Of Men and Menses

(by DG - guest writer):


Gordon Liddy gained notoriety in the Nixon administration for the famous burglary of the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Complex, approximately 37 years ago, right around this time of year. That resulted in his imprisonment as a felon. Liddy recently spoke disparagingly on his radio show about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Mr. Liddy, a proponent of right wing conservative views, expressed very dire concerns over the quality of the decisions Judge Sotomayor might make while menstruating. Given Liddy's multiple violations of the law in the past, I find his expressed concern for our legal system disingenuous at best. His offensive comments are self-serving; Sotomayor doesn't share Liddy's political views. I haven't been able to find any similar observations from Liddy when Sandra Day O'Connor was a Supreme Court nominee. Liddy's statement was not only ignorant, it was appallingly crass.

I do not know the status of Judge Sotomayor's reproductive organs, I do not want to know. Nor do I wish to know the reproductive health details of any of the current Supreme Court Justices, serving or retired. My disinterest is two-fold, that those matters of are of a personal nature that should remain private; and that those matters have no bearing whatsoever on how they perform their public, civic duties on the bench. In her very selectively quoted speech, "A Latina Justice's Voice", in a part not widely quoted, Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor speaks in praise of the writings of Judge Miriam Cederbaum:"Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again(st*) people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement."

Mr.Liddy would appear to be affirming the premise of those antiquated, disgraced paternalistic laws: that women should not be allowed the same civil rights as men, such as voting or public service. Those views assert women are inferior to men, because they are different. After a cursory look, I can find no indication that Liddy is personally acquainted with Sotomayor, so his fears about her judgement and menstruation must be an assumption, a generality, not based on either fact or experience. It could not be based on any behavior from the bench that Sotomayor has or has not done that was attributed to menstruating, because no one knows such intimate information. Unless Liddy gets an opportunity to interview Sotomayor, I doubt any member of the media will venture to ask such personal questions.

I would encourage readers from across the spectrum of political thought to read, in full, a very funny satiric essay written some 38 years ago by one of the feminist founders of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem. Before her role as one of the founders of Ms. Magazine, Ms. Steinem worked as a journalist, including a stint as a Playboy Bunny for an expose, a detail offered as background to the essay.
I found the essay on the internet; it is widely available. The essay, "If Men Could Menstruate", was written in 1971. It was published in Ms. Magazine, coincidentally during the term of President Richard Millhouse Nixon, in whose service Mr. Liddy committed the felonies of burglary, conspiracy and illegal wiretapping. The following quotes from the essay summarize the premise:

"..the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the characteristics of the powerless - and logic has nothing to do with it.

What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?

The answer is clear - menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:
             Men would brag about how long and how much.

Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties."

The second quote from Ms. Steinem's essay:

"Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve in the Army ("you have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priest and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins?") or rabbis ("without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean")."

Mr. Liddy appears to be operating under the assumptions that all women are adversely affected by normal hormonal functions associated with estrus, to such a degree that women in positions of power or authority, such as Supreme Court Justices, are incapable of effectively, efficiently, and appropriately carrying out the duties of those positions.

Presumably, Mr. Liddy sees no difficulties affecting job performance due to the presence of the equivalent male hormones in men, such as testosterone, despite the large degree to which testosterone levels fluctuate in individuals, over time as a function of aging, and in response to environmental stimuli. Healthy adult men and women naturally produce testosterone, an anabolic steroid, but the amounts produced by males are approximately 50 times greater than the amounts produced by females. Testosterone has long been associated with aggression, hostility, dominancy, and stress response, attention and memory, spatial ability, and key cognitive functions, even cognitive decline and risk of dementias such as Alzheimer's.

The qualities of testosterone and its effects are far too complex to discuss seriously here in a fair and evenhanded manner; but it would be as ludicrous to take the above mentioned associations with testosterone, and assert that it being present normally in adult men negates their ability to function safely in any capacity, comparable to Mr. Liddy's alarms about menstruation in women like Justice Sotomayor.

ARE there men who have testosterone related difficulties - either too much, or too little? Of course there are, but that does not generalize to all men. ARE there women who suffer from hormone imbalanced difficulties, such as PMS? Of course, but that does not logically extrapolate to women generally either, or to Justice Sotomayor specifically.

There is an interesting study that was done in 2006 by scientists at Cambridge University that is more objective than the opinions of Mr. Liddy on the differences in performance, particularly performance related to stress and risk evaluation. It looks at how the two genders perform differently, involving the monitoring of testosterone and cortisol levels. "Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor", by J. M. Coates and J. Herbert, is available on the web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. For those who don't have the time to wade through it, there are numerous articles on the internet that summarize it in greater detail than I present here.

This study explores the fascinating field of neuroeconomics, measuring the changes in testosterone and cortisol levels of traders on the London stock market, the relationship to profitability and risk assessment, and the correlation to economic events, specifically the response to an exceptionally volatile kind of trading. In brief, the study indicated that too much testosterone destabilizes risk taking and risk evaluation, rather than enhancing it; too much testosterone correlates to underestimating risk; too much cortisol in connection with testosterone correlates to overestimating risk. It would be a mistake to over-reach the conclusions of this one study; the data gathering took place over a relatively brief time, and the numbers of subjects were small. There are other numerous studies that examine the correlation between the physiological aspects of brain, behavior, and hormones, specific to financial activity, and across other activities; I won't presume to present a comprehensive picture here. The point is that there are better, more objective sources than misogynistic stereotypes and 'old wives tales' for recognizing and understanding gender differences.

There ARE very real differences between men and women; it is foolish to assert we are all the same. It is equally stupid to assert that one gender is superior to another, the assertion suffers from the too broad flaw of glittering generalities. Every individual will have distinctly separate positive and negative qualities; we can only be assessed validly as an individual, not generic male or female. Liddy perpetuates superficial, noncritical thinking that is far more dangerous to our society and political institutions than the risks of an individual's gender adversely affecting their judgement.

(From Penigma: The contrast is serious and hilarious - but the final sentence sums it up well. The actions of those interested only in their political dominance, as evidenced by their often shallow and wilfully offensive views does more damage to our democracy than do any perceived differences of gender, race, or and even especially religion. People like Liddy pray upon the lack of interest or time of their followers to seek understanding, and instead play upon hatred and ignorance. That ignorance is the devil's playground, not hormones and certainly not the womb. Thank you for the excellent post (again), DG).

Justice Nominee Sotomayor

By DogGone (guest writer),

President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has been accused of being a racist, a reverse racist, a bigot, stupid; probably by now, far worse. The accusations are based on a single quotation from Sotomayor's 2001 speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice", presented at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture. The purpose of this lecture series was "to perpetuate the Judge's abiding commitment to the development of law promoting equality and justice for all people. Judge Sotomayor has been one of a number of distinguished individuals who have been invited to be a speaker.

Reading Ms. Sotomayor's speech in its entirety, it is far less reasonable to present her as a racist (or reverse racist) or a bigot. The whole text is widely available on the internet to be read, by those who have an interest either in the topic, or in fundamental fairness. I was favorably impressed by the precision Ms. Sotomayor brought to her topic; she was not making vague general comments about the numbers of women, and the numbers of people of color or minority ethnicity in powerful judicial positions, she had a very clear understanding of the timeline of those positions, and where more or less progress had been made.

The controversial remark that has been the basis of the bigotry claims is "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." What is not addressed here is that it is in response to a quote variously attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor or Justice Coyle, that "a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." The essence of Judge Sotomayor's speech is to examine if this is a correct assumption, given the relatively small numbers over a brief period of time where women and minorities of race or ethnicity have had an impact. The full title of the seminar where Judge Sotomayor was speaking was ""Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation,"

The "struggle for representation" is the crux, the notion that representation is not a political idea unique to issues of taxation. It goes to the very heart of our concept of equality before the law, of being judged by our peers from the bench as well as by juries. Currently our judges are not usually representative of our demographics, in the proportion of men to women, or in the different backgrounds, race or ethnicity. Why should we care if our judges are more representational of our citizens? What difference does it make whether we have decisions made by a group composed entirely of old white men, or old white men with one or two white women in the mix, and one older person of color?

Looking at the history of some of the decisions by the Supreme Court, over time, provides the answers. For example, an excerpt from the language of the Dredd Scott decision, Dredd Scott v. Sanford, 1857 that slaves, African Americans, some who were actually bi-racial or multi-racial, were described as:"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

The court further argued, as a reason for not granting Scott the rights of a free man:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." That decision was never legally overturned, but rather superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which resulted in citizenship regardless of race, a change to the original provisions of our Constitution. The decisions of our Supreme Court have not always been correct; neither are the provisions of our Constitution always perfect because they were written by the founding fathers of this country. Would having a more diverse composition of our Supreme Court guarantee us only correct, right rulings? Of course not, but it may, arguably, provide a greater variety of opinions to form and inform those decisions. It is to Judge Sotomayor's credit that in her very selectively quoted speech, what is not quoted as widely is the attempts at analysis to determine what differences women and people more racially diverse or ethnically diverse has had on our legal system and the pattern of legal decisions. Her expressed concern is for any difference to be a positive one for this country, and its citizens, by being thoughtful and critical of changes. She acknowledges the decisions, such as the legal decision that ended segregation, as having come from nine older white male justices. There is nothing in this speech to indicate that Sotomayor is a bigot or "reverse bigot" who is prejudiced against either men or Caucasians. There is no threat here; attempts to portray one, to create fear, is intentionally deceptive and manipulative.


As a lifelong resident of Minnesota, I was delighted to see that Judge Sotomayor singled out for mention our state Supreme Court, for having had for a period of time not only one woman justice, but more women than men, the only state to do so. We here in Minnesota should be proud of that fact. But more than presenting a laundry list of demographic statistics, Judge Sotomayer presented her own introspective thoughts on how we incorporate our differences, and when we should try not to be influenced by them, and the degree to which we can set aside those formative influences. Similar comments have been made by Supreme Court Justices in the past, including current sitting Supreme Court judges.

These ideas are not unique to Sotomayor; there are a number of influential jurists who have contributed to the concept of legal realism; some trace the legal philosophy all the way back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, and it has roots in Scandinavian legal thinking as well. Addressing ideas, including her own candid introspection, on the philosophy that individual qualities are involved in administering justice hardly makes Sotomayer a racist. I would argue that facing head on one's own possible prejudices, and evaluating their effect, is an exercise in great personal honesty; a greater honesty than many of Judge Sotomayer's critics have attempted in their accusations.

It would be a refreshing development if, in the course of Judge Sotomayer's confirmation hearing, we experience not only a discussion of her speech at the "Raising the Bar" seminar, but if we can raise the bar of political criticism to a higher level of intellectual integrity. As a Minnesotan, I can only speculate on the role our contested senate race might have on Sotomayor's confirmation vote. Our one Senator, Senator Klobuchar, sits on the Judiciary Committee. I can only hope that our contribution is as positive as our record for the Minnesota State Supreme Court.

(From Penigma: My thanks to DogGone for a well-researched, artfully argued, and elegantly persuasive presentation of the facts in play, both motivating President Obama to nominate Judge Sotomayor, and exposing the mendacity and shallow-thinking of the extreme right in attacking her in this way).

An indictment

I've been pondering how to write this post for a few days and I'm still not sure how it will come out, but here goes (since I promised someone I'd do it).



Paul Krugman argued in his book "Concience of a Liberal" that discourse in American politics has become so polarized because the country took a radical shift to the right starting in about 1979, but perhaps as early as 1976, in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo, Vietnam, and later the Iran hostage crisis. The American pscyhe had been bruised, and we wanted a revival of American pride - the kind of pride we felt as kids during the 50's and 60's, the kind of pride our parents and grandparents (depending upon your age) rightfully earned and enjoyed. Krugman's primary point was that the issues of Iran, oil prices, fear of Soviet domination, rather than issues of nationalism, patriotism, even racism, were the cause of the current 'great divide' in American politics. The issues were the horse, and the ideology the cart.


I don't agree with Krugman, even though I believe he is the finest editorial writer in the country today (as his Nobel prize in economics tends to reflect a capacity for synthisizing ideas quite well).

Krugman's underlying assertion is that civility was easier in the 60's and 70's because the differences between Republicans and Democrats was essentially smalll, but as the country moved right, the divide grew wider, and the rancor grew deeper.

I fundamentally find flaw with that assertion on a couple of levels - first, the flame-spewing element of concservatism, the likes of W.F. Buckley, Jerry Falwell, and Rush Limbaugh, didn't start out as kind-hearted change agents in the 70's, nor were Buckley or Barry Goldwater easy going seekers of a new way in the 1960's. They preached visceral change, but they also preached contempt and derision for anyone who disagreed. They were the re-emergence of the red-scare crowd from the McCarthy era. While they sought change, what they truly were looking for, it seems, was control, and an ability to shape America in an image of their making which left no room for dissent, even in the 60's.

Second, the Democratic and Republican parties of today are FAR, FAR closer in conduct today than they were in the 1970's and 1960's. The Democrats have followed the Republicans on this rightward march - they are friends of corporations to an extent never dreamed of by business leaders in the 1950's, and have abandoned (for all intents and purposes) organized labor as a dinosaur incapable of delivering either meaningful votes or election funds. There is little to distinguish one from the other - both are for sale with a capital S.

So why then is there such rancor?

I think it comes from the whole reason conservatism is what conservatism is. The genesis rancor in nearly ANY difference in opinion (not just conservatism) is a belief that "I'm right, and what I'm right about is obvious. It's not complex, it's common sense, and if you can't see it, there must be something wrong with you." In it's positive incarnation conservatism is the ideal that an individual should be responsible for virtually all aspects of his/her life and actions (when we're talking little 'c' conservatism). That ideal is admirable and can be little argued with. While circumstances of birth and especially upbringing have some mitigating impacts, nothing excuses conduct. People of poor birth are often more noble than those of the highest (more often in my opinion), people of a rough childhood have achieved great things, while those like Ted Bundy (as I recall brought up in a stable home) do unspeakable evil. Yet, clearly, the averages have shown being bought up in a harmful environment trends toward great harm. Liberals argue that such circumstances should have some weight in deciding the fate of those who do wrong, incorrect liberals argue it should excuse some of the wrong, and conservatives often argue that it should hold no weight, after all, the mantra goes, "I had a rough childhood and you don't see me shooting people."

That is, in my belief, the start of the issue. Much of our opinion about the world we tend to frame in our own personal experience. Those who are conservative, it seems, then seem to take the next step, and believe the world should behave by that same experience. This simple ideal (of personal accountability), has been used to damn the world not understood, compassion is not part of the equation, and neither is a desire to seek understanding.

The problem and source of the political divide, to me it seems, is that the ideal of personal accountability has been coopted. Those who note the simple human reaction that people should earn there own way have used that reaction to pervert the idealt, both by people who simply wanted to use it to justify on-going racism in the south (blacks needed to simply be 'responsible' rather than look to the government to cure society's ills - like rampant, institutional racism in the 1950's South) - and conservatism was adopted by people who meant what they said (about responsibility), but wouldn't or couldn't live up to the puritanical ideals much of what the likes of Goldwater pushed but people like Gingrich, Bush (W), Limbaugh, Haggerty, Swaggert, Bakker, and a host of others proved was a standard of conduct (or personal accountability) that even Christ recognized was beyond the capability of the vast majority of humanity. In short, we (and they) have found since the time of Goldwater (when according to Krugan political debate was far more civil) that many conservatives had feet of clay

What we further saw was that, in fact many really didn't even care that their leaders had foibles. Some of the time such flaws were written off as flaws of a carnal nature, or they were flaws of 'boys being boys' and so on (of course Bill Clinton's flaws, those couldn't be ignored, after all he LIED - no matter that Bush and Cheney lied repeatedly about far more important and impactful things) he LIED about sex in court, and he was an adulter (no matter that so was Gingrich, or Bakker, or Swaggert) - actually of course it was that Clinton wasn't one of them.

And that's the first, best example of the nature of incivility. Flaws of other, especially the flaws of the minority population and as well, and more importantly those who defended minorities, weren't ok. They were attacked by the right in vociferous terms, even in the 50's and 60's - liberals, civil rights advocates and the like were called 'Godless', traitors, unAmerican, communists, etc.. in a stream of epithets that weren't intended to foster debate, but instead to foster fear, resentment, derision and ultimately hatred and contempt. The phraseology of the likes of Falwell in the 60's was simplistic braggadocio and exageration - it vilified those who embraced fair treatment and the end of segregation as godless 'n&&&er lovers'. Even Ronald Reagan in 1960 claimed that segregation (in housing) was the right of the homeowner and anyone who disagreed was anti-American.

William F. Buckley, the progenitor of the conservative magazine "The National Review", is often thought of as the Father/Godfather of (new) Conservatism. Buckley wrote a scathingly racist peice in the late 1940's. He was roundly attacked, even by those within his own party. His reaction was to warn his followers, those who embraced his aristocratic views about people of means vs. the rest of the population was that they must find a new way to express themselves. They might feel privately one way, but needed to find more palatable terms to express it and gain followers. Buckley was an important figure in developing the terms and speech of conservatism which Goldwater played upon.

All of which leads me to conclude that conservatism, while grounded in at least one fine ideal, was truly the horse (not the cart) of the current political divide. The driver of change was really the ideologically, not the issues. Conservatism is, and was in the 1950's and 1960's, rooted in contempt for your political opponent. The issue is about recognizing the supremacy of the American (white) way of life - or certainly was for southern (and northern affluent) conservatives. Political party isn't the question - many Democrats of the south were far more conservative than their northern "peers", but this unwavering, visceral and frequently violent belief in their 'way' was the genesis of change. It lead to opposition to Social Security, to Medicare, to unemployment insurance, to general assistance welfare, to head start, to Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC). When the wealthy conservatives of the north found allies in the racist conservatives of the south, they were happy to embrace issues (like opposition to the voting rights act) which brought them votes, and with it, the power to undo the New Deal.

The opposition of both (north and south) was 'supposedly' about disliking big government, but that was really code used by the propogandists for disliking both taxes (on the rich in the north) and any attempt to 'prop up' welfare 'mammas' (as Reagan quipped)- as a sop to a still-racist south. Opposition to government has been steeped in coded racial undertone since. After all, if their parents could survive the Great Depression, why couldn't some lazy person (aka lazy black) go out and get a job?

The divide, therefore, isn't about issues, it is purely about ethno-centric views of right vs. wrong, about us vs. them, about judgementalism in it's purest and most obvious form. The issues are merely the foil, and what is so galling, so striking is that those who wrap themselves fatuously in our flag, do so while casting down the primary ethic of the bible, namely to love thy neighbor - the Samaritan, the Gentile (i.e. the white guys among others), because while different, it is such differences that God intended for us to cease judging. And so, I disagree with Krugman, a man I profoundly admire. He is wrong, the issues, the movement of the country far to the right did not create the rancor, nor has the disagreement and despair of the left at this rightward march, but rather it was that hate-speech, that intolerant voice which brooked no criticism and welcomed no debate. The hate-speech of the right pre-dated such movement of issues - instead it was about dragging the country as far to the right (on issues) based upon a far-right philosophy - a philosophy that their way of life was best, and best applied to all. It was obvious, and there was no need or room for discussion past a very basic, paternalistic level. The rancor was the inevitable outcome between those who disliked that which was different, and the people who either were different or stood up for them. One-sided, staged issues where no reasonable discussion could conceivably occur is not the path of someone seeking to love their neighbor, and it is most certainly not American. The America I believe accepted our differences and melded them into a shining example of racial and religious tolerance. However, the main point is still this, it was the ideology of the far right that created this political divide, not issues, not the left. They have been unwilling since their start to discuss differences, and instead seek code-speak to hide their profound hatred of all things different from themselves. Above all, it is an indictment of their faith, they have sought to differentiate and divide, and they have succeeded. Their houses of God do not welcome all - in fact, they may well shoot you in one if you disagree.

Nancy Pelosi should be investigated

and right after doing so, or at the same time, they can investigate:

• Karl Rove
• Richard Armitage
• L. Paul Bremer
• Paul Wolfowitz
• Tom Delay
• Dick Armey
• Haley Barbour
• Dick Cheney
• George Walker Bush

I'm fully in favor of exposing those in Congress and the Administration who supported torture, who failed to object when they should have, who used water-boarding to coerce captives to say things which were politically expedient and/or desirable for the drumbeat for war. I think those people who endorsed illegatlity should go to jail, no matter what their party.

And that makes me profoundly different, it is what makes most liberals profoundly different, from Republicans. Republicans want Pelosi investigated, are beating their chests and crying "foul" over her possible support of torture, even though they wholeheartedly support torturing people, would object with every fiber of their being to any Republican being investigated much less being held accountable for torture. They purely want the political "win" over Pelosi, a win on something, or an accusation of something they absolutely do not think was wrong.

And that is what is wrong, not Pelosi. They could care less what Pelosi actually does - they just want the investigation because it suits their purposes at the moment, to which I say, "I agree! Let the investigations commence!"

When does liberty die? The day we allow it...

to become the enemy of security... or so it would appear we have decided.

It used to be that we felt that part of securing our liberty was being a free and open society. It also used to be that we felt that being the "Shining City on the Hill," meant we stood for something, we wanted to be the best and strongest example of justice, fairness, openness and freedom. There was a fairly famous case of an MIT student (if memory serves) writing a plan/blueprint for a nuclear device (in the mid-1970's). Initially, the FBI, or NSA, or DSA and/or some apparatus of the government decided to go after the student, they demanded to know where he'd gotten his information, and how dare he publish such a thing (insert exasperated gasp here).

His answer was that he'd gotten the information from publicly available sources, at the library, in magazines, in trade journals. etc.. So whatever agency it was, backed off on the "You breached security" position. It then condemned the guy for publishing, but he simply replied that he provided it as a research paper for his school, the school put it in public space. The paper was pulled down by the school - but the furor died down. This was considered a classic case of what the price and benefits are of living in a free society, sometimes things you might rather keep secret are available, but better that than squelching the free exchange of ideas, the open expression of dissent, and the discovery of uncomfortable truths.

In another example, there was a reasonably famous Soviet spy who said that gaining information about the west didn't require much espionage, "All you have to do is read the paper." - that used to be a badge of honor for free societies, we were different from the Soviets or Communist Chinese because we EMBRACED our openness, not in spite of it.


We seem to have travelled far from there. During the Reagan years, the President's men (John Poindexter, Bill Casey and Oliver North) moved to undermine the ability of an unfriendly Congress to check the power of the President by de-funding the President's actions - a perfectly legitimate act of Congress, and a perfectly improper act of sedition by men sworn to uphold the Constitution first and foremost.

We have made it much worse, though, in the past 8 plus years (i.e. since 2001) including yesterday's decision by President Obama to squelch photos and stories of abuse by CIA and Army interrogators of prisoners held by us.

Under Bush - as craven a Presidency to be sure as has ever disgraced our history - people like Dick Cheney, Condolezza Rice and Alberto Gonzalez gave cover, after the fact, to abuses they endorsed. Abuses which were not the last stage of interogation when all other methods had failed, and abuses which were not at the time they started approved by Counsel - even the putrescent Counsel which the WH used. The justification they are now using is that, "It worked." I've already written about the fact that a. Torture never was said not to get information, so that's a strawman and I won't go into it further here than is necessary, but some of it is necessary to put into context this reply.

Torture, as Jesse Ventura said to Larry King two nights ago (on water-boarding), will get you to say that you are Brittany Spears, it will get you to say anything. I met a man, named Gerald Jenecho (if memory serves), when I was in Naval ROTC in 1983 - he was the current Captain of the Battleship Iowa. He had served in Vietnam, had been captured, and spent 8 years as a POW in North Vietnam at the infamous Hanoi Hilton. He was hung by rope strung under his armpits, with his hands tied behind his back, for days on end. The pain, for those of you who know some physiology, was understandably excruciating - for those of you who may not, you have many nerve endings in your armpits, and so such a position was very painful and enormously effective - and his comment in the speech he gave to my class was simply this, "Under Torture, you will divulge information, what you chose to divulge, however, we learned, can be lies. Artfully crafted lies, lies which if you were found out to be lying would cost you, perhaps your life, but lies." It would have been legal under the Gonzalez memorandum, to use this same technique at Gitmo - as it didn't 'rise to the same level of pain as death or losing a limb."

However, my point is water-boarding may have worked to get some useful information, but it undoubtedly also got us a bunch of lies which compromised both whatever we got from the prisoner and, for that matter, other prisoners because lies would contradict what another prisoner might have truthfully told us - AND took much, much longer than other methods - gaining much less information while doing so. So, in fact, it didn't work - but that's not really EVER been the question.

The question, the point, the issue, is exactly what Obama brought up yesterday. Disclosing our conduct will lead to a damaged reputation of the United States in the world, with moderates, with moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike, it will endanger our troops, it will put lie to our past attempts to bring to justice criminal regimes (and the criminals within them) for human rights violations - and so, it's a lose-lose situation, it sucks, but per President Obama, that's the situation.

However, as bad as that sounds, Obama is wrong.

In the long run, bringing our own people to justice shows that we believe in the rule of law, exposing our excesses helps, not hurts, the chances that this will not be repeated - it will damage our reputation, but it can also be used to enhance it. We have the chance to say, "A free society does not hide from the truth. A free society punishes wrong-doers, and lives up to the ideals it stands for. Being a shining city on the hill means shining a bright beacon on the dark corners of the world, even if that dark corner is in your own back yard." While it might expose our troops to injustice, we will have the moral fortitude and standing to say, "Yes, it happened, and you know what, those people were punished and their conduct condemned. We didn't hide from the truth, we confronted it - now do the same yourself." In short, we disarm people like Bin Laden by proving we in fact are better than the lies he tells. If we hide behind a risk of 'security breach' we become no better than the regimes of Idi Amin, or Pol Pot, or Mao, which we roundly repudiated for torturing their citizens and lying about it or covering it up. If on the other hand, we confront it, then we show, much like the story of Harold "Breaker" Morant, that we stand for the better part of man, we don't succumb to fear when we are afraid.

An Ethical Question

I spent a few hours arguing with one of the brightest people I know about philosophy.

The question was simple - if you could save 1,000 lives by taking one innocent one, would you, and if you would, why is it ethical?

The question arises from the question I was asked by Divad, specifically, are there EVER any circumstances where, effectively, the ends justifies the means - is Khant ever in error?

To me, there are two answers, I'll give you mine and his.

My answer was this, if there will be a loss of life regardless, better that it be one, than 999 more. The concept is essentially that you must do the least amount of harm - the least harm is saving 999 lives. This is not Benthamite philosophy, i.e. put the points on a scale, but rather, as harm is unavoidable, do the least possible.

My friend's argument, which I am hard-pressed to rebut is that even then, you cannot take an inoocent life, to do so, is to effectively say that you can act dishonorably to achieve an honorable end. Further, that it leads to value judgements which are the root of things like torture, Abu Ghraib, Mai Lai, etc.. Effectively, his point is, every bad act - with the exception of those taken by psychopaths, is done 'for the greater good.' Finally, if the situation is random (meaning, if I could save 1000 people from a flood, but to do so one person would have to die because I had to blow up a bridge to create a dam, and had not time to get that person off of the bridge), well, that's one thing - no coercion, but if I was instead being coerced - then my action is my choice only to decide whether to be party to a murder - as the person who would otherwise kill 1000 people if I didn't kill 1 - THEY were at fault, they were the chooser of life or death for 1000, not me. I was only choosing to be party to the death or life of one person.

The question's answer I feel lies in part in the situation - is it a force majeur event for which I'm choosing to save the most possible and also it lies in the idea of liberty over life - I don't know the answer, but would be intrigued to hear your theories.

Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer opined in a column published on Sunday by the StarTribune that:

"Principles are fine, but.."

With the but being that sometimes you have to make hard choices to keep the country safe.

This simpleton jingoism of 'The ends justify the means" logic is pretty well what has been used to carry out most of the more horrific acts in history, not the least of which was our internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. An act roundly repudiated now, including by the likes of people like Krauthammer.

The thing is though, that's not the full reply - the full reply goes on:

First, that torture simply gets us LESS not more, useful information, so that frankly, it compromised national security, it did NOT keep us safe(r), if anything it endangered our safety further.

Second, it wasn't the last act of desperation, it was the first act taken. It was done to show (vicariously) that we could be 'tough.'

Third, it endangers our citizens and soldiers - to no good use or purpose.

Fourth, the ends NEVER, ever justify the means. The word he should have used is 'ethics' are fine, but.. and then we'd all see that the whacked-out right has stood for, and still stands for, ethics of convenience. This wasn't about protecting the country, anything but, it was about hubris, vengeance, ethno-centric arrogance, and plain old mendacity.

In short, Krauthammer couldn't possibly be more wrong. This hurt our security.

Credit Worthy

I like Keith Ellison. I liked him when I met him before his election in 2006. He is a politician, he said what we wanted to hear at a party at Sam Kaplan's home, but it was clear he was passionate, articulate, and for that matter, believed in what he said when he spoke about core principals of compassion, hard-work, decency and integrity.

He is the only Muslim in Congress, and I'm proud I worked for his campaign, and I'm proud to continue to support him. So, fair warning, I like Keith Ellison and I give him immense credit for authoring the 'Credit Card Bill of Rights.'

Recently, my current credit card issuer, a company we'll call "Craptastical One", sent me a letter. "Due to the tough economic times", it said, it was effectively doubling my interest rate from 9.9% to 17.9%, on a card I've held for 14 years with them.

Now, I have a credit card debt equal to about 4% of my gross income, it used to be higher. I also have missed one payment in 23 years of having credit, that was due to a dispute, and a dispute I had resolved in my favor and was removed from my history. Other than that, I've never, ever missed any payment and have ALWAYS paid more, usually FAR more, than the minimum, on any bill from any credit issuer, Sears, Best Buy, etc.. and of course, always paid in full the scheduled amounts due on my car loans, home loans, phone bills, etc... Oh, it's not that I didn't miss a utility bill every great once in a while (maybe 4 or 5 times in 23 years), but of course, I then paid the full amount off, and such was a miss of oversight, not commission.

As a result, my credit rating is pretty strong (my Fair Issac score or FICO is above 800). With Craptastical One, I've paid them, year in and year out, on time, and any late payment of a utility bill of course never affected my credit score as it never was worthy of such notice. So my credit score is pretty well pristine as pristine can be. I also am NOT someone who pays off bills in full, something credit card issuers don't like.

So, I was pretty surprised.

Then, I read an article that said that credit card issuers were going after good credit people who they felt might have the ability to pay more, as evidenced by a couple of factors. One being that they started paying down substantially their current credit card debt. As I'd paid off about 30% of my debt in the past 6 months, I thought, "yeah, that might be it." I also thought, "Well, you also just got a new house with a higher payment, so who knows?"

The point is, I have good credit, very good credit I believe. I also have a solid job that pays me well enough. Why did this happen?

The Republicans opposed Keith Ellison's bill to restrict arbitrary escalation in rates, cryptic reasoning behind such actions, and double-cycle counting. They contend that it will restrict credit to good credit customers, that it will not allow them to offer lower interest rates - something (formerly) known as 'risk based pricing,' but I tell you, that model no longer exists. Credit card companies are going after their best customers, their 'good credit customers' not with lower pricing, but with higher - because, well, they can. They can because it IS a bad time for our economy, and so they feel they can get away with it. There isn't any regard for the credit worthiness of the customer, in fact, the more credit worthy, the more likely you are (it seems) to be hit with an increase.

I contacted Craptastical One and asked if ANYTHING I had done prompted this increase. I was told "Nope, it's just that the market right now is poor, and we felt we needed to respond." "Poor?," I said, "You can get funds for .25% - Fed Fund Target, or .12-.20% if you use the Discount Rate and get the loan from another FI. You're making 20% plus on your average debt, and getting more money to loan is almost FREE!!. Good God, you people have NO shame."

So, unlike what the Republicans say, this isn't about offering risk based pricing. I find it rather offensive that they always seem to come back to the argument that 'We're better than the bad people, and they get what they deserve," kinds of arguments where if you only don't screw up (ever), you'll be fine. But in this case, it is the exact people who don't screw up who are getting screwed. Reps Bachmann and Kline probably even know this, there was certainly ample testimony in Congress about the fact that it was good credit customers who are getting hit, but they still voted against it. The reason of course is that they get massive contributions from credit issuers, whereas Rep Ellison, he gets his contributions mostly from people like me, pretty-average Joe, the consumer. Doubtless Ellison gets his share of contributions from companies too, doubtless Kline and Bachmann get some from ordinary folks as well, but when judging people, actions (such as votes) speak louder than words. In this case, the consumer is getting screwed, there was NO need for this increase, yet of course - they did it anyway. They did it because people like Bachmann gave them the green light by taking no action in the past against this kind of thing. It is time that light turned red.

On Torture

This is one of the more important posts I'll write in a while, and so I'm going to try to be as clear as I know how to be...


Recently, a significant number of previously classified CIA documents detailing our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere were released.

They described systematic torture - I say torture, because water-boarding is defined as torture by U.N. documents, documents which we signed and agreed with.

Past that, since when is beating someone, nearly killing them by drowning, denying them food for days, keeping them awake to the point the enter an hysterical state NOT torture, NOT objectionable, not ugly, not beneath the standards we demand of ourselves?

These are not 'enhanced interrogation techniques', they were and they are, nothing less than what we've objected to when conducted by friend and adversary alike over the past 50 years. In short, they are precisely the kinds of 'techniques' we define as in use by thugs, by police-states, by criminals.

The response from Dick Cheney and other members of the rabid-right has been, "But look, it worked, we got good data."

As if that matters one iota. As if killing 100 people is okay as long as we can say there was 'some benefit'.

But that's not the main point - the main point is this, they didn't 'enhance' one-damned thing. Torture works, that was never in doubt, it works to get data, but it mostly (according to numerous experts including our own CIA interrogators) it mostly gets you BAD information. It mostly gets you MUCH LESS than you'd get otherwise - and much less reliable information than that which is given voluntarily, or gleaned from misstatements, over time. We were in no rush, but even if we were, the odds were and are, that any such information gained would be essentially valueless as it was more likely (as not) to be a lie, to be flawed, to be in a word - ironically 'unenhanced.'

The bottom line is, we actually got less, not more.

And then there's this, we, as a result of compromising our ethics also:

• Gave our enemies more ammunition to recruit with
• Embittered the families and friends of those we mistreated
• Shattered our reputation throughout the world

For what? For nearly valueless information that almost certainly could have been gotten without torture.

No, this is about our own arrogance, our own sense of needing to 'show them who's tough' by beating prisoners, by drowning them leading to the deaths of probably 10-15 captives due to heart failure (as reported) - we decided that despite the advice of our best experts, we (meaning the likes of Cheney within the Pentagon and the CIA - with Cheney's approval and Gonzalez's legal hijinx) WE were going to show them that the wimpy Democrats weren't in charge.

What they (and we ) didn't get is that no one was a wimp, it's just smart people don't due stupid, ineffective things, and ethical people don't achieve their goals by unethical means. Civilized nations abandoned torture not only for ethical reasons but for smart ones too, and it's time, high time, to take those who are too stupid to govern within the law, and hold them accountable to it, in the same way they said they were going to do with the prisoners they held. In short, it's time the courts meeted out justice long overdue, but not for the prisoners, but the captors.

Ask me no questions

So, Norm Coleman stopped by the StarTribune to 'set the story straight' as it were.

Of course, this is the same paper that Coleman has repeatedly accused of bias, so it seems rather curious he'd even make the effort, but.. who knows, maybe he actually understands that the StarTribune operates as a reasonable media entity. Maybe he knows the claims of bias come mostly from nut-jobs who simply don't like any media outlet that doesn't mouth and subscribe to their extreme view, but I digress.

At the meeting, Coleman accosted one member of the editorial board when that board member disagreed with Coleman's statement during that meeting that two reporters from the Strib had 'inserted themselves into the campaign' by asking a question at a campaign stop. The question was asked four days prior to the election when the story broke about Coleman's benefactor Nasser Kamenini. Kamemini allegedly funnelled $75,000 to Coleman through a subsidiary company Kamenini owns and which 'employs' Coleman's wife Laurie. Now Laurie is a model, and has no absolutely NO background in the industry she supposedly supplied 'consulting' services for, nor would the company (or Norm) identify what work Laurie does for the company - and that was one of the questions asked during the campaign stop, namely, "What does Laurie do for them?" Now the current investigation around that payment is about one ranking officer of the parent company suing another for payments made without services rendered (by Laurie). Norm is right that no direct allegation of wrong-doing by Coleman (or his wife) is on record, but that's more to do with no current person willing to discuss the work by Laurie Colaman (it seems) than Coleman actually being investigated and/or cleared by anyone at all.

Regardless, the point is, Coleman claimed these reporters, by having the audacity to ask him a question at a campaign stop about a pretty hot topic, had inserted themselves into the campaign because 'they had to know trackers were there, or they were dumber than.. (a saying left unfinished by Coleman.' He then said, there are ALWAYS trackers following both candidates (that would be trackers from the opponents campaign- in this case from Franken's campaign), as such, they had to know their question would be captured by the trackers, and thus, they'd 'inserted themselves' into the campaign.

Here's the thing, if we use that standard, then, as cameras are always rolling, it means ANY questioner is 'inserting themselves into the campaign', and if we are to be sensitive to poor Norm's sensibilities, it means this too, no question can ever be asked in person, face to face, ever again, by any reporter on any subject of a politician.

That's one helluva nice deal, don't have to worry ever again about live questions you don't like, because asking them constitutes irresponsible journalism.

What a load of bullcrap. First, journalists ask questions, they often ask tough ones, and sometimes they ask them JUST for the on-camera response, if you don't like the heat, don't be a politician Norm. Second, by Coleman's standards, no more questions should ever be asked face to face, but apparently instead only questions in writing are permissible, or I suppose recorded questions of some form, to which an answer would only ever be supplied if the politician wanted to. No more answering tough questions, no more looking foolish when you don't have a ready reply, no more embarrassment, no worries.

I suppose that's how Norm would like to conduct his business, but it's surely not right, it's surely nothing less than a sleazy little attempt to rebuke the Strib in an wholly improper way and suggested approach, and one more thing, it surely would represent an attempt to intimidate the press into inaction - i.e. abridge freedom of the press, Norm.

But, I suppose, for Norm, better to not have to be asked an uncomfortable question, than potentially have to lie about $75,000 his wife almost certainly did nothing to earn.

Sometimes you'd rather be wrong

In 2000, I worked at USBank. In 2000, USBank Investments put up a booth in our building to try to sell life insurance to us, its 'internal customers.'

I was sufficiently enough of a historian that I knew about the problems of the Great Depression, and the barriers which were put up following the collapse in 1929, to know that there were good reasons for those barriers. Some of those barriers survived many years, and one of the key reasons for their survival was that good, smart people both remembered the Great Depression and the fact that exposing a bank to risk generated by life insurance or other investment products, was essentially creating the risk that a bank might try to cover high-risk investment costs out of its traditional loan/deposit relationship business practices.

So, I replied to the nice, attractive young woman who asked - "No, I don't support actions which allow Banks to act like investment companies." The woman was rather shocked, she plainly didn't understand what I was referring to, nor the reason for my objection. When I explained that it created the potential for a bank to expose traditional deposits to risks on its other 'balance sheet'/side of the house, she was rather dumbfounded.

The 45-50ish woman who was standing there supervising stepped in and explained, "He is referring to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which among other things kept Banks from being insurance companies. No worry sir, the repeal (done in 1999) doesn't allow for the cross-over of balance sheet activities."

I replied, "For now, and only as far as you know about. Clearly any company may not disclose charges assigned to the parent, or vice versa." That was the end of the conversation.

Now it's 2009. Cearly there WERE exposures between the banks and thier investment firms, such barriers were only on paper. Yet, we hear that many of the problems of the banking industry stemmed from regulation, such as the Community Redevelopment Act - or other bogus claims of issues stemming from Barney Frank's permissive attitudes about derivatives in the mid-2000's.

Yet we don't hear about what I commented on recently to some right-wingers, namely that Senator Phil Gramms of Texas was the spearhead of repealling Glass-Steagall, and that he also lead the charge to make it so that derivatives didn't have to be audited/weren't under the purview of the SEC or any other oversight agency for that matter. In fact, Phil Grams earned the nick-name 'Senator Gram-stander' during his time in the Senate (and by the way, this guy was going to be McCain's chief economic advisor - http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15/100-year-crash-mccain-advisor-spurred-62-trillion-derivatives/). The link enclosed descirbes how Grams also helped to deregulate Credit Default Swaps.

In truth, Grams wasn't alone, Democrats, including Bill Clinton, signed-off on this nonsense, and they deserve some blame, but it was Alan Greenspan, and the 'dergulatory zealots' that hailed from Ronald Reagan's presidency which pushed this nonsense to it's zenith. It was not CRA, it was not regulation, but the absence of it, which allowed for derivatives and CDS' to swamp the markets with bad debt.

When I hear my conservative friends complaining and blaming everything BUT the truth, I think back to the day I objected, and to the day that I told Mitch Berg and others that in fact Grams was the culprit more so than any other person in Washington, Grams the poster child of the deregulation movement, the poster child of the 'for sale sign' in Washington as well, who deserved scorn and contempt. In fact that it was Grams and his type of people who argued that today would never come. When I think back to those warning and pronouncements, I will tell you that I sincerely wish to have been wrong.

Today there is an extensive article in the Star Tribune written by Patrick Delaney, a Securities Partner (attorney) at an investment servicing law firm here in Minnesota. It's an outstanding article, and pulls no punches in blaming Grams and Clinton, but also deregulation. It identifies the missteps we've taken, including removal of sound limits put in place the last time we allowed banks to become investment companies. I recommend it to anyone who believes even for a moment that CRA or the poor or whatever else, caused our current problems. It's a primer for beginning to realize that big business runs Washington, not the people, and runs it regardless of which party is in charge. Our time to change this paradigm is only now, it took 70 years to undo good changes which came out of the Great Depression, and only really happened when the greatest generation died, perhaps if we strike while the iron is hot now, we can forestall again for 70 years the repeat of what we are experiencing today as a result of the power of money corrupting folks like Phil Grams - and leading astray the sycophants of the rich who think that if they merely allow the pernicious in society more power, that they'll somehow become powerful too.

It is time the right-wing in this country woke up and smelled the coffee (or stink) of their own financial myopia, and recognized that greed and stupidity win out over good sense when people see a fortune to be made. Regulation is our way of preventing catastrophe, and from keeping not the GOOD people from doing ill, but the 5% who WILL do ill, from wrecking the train.

Treason? Really??

In 2003, anyone who criticized George Bush's policies, especially, but not limited to, the invasion of Iraq was called a traitor.

Any Democrat who spoke out against that idiocy was called a hundred ugly things, weak on terror, weak on defense, anti-American, etc..

Even as recently as last fall, Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann called for Congressional investigations into "Anti-American sentiments/feelings."

Now, Rush Limbaugh, the defacto leader of the remaining Republican extremists, says, 'Well if it was okay for the Democrats to object to Bush, why isn't OK for me to object to Obama trying to turn the country away from free enterprise..."?

Because Rush, you didn't say it was OK then, you called them traitors and worse. You accused them of seeking to provide 'therapy' to terrorists as a response to bombings. So that either makes you the world's biggest traitor (in your words), or, as always, the world's biggest hypocrite. In the time of the greatest economic crisis since 1929, your reaction is not to offer to temper the potential proposals of Obama, but instead to hope he, and with him, the country fails, so that your brand of extremism (and your voice with it) can be resurgent.

Instead of suggesting something other than ONLY tax cuts, instead of trivializing the problems of pay and profit inequities, the destruction of US productive capacity, the offshoring effects, you continue with your hyperbole about how 'taxing job creators kills jobs' and worse that 'Obama wants to destroy what's best about America.' I for one won't fall into your rhetorical trap - because arguing your nonsense is exactly what you want.

Instead, I'll point out what a colossal hypocrite you are. YOU called Democrats traitors, YOU referred to them as anti-American, YOU called torture 'fraternity pranks', YOU demeaned Michael J Fox for over-medicating himself (which he did to try to be sure his symptoms DIDN'T appear) and accused him of purposefully UNDER medicating to exaggerate his problem. You've been the chief architect of hate in this country for nearly 30 years - purchased by the rich to defend them against populism, not the other way around. NOW you seek to ensure that the work at the edges of the economy - because that's all the Government can do - you seek to block thw work the President and the responsible people, the adults, want to do to try to stave off collapse. You want to ensure that fails, mostly for your own political purpose, and because you can't possibly stomach - with your $1B fortune made off of spewing hate - the idea that maybe the rich SHOULD take a little bit less, so that the rest of us can have a little bit more. So you preach your hate, your desire to see us fail, in time of great crisis, you lie and say that the left wants to destroy the rich, destroy the country.

Dissent is still legal, and I'll defend to the death your right to spew. But make no mistake, you are nothing NOTHING more than a mewling hypocrite. And the great and funny part is, Obama has made your hate-speech the center of the debate - he has made you the icon of your party, and while you're not really a traitor, you certainly have become a tool. Such is the plight of bullies when confronted by their superiors.

A Cycle of Time

My father-in-law is dying.

He has cancer, the type really isn't important, but if you want to know, it's of his kidneys. Last year, he had one removed, and they hoped maybe it hadn't spread.

It had.

Dying of cancer is an ugly, brutal, merciless process. It is full of highs and lows, of despair, not just for the ill, but often for those who care for them as they feel helpless, and selfish, at feeling they wish much of it could simply be easier, or even end.

Last August we drove down to see him and my Mother-in-Law, his remaining kidney was blocked and failing. They inserted a shunt, and his kidney recovered, but the doctor came in and told them, "Four months, maybe six, we'll try him on chemotherapy, but it's purely for extending his life, it can't cure it." He was, of course, right. We didn't tell my children at that time much more than, "None of us live forever nor do we much know what will lead to our deaths. For Grandpa, we now know what will lead to his death, but as to how long? Not long, but who can say?"

My children, of course, said their prayers, especially my daughter, most every day, asking God to make him better. It reminded me of when I was about my daughter's age, and both my mother's parents were dying of cancer - I too said my prayers, every day, for these two wonderful, kind people to somehow get better.. unfortunately, it was not to be so. They died four days apart, it was very hard on my mom. I realize now, as an adult, just how hard. And so the cycle of time repeats itself.

How do you watch a man, like my father-in-law, the typical, stoic Midwesterner who treated you more kindly than your own father, how do you watch him turn grey, and age years for every month - you want to hold him, to tell him it's not fair, that you're sorry, that you wish you could help somehow?

How do I tell my wife that if I could, I'd gladly take all the pain on myself, just to try to save her from what I've seen coming? And yet, that it's hard to be around (again), that you fear the same for your own parents, or for that matter for yourself? Tomorrow, we leave to go home, and while I'm normally impatient about leaving, how could I possibly rush her away from him, for perhaps the last time?

How do I tell my mother-in-law that despite the coming loneliness, she won't be alone - how do I say that and feel the words aren't hollow, she's losing the man she's loved for 53 years..

How do I tell my children that death comes for him, relentlessly, and no prayers will make it be otherwise - and not just an abstract death, but a real, palpable, harrowing death that turns this kind old man who gave them rides on the lawn mower, and in his old restored pickups - into a frail echo?

But most of all, how do I tell this man that he is a good man, who has lead the best life he could, that his can let go? Life has dealt him a poor hand - cancer is the worst kind of death I can imagine. I want to tell him that I know that the pain and the anguish at not doing all those things he promised himself he'd get to someday, that all of that is OK - and that this cycle of life and death this time is his, just as it will be mine - and that he may go when he feels it is right. I will be there, for him, his wife, his grandchildren, and most especially his daughter, and that you loved him, will remember him and appreciate who he was. Sometimes, often, being a good person has very little to do with fame - and everything to do with simply being warm and caring.

When and if you have the chance, before it is too late, before they are so deep in a morphine-induced stupor, I offer you might want to say these things to those you love - you sometimes don't get the time otherwise.

Election Law

It is ironic.

The right wing political movement espouses a non-intrusive central government, recommending that we allow most things to be decided locally - in short that local knowledge is often best.

It is ironic because during argument before the US Supreme court in 2000 (Bush v. Gore) - the argument the Democrats felt the Republicans had to make was that somehow not uniformly counting ballots between states or even counties was harmful to Bush more than Gore - an argument that of course wouldn't be successful. So, instead they argued that citizen X in county X, was disenfranchised because his/her vote wasn't counted, while, under the same rules, citizen Y in county Y - was counted.

The CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court 'bought' this argument - and Big Brother never had a bigger day.

The SCOTUS knew what it had wrought, and in it's ruling included that the Bush v. Gore decision was ONLY applicable to that ruling. However now, here in Minnesota, that ruling is being used to justify doing something which ought to offend the right to its core - it is being used to say that the decisions of local election officials (TWICE) were wrong, even when in some cases that second review only determined a ballot to be ineligible because of the objection of one side or the other (between Coleman and Franken) - as reported during the current Coleman election contest trial by local election judges. Further, the Coleman side has contended that the judges not only got it wrong twice, including those ballots the where campaigns were allowed to overrule the officials and discard votes - but that the count and recount review of ballots got it so manifestly wrong that they simply cannot be trusted.

Let's deal with the first part - in Bush v. Gore, the fundamental problem I have with the decision is this. Republicans across the south (and Dixiecrats too), have created unequal voting processes - they have for decades put shoddy, unreliable machines in too few numbers in poor precincts. In Florida, they attempted to sidestep rules in order to include military absentee ballots which were undated, but didn't want undated other ballots included (neither should have been in my opinion). What's worse though is that Katherine Harris, with Jeb Bush's tacit approval, threw 14,000 voters off the roles (illegally or so it is reported by a separate investigation AND by the company who did the work - they advised Harris such conduct was probably illegal - following the 2000 election that investigated concluded exactly thus - it was not legal or proper for Harris to have done this) What Harris did was dump 14,0000 (approx) mostly poor and mostly black voters - because their names were 'kinda' similar to that of felons - again despite being warned about the very very high likelihood that many thousands of voters would be disenfranchised. In short, they setup a highly unequal system - argue that local decisions matter - and then used the fact that human judgement - on ANY rule set - will vary, to argue that an unequal system is unconstitutional. After 2000, however, they then (in the FL legislature) opposed meaningful reforms which would have leveled the playing field in Florida to ensure adequate and even capability machines were provided across the state in proportion to the voting population of the counties.

The biggest offense (to me) is the essential suggestion that local officials could not rule uniformly 'enough' to be trusted. This process has been the norm and case throughout this country's LONG history of free and fair elections. It's the height of hypocrisy that the right - which champions local wisdom normally, will say perfect uniformity is required whenever it's convenient or serves their purposes. If they had suggested that the SAME local official in a county or recount process decided the exact same looking ballots differently, I'd have to agree the process was flawed, but that's not the case. What happened in Florida was that one person's judgement of what a 'hanging or dimpled' chad meant - vis a vis the rule of 'clear voter intent' was different that some other judges. That, in and of itself, is NOT wrong, not at all. You cannot possibly legislate enough, create enough rules, to create perfect and uniform decisions when those decisions are made by human beings with discerning minds. The allowance of those officials to judge locally was tossed out by Justices and politicians who otherwise argued vehemently FOR local authority, the wisdom of the common man, and especially for UN UNIFORM voting practices.

In Minnesota now, Bush v. Gore - and its ludicrous 'equal protection' stance are being used to try to effectively toss out the local decisions, including, and this may be the best part, offering up in court ballots that local officials may have accepted but the contestant - COLEMAN - had tossed out by his recount team. Meaning, we're trying to determine fairness based upon ballots NOT wrongly rejected by local officials, but instead by highly partisan operatives - so, just like in Bush v. Gore, the court made one standard for the recount, which apparently now is figuring out lead to problems. Rather than understanding and agreeing EACH county (where the recount was conducted) doubtless acted differently, but still uniformly within its own process - thus neither candidate was likely affected disparately, instead the court is saying "because it was imperfect, we have to decide how broadly we'll recount AGAIN." Of course remember that NO candidate is likely to be more affected than the other to any meaningful extent, as the standard - as long as it's applied evenly within the county or recount center, will remove roughly equal numbers of votes, unless one side wants to try to argue that their side is more 'dumb' than the other about how to vote - I will laugh out loud if someone makes that point. Instead, what's argued is that if the vote would have been accepted in Sherbourne County - by a subjective opinion of an Election Judge, but is rejected by a subjective decision by a different judge in Ramsey, well, then that decision, in one way or another, is flawed. Apparently, in order to be fair, there must be PERFECT AGREEMENT between judges (hundreds of them) making subjective decisions on objectively even acceptance rules - the kinds of decisions which are made hundreds of thousands of times across the country. Put it another way, if the Court agrees, this will require perfect uniformity in any manual decision process (or so it would seem) on EVERY national election - or at least on any that are close. If not, go to court, and have the government intervene for you to require perfect uniformity. Big Brother, thy name is neo-con group think.

Of course, this is nonsense to require - for if you do, if you buy this equal protection poppycock invented by an irresponsible and HIGHLY partisan SCOTUS in 2000 - doing exactly what they said you should NOT do in their first decision re: Bush v. Gore(meaning engage in retractive rules making) - you basically say NO FURTHER LOCAL COUNT WILL EVER BE VALID, EVER. Each time any counting of absentee or other human involved counting occurs, the loser will be perfectly within their rights to challenge based on equal protection. In fact, all past elections which were close enough to allow manually counted votes to matter - ARE ALREADY IN QUESTION - we will, should we go down this road, indict to a small degree, the election process in this country which outside of the Jim Crow/Tammany Hall eras, has been a model of electoral fairness. And we will do it without ever fixing the flaws in mechanical voting processes of disparate services and access. In short, we'll fix what isn't broken, demean our faith in people, and leave unfixed that which should be fixed. Welcome to the duplicity of 'local governance' as mouthed by the ultra-right.

I have never

been prouder of my country or of my fellow countrymen than I am today.

I stand here, humbled by the greatness of our democratic experiment, humbled by the wisdom of its founders, and grateful for the fortune of my birth into it.

I stand here with tears in my eyes, watching a wonderful, articulate, brilliant man take the oath of Office of the President of the United States.

I know some find this faith, this exultant joy, to be mysterious. They feel our faith is both unfounded, and grounded in a lack of fact or wisdom.

I counter that it is they who profoundly underestimate the pride, patriotism, and resolve of those who backed Barack Obama. In truth, our joy stems from the fact that for eight years we were excluded, for eight years our wisdom was discarded, our intellect ignored, our opinion dismissed and even more often demeaned. They do not understand the pent-up frustrations at watching the compassion of a nation go squandered, moved upward, and shipped off. They do not understand the pent-up frustrations of watching our national reputation and integrity get traded away for an ephemeral peace more true in words than in fact.

So today, our frustration is released, our hopes renewed, our faith endures and we feel has been rewarded that what we know to be great about America, its decency, its common purpose and willingness to meet a common need, has been restored again, refreshed again. We are more wise than our critics ever understood, and as facts bore out, that this nation does best when we do not set out dividing lines, looking to the welfare of a few, but rather when we stand up for the rights of all. Today the inauguration of Barack Obama is less about the man, than the restoration of decency and honesty and most of all common ground among us. I invite his critics to grasp and accept we are not naive', but instead fair minded and impatient for this country to carve out the path again it started down 222 years ago.

To sleep, perchance to rewrite history

I'm no one's bard (not news) - I'm also no one's poet.

I say these things because in humility do we find the honesty and compassion so often lacking in the behavior of those whom we would otherwise despise. I say that because it is the lack of self-awareness, lack of humility, lack of grace which so often I (and I believe others) find so off-putting from those who can easily criticize, but rarely acknowledge their own failures. Instead, excuses are offered, instead the failures of their detractors are offered as justifications for their own conduct and their own failures.

This week (yesterday to be precise) George Bush gave (yet another) farewell speech. In it, he described how history may judge him better than we do so today. He described how he simply listened to his convictions, and kept us 'safe' from terrorism, how he was the unhandsome hero, who bore the price and lashes of his detractors willingly while staving off calamity. He admitted to a few 'mistakes' but generally didn't name them, nor did he claim ownership of what might have lead to them - meaning he didn't acknowledge any fact of behavior or weakness, merely that 'something' went wrong.

Such is the pattern of those like this man (Bush), this masquerade of a Presidency. I found this conference to be disquieting at best, nauseating at worst.

This President violated law after law, not openly in the pride of the cross-bearer, but clandestinely. He positioned political operators to sully and demean his detractors, not welcome their barbs and slings with due confidence and humility. He engaged in a war not of necessity, but instead contrived to force upon us a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly, to erect a hoped-for democracy that may well fail in the end. He did not write an epitaph of Wilsonian vision, but a legacy of debt, deceit, and contempt.

His supporters liken him to Lincoln, but in truth, he and his supporters were and are as far from Lincoln as they are from Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, Ghandi, and Yitzhak Rabin. Lincoln accepted the reality that both the North and South created and abided slavery, and that both were due blame. He (Lincoln) counseled compassion, grace, forgiveness and cooperation in rebuilding the south, rather than retribution, tough talk, and scornful contempt for the south as so many of GWB's supporters bespeak of Muslims and Arabs. He was the antithesis of the neocon movement, humble, accepting of his own shortcomings, forgiving, and always seeking a better, more decent way. President Bush presided over 8 years of extraordinary divisiveness where contempt for one's political opposition grew to a fever pitch, where the opponent was demonized in a revival of McCarthy-esque commentary about "America Haters" and asinine calls for investigations of "Anti-American sentiments."

So, as President Bush says farewell, I bid him on his way. I hope his life is peaceful, but I also hope someday, someone will help him understand the folly of his contemptuous attitude, help him to understand that unwavering conviction to principles that 'anything goes' to accomplish financial tyranny, or American corporate imperialism, including the constant and wilful deception of the American people, was hardly heroic, and certainly anything but Lincoln-esque.

As Shakespeare puts it - (the true bard)

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make

I hope this President grasps someday in his life or his eternal slumber that his challenge was not to trade liberty and long-term stability for 'security', but rather the ensure liberty by setting a shining example - that is the lesson Lincoln lived - and he did not.

A crying shame

Today the StarTribune announced it is filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.

While there are many detractors, most of them neo-cons who don't appreciate any story covered from any angle that isn't their own chosen spin, and while there are reasons to criticize any paper which is so politically correct it won't even print the name of the Cleveland baseball team (The Indians) - the fact is that papers and the press services supporting them, represent truly the final bastion of in-depth coverage. The simple tactile pleasure of sitting down with a paper and a cup of coffee is unmistakable and undeniable. The ability to retain the paper, or an article, and post its wisdom, its headline, to capture that moment in time, is unique.

Papers are dying in the United States - in part due to competition with on-line resources, certainly due to competition with television news, but more in part due to the shortening attention span of the public regarding news in general. They've also suffered somewhat of an 'identity crisis' due to the relentless, ultra-biased criticism of the monied right, and tried (vainly) to reinvent themselves as 'centrist' something those who will never see anything other than the ultra-right as centrist. I believe they moved away from their target market - toward a dumbed down - USAToday version of themselves, and so lost both their niche, and their identity.

While they may be white elephants - I believe that in the end, when all of the locals are gone, we will miss them terribly. We will think that it is a crying shame that they have passed, like the telegraph, into the ether of history.

God Bless

Today, the StarTribune, our local daily paper, had an outstanding editorial reminding us of Charles Dickens' wonderful advice to live fully, laugh often, and love deeply.

Contrasting that was a piece by Declan McCullagh on CBS News online (CBSNews.com), advising us to save rather than spend. While I understand Mr. McCullagh's warning to us all that failing to look out for our future, and succumbing to hedonism is a sure path to ruin - I think he misses the mark about what we are striving for during Christmas.

The goal is not to buy merchandise, or ingratiate the corporate barons, the goal is to give to the world, to reflect Christ's love not just to the to the people around us, but to ALL of us - unreservedly, unabashedly, and most of all Joyfully. In fact, it may be that Christ's greatest gift was helping us to learn and know that the gift WE receive from giving, the warmth, the friendship, and the affirmation of the better part of ourselves, exceeds beyond measure the value of any material thing we could possibly receive.

As well, the goal is to make the world just a little bit less cold, a bit less inhospitable to those who otherwise suffer its cruelest blows during the coldest months. We are to welcome into our hearts their needs, and love them as we would ask to be loved, to love them as neighbors - as Christ loves us.

And so, rather than asking God to bless America - a silly song, and an exclusionary notion if ever there was one, I instead choose to quote Tiny Tim.

(May) God Bless us, Everyone!

You don't say?!?

Congratulations to "60 Minutes" for finally putting voice to what most of us realized years ago.

Our Airport security measures are theatre.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/18/60minutes/main4675524.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline

The natural conclusion, by the way, is that Al Qaeda certainly COULD have attacked us, but didn't. The natural question is, why not? (and no, I don't mean to imply collusion between Bush and the Saudis)

The Convergance of Law and Justice

One of the recent accomplishments of Man has been the definition of basic human rights by the United Nations.

Among those rights, by the way, was the right to information - to give you an idea of the depth of thought they, the UN Council on Human Rights, went to.

This list of rights followed a basic tenet of philosophy, namely, that certain rights are of a 'higher order' than other rights. For example, the right to life is a higher liberty than say, the right to free access to information. While they UN Council did not in any way 'score' rights, they did tend to enumerate rights in an order of importance.

Why this matters is that ethical theory has evolved to the point where certain acts are seen as good, and proper, but also which can be subordinated or even violated if some higher order good is to be preserved.

An example would be, while honesty is certainly a good and decent thing, if you would cause the loss of life by honesty, then dishonesty is permitted, according to current ethical theory. The examples, such as when is deadly force permitted, all now tend to extend from this idea of 'higher order' ethical theory.

This does NOT argue for ends justifies the means approach, as Benthemite philosophy does. It would not allow for the killing of 20 to save 200 - as the taking of life is still the taking of life, the numbers saved are of no value if the only net result is the saving of other life. Conversely, if 200 will die regardless, but by taking 200, 2000 would live, then clearly, not acting and allowing 2000 to die, when the fate of 200 is already sealed, would be murder by ommission.

Why does this matter?

It matters because we have learned that our actions in World War II, bombing Tokyo, Nuremburg, or Dresden undert the auspices of 'total war' as defined by William T. Sherman, or denying the enemy the ability to fight, or even as we said then, that you can't significantly distinguish women and even civilians from the warmaking ability of a nation, in fact was unethical. It was NOT necessary to firebomb any of those cities. Nor was there really any ability to justify that our bombing was reasonably part of making war upon a nation which had attacked us, so it could not be justified under self-defense.

I met an Isreali, who, in an attempt to justify their war in Lebanon in 2005, reminded me of the 'genocide' (as he called it) which the US inflicted upon Japan in the bombing of Tokyo. He assumed I did not know of it. While I did, I also did not defend it, and countered that comparing oneself to Satan hardly makes one a saint. Our actions were, in historical hindsight, something for which our Air Force leaders would have been tried (successfully) for war crimes had we lost the war. However, to the victor goes the right to write the history books, and so our actions were not seen with the ignominy they might have justly earned had the outcome been different.

Why do I bring this up?

Osama Bin Laden quoted our justification for the attack upon the World Trade Center with nearly EXACTLY the language we used to attack Germany and Japan during World War II. In Bin Laden's mind and the viewpoint of his followers, he was making war upon our ability to wage war, no differently than we did upon Japan. He could, in his eyes, no more easily distinguish between civilians and the military support mechanism they worked within than we could in Dresen or Tokyo. When we justify our righteous anger at Bin Laden for attacking civilians, we seem unaware of our own history which gave him license (in his mind) to do so.

Our words, our actions, were used against us.

Except...in the case of our bomber pilots, our war leaders, we were less than mature in our philosophical understanding of higher order good, the limits which warfare MUST be fought under, the constraints of civilization upon a nation unless it desires those same horrors visited upon it by future history. While I don't excuse Hap Arnold or Gen. Harris for their actions, there were NO militarily viable targets in Dresden or Nuremburg - I can at least say that I believe FDR and Churchill were not aware of the reasonable likelihood our actions would someday be used to justify attacks upon us.

However, Bin Laden MUST know this. He is well educated, he is very bright. Yet, he seems unconcerned that his actions nearly gaurantee his main goal, a self-governing Saudi Arabia, free from foreign influence, and also his secondary goal, a Muslim Middle-East driving the Isralis into submission if not into the sea, are virtually assured to never be sustainable.

Saudi Arabia is surrounded by more powerful neighbors, only the US military safeguards its corrupt aristocracy against change. The world looks upon SA as a morally stunted, backward and repressive state, mostly uncaring should anyone desire to change its borders - except for oil. That oil will keep the ravenous wolves at the door - keep the US and its allies in place helping the aristocracy stave off change, until oil is no longer there, or no longer needed. Then, the wolves defending the government will be traded for wolves which will change the government.

The brazen conduct of Al Qaeda, and generally of terrorists, in not acknowledging the growth in wisdom around the need for observance of basic human ethics - has already abandon concern for the plight of terrorists, and mostly, for the plight of the Palestinians. The only concerns which are sometimes fostered actually are sympanthy generated by repressive conduct by the Israelis, the underdogs have become the bullies sometimes - and so the world has a SMALL bit of sympathy for the Palestinians. YET, the world will not soon allow the destruction of, or oppression of, the nation of Israel or the Jews who reside there.

Indeed, OBL's failure to understand the world has moved past his form of warfare, is his own undoing. As he is smart, and educated, the only conclusion which can be made is that he depraved, if not insane. He is no longer rational. Clearly he learned to not trust the US during his days as a Mujahadeen - but he's turned that distrust into blind lust for racial/religious purity. Such purity, like the concept of bombing civilians as militarily justifiable, is a notion long past its time.

The question which remains is this, when will this country, this United States, become aware of that which we can recognize Bin Laden has failed to recognize. When will we as a people begin to undertand that human life has a value which is equal, no matter the birth location, ethnic background, economic class or circumstance, as life just outside our front door? We ask the world to stand by us, as we have the right to do, to stop terrorism, yet we STILL (at least until the election of Obama) seem convinced US lives are somehow 'more sacred', and since they are, the impact to the world of our conduct is less of a concern than loss of US life/lives.

Clearly, ethical conduct has evolved to the point we understand that life is life, that tolerating inhuman, cruel conduct in the name of defense is flawed, even evil. Clearly law has evolved to the point that such conduct will/should result in criminal punishment of such acts. Clearly we can see this - clearly law and good are moving together. Clearly justice, not just law, has become a paramount HUMAN concern. The competition between good- that which harms least, and evil, that which harms most, is a race we cannot afford to lose. Clearly we must learn from history, and never again embrace the ideas which laugh at Abu Ghraib, or the deaths of 'a necessary' number of civilians in colateral damage.

Clearly, as a nation, it is time to move ahead and away from the false idol of war, for war is at best terrible, and at worst, the evil which will destroy us. Clearly not doing so is no less than insane.

The Heart of Darkness (part 2 of 3?)..

I'm still contemplating how to end this, but since I said I'd write this, here's the next installment...


The Heart of Darkness (continued)


During 2001, and more emphatically again in 2003 and 2004, some forward looking economists started warning of a default crisis, and debt/liquidity ‘problem’ at Fannie and Freddie. The President took some note, but only in that he, and his fellow corporatists, wanted to free GSE’s from needing to purchase FHA loans on the secondary market by requirement. They didn’t seek to regulate the conduct of banks originating loans, and they certainly paid no heed to the obvious warning signs of flat wages and skyrocketing healthcare costs (or the less obvious but more ominous signs of rampant HELOC business among high credit worthy customers on existing properties, coupled with raids made by those same customers on IRA’s and 401k’s).

Those signs pointed strongly to the weakened state of the US middle-class. They pointed out that, contrary to current popular conservative talking points, “Joe 6 pack” wasn’t out buying over his ‘means’ or living beyond his income, but rather, his costs had exceeded his income. What he once could afford, had become unaffordable due to climbing gasoline, food, energy, education, and daycare expenses. He took out a home equity loan or line of credit (HEIL/HELOC), not to really to go to Bermuda, but just to afford a car when his old one finally crapped out, or to pay for his mom’s hip surgery, or to pay for his daughter’s in-state, land-grant university tuition. Very often, when he took out that loan, he did so with an ARM, assuming that rates would stay low (or maybe praying), and hoping, perhaps against his own better judgment, that a raise was ‘just around the corner’, or ‘better days were ahead’ as he/she was so often promised by the ‘rising tide’ crowd. The tax cuts of Bush were cold comfort (at $1500/year for the average family of 4) against an average increase in JUST energy costs of $3000/year, especially when the ‘cut’ was really just a loan taken out against his kids share of the public debt.

Finally, the country had been cutting discretionary government spending virtually without abating for 30 years, except in the area of schools – where it swung wildly between large cuts, and occasional large increases. Bridges, highways, power-grids, sewers, service buildings all were on subsistence level budgets, meaning the potholes got fixed, but the underlying roads very often never got improved, and too often got replaced much less frequently than needed. Road structures didn’t keep up with population growth, congestion magnified, and all the while tax base, the real ability of the middle-class to pay for the government they needed, eroded. Those at the top, while paying roughly double the percentage of taxes they did in 1981, paid HALF as a percentage of income of what they paid in 1981. The only reason their portion of taxes doubled, is that their incomes grew four-fold, while taxes were cut in half.

The consequence was the perfect confluence of less real ability to sustain government, less interest in oversight as ‘neo-conservative’ scorn overtook policy-making in regulatory bodies, and lower expectations of participation and support by those with the only remaining ability to support the system that had lavished wealth upon them.

AWESOME!!

Today is a bright, shining moment in our history. It is, to borrow a idea, the dawning of our second youth, or perhaps, the start of a new maturation. We have once again shown that a people where slavery divided us bitterly, cost us lives and honor, can rise above our past to a better future.

I congratulate Barack Obama - his decision to run in 50 states was, along with Howard Dean's, brilliant. I congratulate the American people who, through $10 and $20 contributions leveled a playing field long set against them, but mostly I congratulate our nation on showing compassion for all is truly an American trait.

Finally, I congratulate and applaud John McCain, his acceptance speech was nothing short of breath-taking - we saw the man I've come to admire - we saw the man as he should be remembered.