Time for Newt to go Away or for God to Retire - Something's Got to Give

This from Roger Fallihee over at the World According to Roger:

"Newt Gingrich was asked last week if he would seek the presidency in 2012 and he smugly replied, "That will be up to God, and the American people."

The American people have a proven ability to make poor presidential choices, but if God is willing to help Newt Gingrich become President of the United States, he either has a very twisted sense of humor or he's completely lost his omnipotent mind.

Either way, he's got to go."

Well said Roger!

Joe H.

The New Normal

If you read this report by the ACLU summarizing the Obama administration's stance on a variety of civil liberties issues during their first 18 month's in office - and I hope you will - pay attention to how far we've drifted as a nation in 10 short years. It is quite remarkable how the effects of an "endless war" paradigm can utterly destroy a popluation's alligence to the most basic pillars of liberal democracy. Impunity for government officials for even the most egregious law breaking, including torture and murder, illegal spying, the abandonment of due process (for some - at least for now). As the report suggests, all of this is the "New Normal."

Even more remarkable (to me) is that scores of people who (rightly) denounced President Bush for his lawless conduct gleefully accept and defend equally lawless conduct from President Obama. The Obama administration claims it has the legal authority to kill American citizens who are not fighting on any recognized battlefield. It claims that the exexecutive branch of our government has the legal authority to kill American citizens without any due process, based on its sole and unreviewable determination that the target is involved in terrorism.

I'm guessing that this authority, in their minds, is limited to American citizens living abroad - perhaps in the Middle East. I wonder, in the words of Thomas Payne, how soon that authority will migrate to other places.

Is there is any moral line we won't ultimately cross to "keep America safe?"

Tell me that terrorism doesn't work. Land of the free and home of the brave? Yeah right.

Joe H.

Department of Justice Follies

I've said it before but I'll say it again;  The Obama administration is doing serious additional damage to the Justice Department (by refusing to prosecute Bush administration crime). This article analyzes another manifestation of this troubling phenomenon.

Wikileaks and Democracy

Many of you have opinions about "Wikileaks" and its publication of government and corporate secrets. As you know by now, Wikileaks released over 92,000 documents constituting the record of the war in Afganistan from the perspective of the people fighting that war.

We all agree (I hope) that revelations of classified information that would endanger troops in the field, or endanger a military mission, would be treasonous. We also agree that publishing legitimate proprietary corporate information should be criminal.

Put another way, we all understand that secrecy has its legitimate uses. In my profession, secrecy increases honesty, candor, and full disclosure between attorneys and their clients, which is vital to obtaining sound legal advice - the surest way to screw yourself legally is to lie or to withhold information from your attorney. Absolute confidentiality regarding AIDS testing saved innumerable lives by allowing those who thought they might be infected to get tested.

But most of the time, secrecy hides and/or facilitates three things: corruption, incompetence, and manipulation. I don't need to tell anybody about the first two - you know from your own experience that your first instinct is to conceal your screw ups - at least until they can be fixed or mitigated. And the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to invoke "state secrets" to keep information about the previous administration’s torture of its detainees hidden from public and judicial scrutiny - and it has done so even when the relevant facts of the case were already public knowledge.

In this latest disclosure, we find secrecy hiding (and thus sustaining) the entire trilogy - but it appears that the biggest use of government secrecy regarding the war in Afghanistan was manipulation - our government was using its powers of secrecy to sustain public support for its war policy. It was concealing the fact that we were (and still are) largely failing in Afghanistan.

In case that doesn't strike you as sufficiently problematic, the practice has another name. Our government was undermining democracy by withholding information about the failure of a particular policy. It used its powers of secrecy to undermine the legitimacy of our social compact, which requires, at its core, that elected officials exercise their powers according to the consent of the governed. Our government obtained our consent by hiding (or distorting) the truth, and in so doing flipped our social compact on its head.

So don't be so quick to condemn Wikileaks.  Julian Assange, in the spirit of Daniel Ellsberg before him - if you don't know who Ellsberg is, look him up on Wikipedia - has done us a huge favor. If there is anyone deserving of our ire regarding these disclosures, it is our esteemed "public servants."

Joe H.

An Open Letter To Conservatives

I love compilations like this one. They perform a real public service.

Note, I could come up with a pretty long list of Obama lameness - shamelessness, but not the insane hypocrisy, obfuscation, and outright lying that is documented in this open letter.

I should also note that this documented behavior does not reflect poorly on conservatism as a political orientation or as a tempermental disposition. It reflects poorly on a group of people whose sense of certainty and superiority drive them to seek political power by any means necessary, ethical or unethical.

Also, if anyone thinks this level of wingnuttery exists on the left - see if you can think of any actual examples before you simply assert that it does.

Thanks.

Joe H.

Are we Better than That?

Here's Newt Gingrich on why we should not allow a Mosque to be built near Ground Zero in New York:

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. [...]

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia."

Here's Steven Benen's reply:

"So, by Newt Gingrich's estimation, Saudi Arabian officials are wrong to squelch religious liberty in their country -- so we should be equally wrong in ours. Gingrich sees Saudi Arabia discriminating and showing a lack of tolerance for spiritual diversity and, in effect, concludes, "Let's follow their lead."

This conservative worldview comes up from time to time, and it always amazes me. You'll recall, for example, that during the debate over whether the U.S. should utilize torture -- that there was even a debate continues to be remarkable -- it was not uncommon for the right to demand a single standard. If terrorists and America's enemies used torture, the argument went, then we should, too.

Since the problem with this line of thinking is apparently not as obvious as it should be, let's make this clear: the United States is supposed to be held to the highest standards. Our country should strive to be a beacon of hope and liberty, a shining light for others to aspire to. We're not supposed to lower ourselves to the levels of those we find offensive."

Very well said Mr. Benen. It was our commitment to "liberty and justice for all," and our determination to live up to that ideal, that made our country "exceptional." Our ideals, imperfectly achieved as they were, laid the foundation for our great prosperity and power. That so many of our fellow citizens have forgotten this because of their blind devotion to a political leader (Bush and Obama devotees are equally implicated), is deeply troubling.

However, I am proud that most of the resistance to the trend towards abandoning our ideals - with important exceptions - has come from progressive voices. Benen also put this point very well:

"This continues to be a glaring point of contention between the left and right. Liberals see terrorists engaging in torture and authoritarian governments denying their people the freedom of religion, and we say, "We're better than that."

The right sees the same landscape and thinks, "No, we're not."

Joe H.

Shirley Sherod - Special Commentary by Olberman

Ecological Disasters

Now that BP has plugged the oil leak - or mostly plugged the leak - it might be a good time to educate ourselves about some of the other, less famous, ecological disasters haunting the planet.

Here's to surviving.

Joe H.

Impervious to Critique

Here's a recent quote from the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell, (R) Kentucky:

“There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

So, the view of every Republican in Congress is that lowering taxes always increases revenue. Putting aside the fact that this claim is manifest nonsense - it implies that revenues will peak when tax rates reach 0% - it was also rejected by every Bush Administration economist.

Nonetheless, if we are to believe their current leader, every Republican congressional representative, and every Republican senator, believes this nonsense.

That’s a pretty impressive triumph of will over intellect. Frightening, but impressive.

Joe H.

Sociopathic Self Absorption

This post by Glen Greenwald nails the results of elevating a ruling caste above the law - we become inundated with sociopathic self absorption.

The fact that the men of the Bush administration, men who unleashed horrific terror and destruction on so many, most of them innocents, men whose every policy decision brought about (or sustained) utter catastrophe, could think of themselves as victims, is really beyond me. You’d think that at some point the facts on the ground would simply overwhelm them. You’d think that at least some of them would express second thoughts – would express some level of regret and embarrassment.

You’d think so – but you’d be wrong.

And if you think sociopathic self-absorption is a problem now, just wait until we elect Sarah Palin.

Joe Huster

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

In response to a challenge that his arguments for Gay Marriage weren’t genuinely “conservative,” Andrew Sullivan responded:

“It is conservative not to eject people from the fabric and tradition of their own families; it is conservative to support emotional and financial stability which the daily discipline of marriage fosters; it is conservative not to balkanize citizens into groups based on identity; it is conservative to discourage gay men and women from marrying straight men and women on false pretenses and then ending up in divorce; it is conservative to include everyone into the social institutions that stabilize society; it is conservative to promote mutual responsibility and care-giving to avoid too much dependence on government; it is conservative not to trample states rights and amend the federal constitution when such things are grotesquely unnecessary; it is conservative to adjust to social change by adapting existing institutions, like civil marriage, than inventing totally new and untested ones, like civil unions.”

That is a pretty good compilation of “conservative” arguments in favor of Gay marriage (if you want to read a comprehensive, tour de force, conservative argument in favor of gay marriage, pick up Jonathan Rauch’s book Gay Marriage). But what fascinates me about Sullivan’s arguments is the typical conservative Christian response.

They completely ignore them.

Christian conservatives don’t disagree with any of these statements, or the policy goals cited within them. In any other context, Christian conservatives would find these statements to be uncontroversial expressions of conservative concern. They would support and encourage policies that achieved these goals.

But when Christian conservatives are confronted with these types of arguments in favor of gay marriage, or the even better arguments developed by Rauch, my experience is that they offer no response at all. They continue to oppose gay marriage, but offer no explanation as to why these traditionally conservative concerns don’t persuade them. They simply persist in their opposition.

This tells me that these Christian conservatives are Christians first, and conservatives second – a point Sullivan made in the article. They don’t care about good public policy nearly as much as they care that their religious convictions are reflected in the law. In fact, they want their convictions to be reflected in the law, even when they are confronted with sound arguments that it is not good public policy.

That’s something.

But I’ll go further. I’m convinced that Christians are less concerned about the health of marriage, than they are about denying the institution to Gays. This point was driven home to me in a recent discussion I had regarding the Hawaii Civil Unions Bill – a bill that our Governor recently vetoed. One of the reasons my discussion partner offered for opposing the bill was that it did not limit Civil Unions to same sex couples – opposite sex couples could also elect to become “civilly unified.” My partner (correctly) worried that extending this option to straight people would weaken the institution of marriage, which is thought to be a solemn “covenant.” He thought, again correctly, that when offered the opportunity to select an alternative legal arrangement that is more like a “contract,” but which provides the same legal benefits and rights as “marriage,” many people would opt for civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

I’m not sure why our legislature chose to allow same sex couples the civil union option. Perhaps it was necessary to get the votes to pass the bill. Perhaps the legislators were concerned that a law that reserved the revered institution of “marriage” for opposite sex couples, while providing the less prestigious though legally equivalent “civil unions” to gays, violated the State and Federal Equal Protection clauses - that was the reason cited by the Iowa and California Supreme Courts when they struck down their state’s civil union statutes and extended marriage rights to gays. But I do know that allowing opposite sex couples the opportunity to enter an alternative to “till death do us part” marriage, weakens the institution in precisely the way my discussion partner described.

But by making this argument, my discussion partner revealed that he understood a key issue very well. He understood that alternatives to marriage are the greatest threats to the institution. My friend also understood that the key social reality driving the proliferation of these alternatives was the exclusion of gays from marriage. He further understood that the only way to undermine the proliferation of these alternatives, and to thus protect the institution of marriage from its greatest threat, was to make “till death to us part marriage” the only option – for everyone.

But even understanding this, my friend would not budge on extending marriage rights to gays. And this proved that he was willing to weaken the institution of marriage to keep gays out. I suspect that lots of other Christians would bite this same bullet if they had to.

Now that’s really something.

Joe H.

Nativism lurks beneath the Veneer of concern about “Illegals”

I recently debated a fellow blogger regarding Arizona’s new law requiring law enforcement personnel to question anyone they suspected was in the country illegally, and to arrest those who could not prove their legal status. He saw no evidence that this law was motivated, even in part, by nativism. He further claimed that there was no evidence that support for such laws was rooted in nativist sentiment. The concern was about the illegality of their presence – pure and simple

I explained that anyone who has lived in the West or Southwest regularly experienced outbursts of nativism. My friend and his blog readers rejected my claims out of hand.

To them, and to others who share their outlook, I challenge you to read this article from the New York Times about recent events in Utah and, with a straight face, tell me the actions of these people are motivated purely out of concern for the integrity of our immigration process.

Joe

Our Collective Stupidity is Truly Remarkable!

I dare anyone to read Newsweek's Michael Isikoff's interview of Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counterrorism Center, as summarized in this link by Glenn Greenwald, and not despair at our collective stupidity.

For those who say that terrorism doesn't work, look what it has done to us as a nation. The attack of 9/11 accomplished its goal in spades - it provoked us into destroying our country. If you doubt this, ask yourself what pre 9/11 American would have acted in the ways we've acted – spending trillions of dollars on unnecessary and unwinnable wars and allowing our military and CIA to torture detainees with impunity. Who would have excused our government’s spying on American citizens without warrants, or allowed our government, a government that has made numerous erroneous terrorist designations as determined by the Federal Courts in Habeus proceedings, to detain people for life, without any judicial oversight, on their say so alone? What American would have acquiesced to the notion that an American President gains the authority to kill a fellow U.S. citizen (not present on any battlefield), without any formal charges or provision of due process, simply by declaring him a terrorist?

If you don’t think America is being destroyed by our acquiescence to these government acts and claims of executive power, you never understood what America was.

But all of this does confirm one old adage:

"None of us is as stupid as all of us."

Joe H.

The Value and Difficulty of Philosophy

I'll never forget the Simpson's episode in which the local newscaster, Kent Brockman, was talking about the depth of the ongoing recession and remarked, "its not just philosophy majors anymore, USEFUL people are feeling the pinch."

Anyway, here are a couple of good articles about the value and difficulty of Philosophy.

And here's a great website to which you can post philosophical questions and get responses by professionals.

You're welcome!

Joe H.

Tea Party Jesus

This is a very interesting project. The blogger takes quotes from "Tea Party" politicians and puts them into the mouth of Jesus (via cartoons). I've long been amazed that these ultra-conservative politicians are, almost to a person, devout Christians. Why am I amazed? Because they hold - and increasingly express - such outlandishly unchristian sentiments.

What better way to illustrate this than to but their words into Jesus' mouth.

For he who has ears to hear, let him hear. But for he who cannot or will not hear, make it impossible for him to ignore the obvious.

Bravo!

Joe H.