waterboarding is torture. It's not exactly a controversial position, seeing as waterboarding has been an iconic form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition.

"But it's not Bush's style to back down, especially when a key element of his radical and unprecedented expansion of executive power is at stake.

"Instead, Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again."

There's a link to the full text of Bush's comments in Froomkin's column.

I'm ashamed of our President and everyone who supports him.

The Way of Spiritual Training

2007-10-15T23:40:00.001-07:00

I have been frustrated of late by the lack of growth in Subud. Subud's "latihan kejiwaan" (Indonesian for 'spiritual training') is a beautiful gift to humanity that is underappreciated and underutilized.

It is, in one sense, a quite simple phenomenon involving no prior or lead-up training or discipline. On the other hand, it is a profound phenomenon that requires patience and insight to fully appreciate and utilize. It is the subtle profundity of the latihan kejiwaan, devoid of flash and show, devoid of pomp and ceremony, that leads to its underappreciation and underutilization even among those who have at one time or another tried to enter into the training.

The latihan kejiwaan is similar to other spiritual practices. Like Tai Chi and Qi Gong, the latihan kejiwaan involves an experience of the life force flowing through one's body. Like yoga, too, the latihan kejiwaan involves a mind-body discipline that liberates the body and the ego from restraints that have held it back from development. Like Zen, the latihan kejiwaan is a way that emphasizes knocking the reasoning mind out of the driver's seat in order to receive the flow of the universe from its divine sources. Like the mystical forms of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, the latihan kejiwaan is a way of achieving the unity the self with the divine so that one's worship of God and one's self-development spring from the same source and the same activity.

The advantage of practicing the latihan for me is that it is completely spontaneous. It is completely a matter of experiencing the flow of the chi, or the power of God as we think of it in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, and learning to flow with, i.e. be guided by, it. The fact that the latihan is so spontaneous has positive and negative aspects, however. For someone who is ready for it, we experience it as a great advantage of systems that teach you physical and mental techniques to get into a state where you can receive this purification and guidance. The other side of that, however, in my experience, is that for the person who is not ready for it, there is little or no spontaneous receiving and the new practitioner becomes frustrated with the whole process.

Subud is not a religion, but is open to all people, including people of all philosophies and faiths.

In my personal life, I was raised as a Christian, but have come to appreciate all spirituality, and all of the world's religions. My approach to religion is rather like Gandhi's when he said that "I AM a Muslim... and a Hindu... and a Jew... and a Christian." He believed as I do that all religions focus on the worship of, and coming into harmony with, the divine, and its truths. Fundamentalist followers of all of these religions would reject me as not a true follower of their faiths, because I am a philosopher and seek the truth not through any particular set of stories or holy texts, but through a combination of prayerful seeking, experience and reason.

The roots of the latihan kejiwaan lie closer to Sufism, I believe, than any other religion, though the gift-bearer who initially taught us about the latihan, Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwijojo, always emphasized that his association, Subud, was meant to be open to people of all faiths.

But the religious labels don't matter.

What matters is the sincerity of surrender (sacrifice of the ego) to the guiding powers of the divine. We all have the divine spark within us. Jesus taught as much himself. The whole purpose of life is to try to come into harmony with the divine power that flows through the universe. And as a student and teacher of the world's religions, I have found this to be a universal theme.

The Plutonomy

2007-10-11T07:48:00.001-07:00

George Will has an interesting editorial this morning that focuses on the work of an economist from Citigroup named Ajay Kapur. Will entitles it "A Lexus in Every Garage," which hearkens back to the campaign theme of Hoover in the 1920s ("A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!"). Kapur is arguing that statistics about the average consumer are misleading: he says there isn't an average consumer. And some of the statistics he cites are shocking... at least to me.

The nation's wealthiest 1% own more than 1/2 of the nation's stocks.

This same wealthiest 1% controls more wealth ($16 trillion) than 90% of the population does.

The wealthiest 20% are responsible for 60% of the consumption in the U.S.

There are 9.5 millionaires worldwide.

There's such a thing as a "bling index," which has risen more than 300% since 2002. Citigroup has a similar group of stocks that it invests in called the 'Plutonomy Basket' which features the ritziest of shops where people with money shop.

Kapur's point, reflected in the decisions of investors like Citigroup, is that most of us don't really count when it comes to the modern economy. It's the rich who count. And the super rich that count the most.

If you're amongst the wealthy, I suppose you think that the world is just the way it should be. The rest of us are thinking 'something's wrong with this scenario.'

The Presidential Race

2007-10-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

I've been busy teaching. Haven't blogged in a while.

It seems to me that the media is busy anointing Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as the next nominees of their respective parties before we've even had a chance to vote. Both of them are from New York. I wonder if there's a connection? Hmmm.

I had the opportunity to sign a petition asking Al Gore to run. I decided that if he can't decide that for himself, then maybe he's not the right person for this time. So, I'm back in the Obama camp. In his public appearances, he shows his inexperience. But he has good ideas and a good heart, and I like him.

"Blinding the Faithful"--Al Gore

2007-08-26T21:32:00.001-07:00

I took my children to Paradise Lake today, and finished reading the chapter called "Blinding the Faithful" in Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason.

There is a passion these days to defend the Christian faith politically, because it is in danger of slipping away--at least in the form that has been known in by the faithful for centuries. The peculiarly European Protestant Christian heritage found refuge in the early United States, and there are many today who believe that this is a last stand to preserve it. And in this political movement, it is often claimed that America was founded as a "Christian" nation. I recently relayed a quote from John Adams cited early in the chapter by Gore. Adams signed a treaty, passed by the Senate, that clarified the issue for their day: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation."

In this chapter, Gore starts with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said that the leader of a state-sanctioned religion "has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Gore recognizes that the Founders weren't "irreligious." He writes, "They knew then--as most of us feel now--that despite the many clashes between reason and faith, these cohabit much more easily in the mind than do reason and fear."

But there seems to be a rebirth of fundamentalism worldwide. Gore wonders if part of the reason for this could be the rapid rate of increase in technological change that is transforming our world. It makes people afraid, and they are possibly clinging ever more tenaciously to past tradition in response. And, as he says, "In simple terms, when fear and anxiety play a larger role in our society, logic and reason play a diminished role in our collective decision making."

Gore talks about the system of checks and balances within the federal government. And the Founder's wisdom at giving no preference to a particular religious sect. He talks about how one of the things that set our government apart was the belief that the government itself "has no God-given rights," but that the government derives its power from the people. It is the people who have God-given rights. For this reason, much of the Founder's emphasis was on combating any concentration of power.

But this entire beautiful system depends on a "well-informed citizenry" that reads, and has accept to information through an independent print media. He emphasizes print, because it is less easy for information to be "spun" in print. The mind is more actively engaged when reading than in the passive act of watching or hearing the news.

But he laments: "Our facility with rational analysis is not what it used to be. The truth is, reading and writing simply don't play as important a role in how we interact with the world as they used to."

He compares the informed citizenry to the body's immune system. It prevents disease from taking over, because it recognizes it and checks it before it can grow.

Gore believes that the current conservative movement has gone to war with this system through an alliance that has developed between what he calls the "economic royalists" who mainly want to cut taxes and regulations against the wealthiest creating more wealth, the foreign-policy hawks who simply want to spread U.S. power around the world, and the religious right. They all make use of a well-oiled propaganda machine led by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

This chapter focuses on the role of the religious right. George Bush has used it in many ways, but most especially when it came to the war. From the beginning, he proclaimed it to be a war of good versus evil. He went so far as to say he was going to "rid the world of evil." I think we'll have to be at war for a long time to accomplish that. (Forever.) In this war of good versus evil, he has said that you're either for us or against us. He originally said that in the context of other nations, but the same thought is true within our country. If you question the war, you're "unpatriotic," and a "traitor." Gore says that some pundits like Ann Coulter have even suggested that "liberals" should fear for their lives. They led us to a war that they called a "Crusade." And they tortured in the name of Jesus. Opinions that differed from the administration's coming from the military or the CIA were threatened with being fired.

There is an awful lot of important material in these pages, but I can't get it all in here. Let me conclude with this one paragraph:

"Make no mistake: It is the president's reactionary ideology, not his religious faith, that is the source of his troubling inflexibility. Whatever his religious views, President Bush has such an absolute certainty in the validity of his rigid right-wing ideology that he does not feel the same desire that many of us would in gathering facts relevant to the questions at hand. As a result, he ignores the warnings of his own experts, forbids dissent, and often refuses to test his assumptions against the best available evidence. He is, in fact, out of touch with reality, and his recklessness risks the safety and security of the American people."

And, by the way, there's a Draft Al Gore for President site, if you're interested. I have to say that if he were running, he'd be my choice at this point.

Pluto: What's in a Definition?

2007-08-26T00:35:00.001-07:00

I came across an interesting article by Alan Boyle tonight that could work well in my Critical Thinking class.

Apparently, Alan Stern is NASA's lead man on Pluto, and he says that the new definition on planets by the IAU shouldn't be bowed to so quickly. "Many people just refuse to use the IAU definition," he explains. "Although a lot of teachers think the IAU [decision] is a done deal, people are slowly coming to realize, 'Not so fast.'"

When it was discovered that Eris and Ceres were even more distant small, icy planets, a choice had to be made. We could add to the list of planets, or classify Eris and Ceres as something else. But if Eris and Ceres aren't quite "true" planets, then is Pluto? The IAU decided that it is not. It would be better to say that our solar system has eight planets, and several dwarf planets, or planetoids, beyond those eight.

One aspect of their definition that has caused trouble is that it is said that a true planet must have "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit." But many have argued that if this is so, Jupiter might be argued to not be a planet, because of the asteroids in its orbit.

The point to be made for critical thinkers is that the definitions at the base of our arguments are a tricky business. It is sometimes difficult to say exactly what something is. Augustine, in the 11th book of his Confessions says he knows what 'time' is until someone asks him to define it. Then it gets problematic. The same could be said for planets. The same could be said for a 'person'. And as anyone who has spent much time on ethical issues knows, defining a 'person' makes all the difference in the world to many debates, not the least of which is the abortion question.

One of the important philosophical questions is what we expect to get out of a definition. Some of us believe that we're trying to say what something really is in itself. From a naive point of view, that seems obvious. From the point of view of philosophical training, it takes a little bit of nerve to argue the case.

One way of dealing with the problem raised by skeptics, who insist that we can't really know anything about the world as it is in itself, is the pragmatic solution. That's raised by Stern in this article. As Boyle writes, "Stern trusts that the scientific debate will eventually settle on the right answer - about Pluto, and about the worlds to come." Stern expresses the pragmatic point of view quite succinctly when he says, "Things that don't work fall by the wayside. Things that do work are the ones that we keep."

I am something of a pragmatist. I believe that some statements have more "cash value" as James put it than others. But pragmatism divides into two schools of thought: roughly the difference between William James and Charles Peirce. James seems not to have thought we could get at the truth. Peirce believed that we could, and certainly believed that the scientific enterprise is about trying to get it right. The former view is nominalistic. The latter is realistic. Peirce believed that much that had gone wrong in philosophy was due to nominalism. Nominalism is the view that our concepts are just names we give to things. On that view, we can call whatever we want a planet, and the only question is what works for us. It's up to us what a planet is, and what it is not. Peirce, like Stern, would have said that scientists will eventually "get it right." That's a realist's expectation. I agree with Peirce and Stern.

But it's not easy to see why nominalism isn't true. Is there any way to tell that the IAU's definition is right, and that its critics are wrong? Is there any way to tell that the critics are right and that the IAU is wrong? We'll have to wait and see. The reason pointed to above suggests that an inconsistency may shoot the IAU's definition down, unless they're willing to reclassify Jupiter as well.

What is a person? Can a machine be a person? Can a robot be a person? Can an animal be a person? Can a fetus be a person? Can we know the answer to these questions? Or is it a matter of whatever works for us?

What is God? How we answer that may go a long way toward determining whether we consider ourselves to be atheists or theists. If I had to accept the traditional definition of God, I'd probably have to agree with the critics who say that such a being can't exist. Can a perfect being create an imperfect world? No. Do we live in an imperfect world? I'd have to say that we do. But I have an experience of a power that I could call "the force" from having watched too many Star Wars films enthusiastically. I have an experience of what I could call "chi." And given the modifications I've made to the concepts that were taught to me about God from the Judeo-Christian heritage of my childhood, I still believe that there is an intelligent source behind this power that flows through everything. But not only is that source not a man with a grey beard resembling a cosmic Gandalf, but that source is not perfectly omnipotent or omniscient. The world is in flux, and my "God" doesn't coerce. It persuades. And that's all my God can do. It is limited in what it can do: in the illusory world of our everyday experience.

Is such an intelligent source worthy of the name "God"? Is it possible I should just give up on such a term? I personally believe that this source is worthy of our devotion. And I believe that the traditional God who would be personally responsible for all the devastation that the world has ever seen, including the Holocaust, is not worthy of devotion. From my point of view, if there is such a being that is worthy of devotion, then it deserves to be called "God." But I'm more of a stickler about the concept than the word. You can call it whatever you wish. If it's an intelligent source behind this life force that we feel, then we're in agreement, whether we call it the Tao, or Brahman, or Allah, the Absolute, or whatever.

But you see that our deductive arguments depend ultimately on premises that conclusions are deduced from. And our premises only have the power they do because they use concepts with agreed-upon definitions. And coming to such agreed-upon definitions can be a very tricky business indeed.

Is Our Water Safe to Drink?

2007-08-25T16:15:00.001-07:00

There's an interesting interview with Laura Moser of Slate Magazine about tap and bottled water in The Washington Post. The following is but an excerpt:

New York: Isn't a lot of bottled water really just tap water?
Laura Moser: You're absolutely right -- about a third of all bottled water comes straight from our municipal water facilities. You may have read something about the Aquafina stink last month -- Pepsi has agreed to label its top-selling water more clearly, so that consumers know exactly what they're buying. Often, but not always, the repackaged tap goes through additional purification.
_______________________
Washington: About the leaching involved in reusable No. 7 bottles -- if you don't let the water sit in bottles in the sun, is it going to harm you? The use of plastic bottles for drinks needs to be reexamined -- let's look at recycling options, bottle refund options, etc.
Laura Moser: There's still way too much we don't yet know about the leaching in No. 7 bottles. The subject has stirred great controversy in recent years, as polycarbonate is the main plastic used in the manufacture of baby bottles, and Bisphenol A (the chemical that polycarbonate may or may not leach) poses particular risks to young children. The industry continues to claim that No. 7 is completely safe, but I'm not convinced yet. I don't think that keeping your bottle out of the sun will improve its safety, but I completely agree that re-examining our dependence on disposable bottles is urgently necessary.

Another point that comes out in the interview is that our recycling efforts are failing nationwide. We have diminishing rates of plastic recycling being done. That's astonishing to me. We must encourage legislation that requires deposits and returns on plastic bottles. It is unconscionable to simply throw 5 million plastic bottles in the earth every day.